Apparently so. However, those on the Right who are against it are usually against public funding of gov't space programs. We might be able to drop some of these gov't programs without impact on the scientific advancements of our time, but a lot of it is in support of earth resources, weather, earth physics. For example, if we keep NOAA programs but drop manned spaceflight, and allow for registration of private claims in outer space, we might make a lot more, quicker progress in space development. NASA should keep its new robotics programs because there will be some amazing developments there, but the NASA budget could be cut significantly without manned spaceflight.
I would rather see private manned missions to the moon and Mars, private moonbases, and asteroid mining than a NASA moonbase and NASA Mars landing. This could happen when we recognize private property rights in outer space. The land office might cost $100,000 a year and would replace $10 billion in NASA a year.
Yes, but the conservative anti-space position is "there's nothing up there, so we shouldn't be spending public money on it", as articulated by, for example, Anne Applebaum. But these people have no objection to private parties spending their own money on space ventures. The welfare left feels the same way, but the Green left are religious fundamentalists: they believe that man defiles any "pristine" environment he ventures into. These are the people who think that we must be kept out of space, and by any means necessary.
After we have turned al Qaeda to glass, we may well have to take on the Luddites in the same way.