I don't think both are mutually exclusive, I see one more important then the other. You see space, and I see environment.

> I’ll ask more directly: do you think 0.45% of the budget will solve those environmental problems enough to offset what is lost in aspirational benefit?

Yes, I do. If that 0.45% pushed towards environmental which helped develop new form of technology that returns well-being to the planet, then the aspiration wouldn't of been loss. Aspiration would return and would wager higher return including hope for humanity. It works both ways.

As like the current example on the front page at the moment about plant based recycling. That's inspirational but has much thought, time and money as of going in to space been invested in to that? Where would we be if did the same.

I think where we diverge is that you seem to assume everyone does/should have the same aspirations as you. As another commenter alluded to, we live in a pluralistic society. That in itself is valuable enough to me to warrant that relatively negligible budget, let alone the fact that more people probably are inspired by space than by environmental science. I don’t think there’s any reason there can’t be room for both, but you seem to think there can only be a focus on one

I'm not sure where your getting that assumption from. Like others have said thinking I want to defund all space programs. No, I am not saying that. I don't see money in such a linear view, all or nothing. There could be multiple projects on hand however as it currently stands there is only focus on one with the vision of "Get people on Mars"

I'm just weighing down to what is more important now:

A lunar gateway, a space elevator. Or trying to harness the sun, clearing plastics from within the ocean? Fixing the planet we are on now, or living in space? It does currently show that people are more inspired by space than environmental science. Anything environmental is declared boring, it is boring. It doesn't yield the same practical results. As I mean you don't see the same result in the same sense as a new rocket, footage of a new planet. But regardless or not it is, which is more important?

Sorry if it was a bad assumption. I just can’t square the two points you’re making. You say we can still have a space program but funding should be less? As in less than one half of one percent is too much? You may not realize it but the there are multiple directorates within NASA and only one is primarily focused on gateway (the human exploration directorate). So it’s a fraction of a fraction of a percent that goes to that. The rest of the money goes to other directorates that have priorities that may align more with your priorities. For example, the aeronautics research directorate performs fundamental research in areas that can decrease greenhouse gas emissions from air travel. The Earth science directorate is heavily focused on climate change. If you look at what is actually left over for exploration, to an extent it’s in agreement with your stance that it’s not really a priority compared with the percentage of GDP spent during the space race when it was a national priority. By only giving a pittance of GDP to exploration when it used to be orders of magnitude higher, we’re saying exploration is no longer a priority.

I think the people who claim otherwise might benefit from looking at the actual relative funding.