New world to conquer, huh? Well ask yourself WHY your aforemention examples went exploring. Answer - ECONOMIC BENEFIT. They didn't do it for some airy fairy destiny of mankind thing. They were in it for the money. SO lets look at the ECONOMIC benefit of going to Mars. Your examples are not even vaguely relevant due to transportation costs.
A more relevant (but still not adequate) example is manned exploration of the moon. WHAT ECONOMIC BENEFIT did manned exploration of the moon bring? Answer none. There isn't anything on the moon that is worth the cost of getting there and back again. Like Mars, the moon consists of rocks and dirt.
We have an adequate supply of rocks and dirt right here. If you want to explore rocks and dirt in a challenging environment go to Antartica. It is thousands of times cheaper to get there than to go into space, and it has AIR. Yet no one wants to colonize it because there isn't anything there that is of economic value. Going to Mars is just a giant boondoggle to keep engineers employed by the government so that they won't vote for people who want to cut government spending.
Well, I can think of several ways to pay for it without forcing taxpayers to foot the bill. As long as NASA is around, they will continue to justify their existence and, in the process, do some good technology development.
As long as people (taxpayers) are not being FORCED to pay for it, I have no objection to space exploration. As far as technology development goes - I disagree there too. You assume that the technology would not have been developed if it weren't for the space program. This isn't really true. If you have never read Bastiat's "That which is seen and that which is not seen" I suggest you do so. He does a lot better job of explaining lost opportunity cost than I do.
Well, duh. Of course. There are other reasons, population pressure, persecution of certain groups that are willing to uproot and move off world. But, yes, the pursuit of wealth is the most important. I could argue about the economic benefits of exploring Mars but I will not make a case for saddling the taxpayer with this cost.
A more relevant (but still not adequate) example is manned exploration of the moon. WHAT ECONOMIC BENEFIT did manned exploration of the moon bring? Answer none.
Not much, yet. But you cannot be serious if you believe there will NEVER be a way to make money on the moon. Helium 3 is obtainable on the moon and very rare on earth. Unlimited, cheap energy is also available on the moon in the form of unfiltered sunlight. The moon will be a staging area for further space exploration and, possibly, a source of fuel for those explorers. Certain products, using these comparative advantages and low gravity, might be manufactured on the moon.
Antartica(sic)...is thousands of times cheaper to get there than to go into space, and it has AIR. Yet no one wants to colonize it because there isn't anything there that is of economic value.
There might be oil there, and then, I think, you will see things change.
As far as technology development goes - I disagree there too.
You are putting words in my mouth. Read my post. I said they are doing good technology development. I didn't say that the private sector couldn't do it cheaper, better, faster. I think they could. I would like to see NASA closed down in its present form.
One thing this mission pushes is American robotics technology. It’s a very complex robotics system from launch to landing to doing work. There’s a very good reason conservatives should be very pro-robotics anything: if engineers drive the hourly cost of robotics down to minimum wage then the socialists will stop stealing our stuff and instead confiscate all the work output of robots. Technology is the second front in getting socialism off our backs. We’re slowly failing on the first front. It’s only buying us time. Robotics will eventually enable our vast and growing leisure class to lay about like they want to and leave us alone.