While I don’t disagree with the general thrust of your post, I think the main issue is that a lot of people don’t feel that manned space exploration is the most efficient way to get these returns. Chances are we’ll at least get something out of whatever we do, but that doesn’t mean it’s worth the cost or is the best use of resources. Even with a debacle like Iraq, for instance, the injuries of service members have spurred DARPA to research advanced prosthetics and brain implants.
So we really shouldn’t be asking whether or not anything good comes from a particular action, but rather whether that action is the best way to accomplish what we want. And it just doesn’t seem like manned space exploration is needed for any of the research we need - except perhaps politically.
And I suppose that’s where theoretical best options run up against reality. Theoretically, it might very well be the case that we’d get much more scientific bang for our buck if we didn’t focus on putting people in space or blowing things up (research from defense spending). But manned space flight and military spending (and of course, lots of pork for the locals) might be the only way to get these funds to go towards any research, even if 90% (made-up number) of it gets wasted.
Your point about efficient allocation is very good. I find it hard to quantify what we need without a goal.
Politically, it's hard to engage emotionally without some sort of story. I vastly prefer adventurous explorers to fierce warriors. Maybe we will do something sane without the space story, and that would be great.
I do think there are fundamental problems with defense research. The NSA did great stuff, didn't they invent RSA? but they couldn't tell anyone about it. That system has intrinsic biases about secrecy that aren't useful.
I'll agree space isn't optimal, but they broadcast their successes as widely as possible. As far as i can tell, nasa is open about technology and research. Military success is grisly, and likely secret. Space biases technology to being small, light, and versatile. These aren't bad things. The military on the other hand will throw thousands of warm bodys at solving problems. Ships can be built with a handful of crew, but that dosn't have the prestige of a supercarrier with 6k guys.
I think a space context also thinks a lot harder about failure detection and recovery.
Anywho - i don't think we disagree. Thanks for the thought provoking point of view.
So we really shouldn’t be asking whether or not anything good comes from a particular action, but rather whether that action is the best way to accomplish what we want. And it just doesn’t seem like manned space exploration is needed for any of the research we need - except perhaps politically.
And I suppose that’s where theoretical best options run up against reality. Theoretically, it might very well be the case that we’d get much more scientific bang for our buck if we didn’t focus on putting people in space or blowing things up (research from defense spending). But manned space flight and military spending (and of course, lots of pork for the locals) might be the only way to get these funds to go towards any research, even if 90% (made-up number) of it gets wasted.