Sending 6 people through space is a whole lot different then starting a World War. Maybe you need to rethink your analogy. Do you know what you have, right now, that is a direct result of space exploration sitting within 10 feet of you?
Every dollar spent on space exploration is priceless.
“Sending 6 people through space is a whole lot different then starting a World War.”
Not in terms of the context of what I was talking about. Both are ventures that people can attempt to justify by pointing at the technological innovations produced as a mere side effect. I specifically chose the example of a world war because when you apply that kind of argument to that example, it is immediately clear to everyone what a bad justification that is.
It’s exactly the same for space travel. If you have to point at an unpredictable and unreliable side effect as the main benefit to justify it, then you have already gone off the rails. These things need to be justified based on their own merits, the merits of the main goal of the mission, and the feasibility of obtaining that goal. Once you can do that, THEN you can factor in the side effects as additional benefits.