Space exploration falls into the category of "luxury spending" for me. Only when every human on Earth is fed, clothed and housed should we be looking out to the heavens.

I used to think this, but here's the problem: new resources to extract mean absolutely fuck all under the current global paradigm.

There's enough iron out there to make several tons of it available to every human in existence for whatever they need or want to do. Will that happen? No. It's not profitable for the owner class to do that. Instead, they will fight amongst themselves until someone has an effective monopoly on asteroid mining, and then limit the supply so they can generate maximal profit (De Beers, anyone?)

We have the capability, right now, to feed everyone on Earth. To clothe everyone. To house everyone. We don't. Any resources out there that we might find useful will be gated behind the same greedy, psychopathic group of leeches that currently control everything else.

The planet isn't being destroyed because we had no choice. The planet is being destroyed so a bunch of MBAs could show off a nice graph at the quaterly meeting. It is very much delibrate. Any resource extraction in space will solely be done in that it is more profitable than doing it on Earth, climate be damned. We need to fix that problem before asteroid mining for the good of Earth and humanity is even an option.

The point is the advancement of science, not simply the travel itself. Space science is integral to many advances we take for granted these days.

Yes, we need to do things like space exploration because these are the endeavours that advance humanity. Even in practical terms, plenty of discoveries that are useful here come from technologies developed for space exploration. If you're really worried about unproductive use of resouces, maybe worry about how we deal with the pedo elites that rule over us and hoard resources on unimaginable scale.

If we could get resources from space without having to extract them on earth that seems inherently better even if the same MBA shitheads are running the space mines. It would make it a lot easier to prohibit harmful resource extraction methods if they can also be economically accomplished without having to destroy irreplaceable ecosystems, for example.

Yes. For those who consider it wasteful spending, consider that a lot of problems are not fixable by just throwing more money at them. There’s a saying that “9 women can’t make a baby in one month” even though 1 woman can in 9. Many ills of society are as much about political/social motivation, entrenched opponents/regulatory capture, NIMBYism, etc and not problems that you can fix just by spending more. There’s also the concept of a “marginal dollar” - spending one more dollar in an important area that already has a lot of money (and has problems that aren’t really addressed by just having more money) may not be as impactful as a less important area where that dollar would go a lot further.

Strictly, no. The human spirit yearns for it though, and I think it shoukd be given a treat from time to time.

Solving problems for the sake of solving them yields great joy (and unexpected benefits).
You don't need to have a stable job to solve a sudoku or crossword once in a while.

If not for space exploration, we'd not have soo many technologies. We'd not have pushed so many boundaries that a lot of advances would have happened way too late than we did.

The ingenuity and innovation required to make space travel possible (and efficient) is remarkable. Definitely falls into the category of "it's not the destination, it's the journey." It's important to continue challenging ourselves as a species.

There are just so many things that should be trimmed first. Like the oligarchy, who hoard money and use it to make the world worse. Space travel is science. Science's value is intrinsic.

Do you rather propose we stop producing movies, adult content and series and use that $$$ to space exploration?

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/etimes/trending/chandrayaan-3-lands-successfully-isros-moon-mission-budget-less-than-christopher-nolans-interstellar-elon-musk-responds/articleshow/102988184.cms

One important feature is the psychological unification. Space becomes a "common enemy" to humanity. And humans work well under a common enemy.

I think so.

How high the priority should be is a debate worth having, but space has many ways to wipe out a planet. Having two planets, having a permanent space station, could go a long way to increasing survivability.

Not only that, building in a vacuum, building in zero G, even building things under great pressure, all can allow us to build new materials with brand new properties.

Also, being able to sustain a small group of people somewhere completely contained an inhospitable can be utilized on earth to feed people at home, or recycle water at home.

Yes, but capitalists should not do it. And actually space exploration on today's scale cost literal pennies compared to military or shareholders loot.

Yes, realizing that Earth is the only home we have really makes you think twice.There is no other planet for us to conquer. Mess this one up, and we’re a doomed species.

The spending on space exploration isn't what is stopping us on satisfying the basic needs of everyone. It's political will that stops us there. It's the fact that our governments do not see their populations as their priority. They see their corporations as their priority.

In grand scale of things is it really that much money?

Yes. Space exploration pushes science and technology forward, which benefits humanity as a whole.

we've already blown past 2 degrees so it's clear that we've already messed it up. the true question is how much longer we're going to keep letting the epsteins manipulate us into messing it up further instead of buying cheap & scalable green tech from china.

Yes. Space exploration and further colonization is the only possibility for humankind to survive after politicians and military will nuke the Earth to stone age, so we need to preserve our species.

Few things are more important than Exploration. In all avenues exploration leads to discovery which leads to growth. What else should we be working on? Cos atm the western world (which I inhabit) focuses most human effort on making 'line go up' and it feels entirely wasted and pointless.

Human space exploration seems a bit gratuitous to me. Probes can do almost anything crew can do, and many things that crew cannot. The only thing human space flight seems to do is help us get better at human space flight.

I think it's human nature to push boundaries and it's how we progress as a society and as species. The resources used also really pale in comparison to what is spent on stuff that is clearly more useless, like mega yachts for the super rich and bombs that get dropped on children.

Probes can do almost anything crew can do, and many things that crew cannot.

This take is a little ignorant. But I understand where you're coming from.

Humans on mars could do almost all of the research that decades of landers and rovers have done in days. They're also able to make more on the fly decision and pivot in research strategy, technique, and tools used.

The only thing human space flight seems to do is help us get better at human space flight.

In regards to this, a lot of technological advances that were founded or improved for the space programme have been highly beneficial it at least useful, on earth.

To add to all this, I don't know the figures for modern day nasa research and programmes, but the apollo programme is estimated to have returned $13 to the US for every $1 spent on it.

But we need pedo billionaires as test pilots for stress testing experimental rocket designs :((

a clumsy attempt to foment nationalism that isn't going to be as effective as its architects were hoping.

It could have been effective if the lead up to the NASA push had lent itself to any hope of cooperation within our govt. As it stands, it just feels like a way for the ultra-wealthy to advance their commercial space interests through taxpayer funding.

I thought this was about factorio. :(

We should explore space with semiautonomous robots. We can do space exploration at maybe a quarter of the cost of sending humans to do it.

Flood Mars with exploratory rovers for years. Then mining robots. Then manufacturing robots. Have them build facilities that build more robots to expand the process exponentially .

Then, if we decide it’s even worth it at that point, have them build a city and send people.

Cutting founding for space wouldn't mean that the founding goes to a good thing on earth.

Why is this argument always brought up?

Theoretically we have enough resources to give everyone a home food, education, healthcare and go to space.

Firstly, people have such a massive misconception about the cost of space exploration. It is such a miniscule part of our overall expenditure it is a drop in the ocean. (It's important now to distinguish between overall Space budgets and the exploration budgets since we spend a lot of money in space that's not for scientific development nowadays).

The Artemis program for example was 93 billion over 13 years, ~7 billion per year (2012-2025).

The Iraq war cost ~5 trillion over 8 years. Or 625 billion per year.

The entire Artemis program could have been funded by winding down the Iraq war a couple of months earlier.

The annual cost of the NHS is 275 billion per year.

The extra knowledge, research and development in everything from materials, human biology, life support systems, to just engineering management improvements yield absolutely massive benefits to life on earth, greatly outweighing the alternative.

Not to mention inspiring people to enter STEM, especially girls who are still hugely underrepresented. Which has incredible benefits. Hell, even just making people excited about science and technology instead of so distrustful of it is so so important and intangible.

Even if you extend the budgets to the entire space industry, it's still a drop in the ocean, and most of the space industry budgets go directly to economic or defence benefits. Supply chain resilience, climate change policing, communications services, wildfire detection, industrial efficiency gains (e.g. data driven farming). As well as existential threats from space like solar storms and asteroids (although that's an admittedly tiny portion of funding).

This is coming from a space engineer and senior manager who has mostly fallen out of love with the industry because it is leaning towards profit focus instead of benefit focus. But it's still one of the best bang for buck industries that exists.

Yes. Even if you don't think the goals of space exploration are important, we've made huge developments in medicine, engineering, solar panels, telecommunications, and road safety based on NASA technology. You're probably reading this on a phone that wouldn't exist with space exploration research. Scientific research is never a linear set of goals or inventions, and the ancillary benefits of our pursuit of space have already changed the world.

The extra knowledge, research and development in everything from materials, human biology, life support systems, to just engineering management improvements yield absolutely massive benefits to life on earth, greatly outweighing the alternative.

This is the non-linear aspect of research, where discoveries and improvements in one field may prove useful for other fields as well. Not all research pays off, but you can't predict what will and won't, so the "duds" that end up going nowhere are just part of the cost for the bangers that change the world. And who knows, maybe one of those duds may end up going off much later still!

Not to mention inspiring people to enter STEM, especially girls who are still hugely underrepresented. Which has incredible benefits.

More brains and perspectives examining a given problem increases the chances for useful solutions. Getting women into STEM isn't a diversity measure for diversity's sake, but an enrichment of the mental resource pool.

because it is leaning towards profit focus instead of benefit focus

Now there's a chorus I've heard a hundred times...

One day, we're going to outgrow ourselves. One day, we're going to set aside our stupid petty squabbles, and we're going to hope for something more.

I want to see us reach the stars, because I think one day we'll be able to handle what the galaxy throws at us.

Yes

yes. space exploration advanced technological progress in breakneck speed and gave us more tools to make our home a better place.

humans want to break new boundaries, crossing the oceans used to be an unprecedented endeavour and after mastering it the whole world the gained ability to interact.

the amount of resources needed to collectively reach for the stars is there and if done properly we can explore space without worsening people's lives. to put it into perspective: a falcon 9 launch costs about 70 million us $, that's already cheaper than one f35 or 20 tomahawk missiles.

the space race led to the apollo-soyuz program which invited rivals to work together, there`s a beauty in the fact that the need to explore the unknown and work together can transcend even rivalries. The ISS is a monument to that.

imo we (as in humanity) should continue space exploration, but we should ideally not exploit it for capital gain. we should use the useful technology that comes out of it to make life better on our planet. (e.g. GPS, geostationary satellites and and and....)

sure, this field is currently dominated by a circle of pedophiles and nazis (that nazi part has always been part of space flight history for americans >.> ) but the world is currently changing and i see some hope in chinas rapid advancement in this field. they built the tianggong space station and they invited everyone to collectively conduct research in the future.
The Artemis Program has been good so far, only now it's held back due to private contractors not delivering on the moon landing craft.

Let me rewrite your question, and correct me if I'm misrepresenting it:

"Why should we spend resources on X instead of Y?"

Well, for this kind of question, I would prefer to choose a "high value" X and an "important" Y.

Space exploration, and science as a whole, is extremely cheap and good for humanity.

Let's talk about other expensive "X" first:

• Unnecessary war efforts.
• ICE (if we are taking about US)
• Saving banks when they screw up on their bets.
• Incentives to coal and gas when solar is already more viable
  ...

Maybe you started to think about it because that's an amazing subject, and it is. That alone should be reason enough for us to want to do it. But it is not the only reason. Space exploration already gave us a lot of tech we rely on today. And still, is a very difficult field that will require more tech advancements, that will benefit us in the future.

Another commentee has already said that Artemis is a political stunt. I believe it's worked magnificently. Space travel is being used to whitewash USA's reputation and at the same time display the US' continued military and technological dominance. It's another message to all other countries in the world that they are going to stay slaves to US imperialism and dictatorship.

As shown by the comments here, the USians have no problem with their government if they get to see shiny new nerd pictures.

If it will eventually be possible to travel to a new planet or mine other planets and asteroids for materials instead of destroying our own planet, than absolutely it's worth it.

If that's all a pipe dream than space exploration is really just a waste of money.

It's great propaganda.

That's about it.

Don't get me wrong, propaganda isn't inherently bad or anything, you just need to consider how the propaganda is being used.

Do you just not really care about climate research and weather forecasting? Satellites give us more information about our atmosphere than you can shake a stick at, and they save more lives from extreme weather events every year than you can count. Not to mention GPS. You could rightfully call that a product of the US Military, but it is worth every cent that we've put into it

We're talking about exploration. Satellites aren't exploring anything, they're basically just infrastructure.

As is depicted in the OP's picture, I'm specifically talking about sending humans to space, and additionally, using them to explore deeper into space. It's mostly pointless as anything other than a propaganda tool. Anything that can be discovered by sending humans out in space can be discovered by humans on Earth.

The space station might need humans on it to maintain it, but again, the station isn't exploring anything.

... making our energy system even more reliable on hostile and autocratic nations ..

thanks to the freedom of information act, the state department released an epstein files like trove of documents admitting that they made up a bunch of propaganda about several nations; including china; decades ago to make the world believe this.

also: the epsteins have engineered it so that doing this through some gradual shift will never happen.

the climate change will fuck over this this world because of people like you who refuse to learn what's already been common knowledge outside the western world since the 1990's.

Ironically, luddites against space exploration in this era call for the dismantling of a titanic field of science that is both directly and indirectly responsible for the very device from which they shart out their oh-so-learned opinions to the rest of the world.

The word necessary has a lot of wiggle room here. What are necessities? Going by the bare minimum:

• food
• water
• protection from the elements
• protection from illness/infection
• continuation of the species

That's about everything we truly 'need' to die of old age and not go extinct. Nearly everything people currently do is a subset of those needs. Space exploration can be marked under both protection from the elements and continuation of the species.

no prescience needed; the american gov't has literally been doing that since the 1920's. lol

you would know this already if you spend your time reading these public domain file releases instead of uncritically ingesting propaganda.

For science, yes. But I also do not think we as a species deserve to get past our own moon. All we do is rape and pollute. We couldn't even take care of the planet we were given, we shouldn't be allowed to wreck more.

i don't thing anyone can argue against self reliancy in our critical infrastructure.

our disagreement is centered on the misguded belief that the western world (the united states in particular) will ever stop burning fossil fuels. the united states became self reliant on fossil fuels during the biden years and the epsteins will guarantee that americans will stay trapped in this climate killing version of self reliancy until they've squeezed every last drop of oil profits out of the united states and venezuela.