Is it really necessary to send humans to those places just to get the knock-on benefits? Couldn’t we do those things directly, without going there?
It seems to me that, today, those who have the money to spend on these endeavors would only do so if there were perceived short-term benefits to themselves. That means they plan to exploit the resources, or increase their own power somehow.
I know the good engineers that make this happen are doing it for the challenge and in the pursuit of knowledge, and I know that’s why we poors support it, but that doesn’t “pay the bills.” What is the motivation behind the money? Why are they really doing this?
lot of big ‘ifs’ involved: re: the moon specifically -
if we can find water, we can make fuel and oxygen, instead of lifting both out of earth’s gravity well. this could unlock a gigantic generation of probe exploration for much cheaper launch costs. and perhaps even human habitation, and later, human travel to mars etc.
mars - I don’t see any good reasons to rush humans to mars, it would be a stunt at best. the distances involved and the amount of resources they’d have to schlep are daunting with current technologies.
so maybe a reason to start robotic exploration of the moon, specifically lunar lava tubes for potential habitation and shaded craters where water ice might be recoverable.
none of it should take our priority off of stopping climate collapse tho. let’s keep the only space ship we’ve got habitable first.