My question is, is space exploration the most cost effective form of basic research?
We could be doing basic research in any number of areas. Is it just because space captures our imagination that we choose to spend $ there, or is there something fundamentally better about the basic research in space as opposed to, say, the bottom of the ocean.
To me, the goal is exposure to brutal constraints. There are very few environments as demanding as space, and as such it's a fantastic crucible of learning. Really, the bottom of the ocean is likely the only other environment that is comparable to it. And also a fantastic alternative. Perhaps ironically, I think deep ocean research is actually far harder and riskier than space, and so space may be the easier alternative. But I certainly am no expert on it, and I would love a few billion dollars in research thrown at the ocean that wasn't myopically limited commercial interests. We could find some truly unbelievable things down there, stuff we could never hope to find on the surface of a planet.
So I guess my response is who knows? We should try them both and find out! There's plenty of people, resources, and time enough to try!
The important thing to remember is that space exploration will eventually be able to pay for itself countless times once we start seeing mining operations. There's an incredible amount of mineral wealth out there in the solar system that makes what we have here on Earth look paltry by comparison. The economic incentives will eventually start to shift, and from there, it'll be a lot easier to fund basic research in space.
You're just having some pointless debate with yourself.
IN FACT, I'D SAY YOU ARE CLUELESS about how the world works.
Listen to this Congressman canceling the United States Supercollider project:
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4499048/joel-hefley-kill-ssc
There just wasn't enough excitement.
For example, what do you do with all that captured coal dust and slag we get from power plants scrubbing their exhaust? We could throw it away, but it turns out there are industries that would love to pay to take that garbage away and use it as a filler their process. We could have stuck with the argument that scrubbing is too expensive to be worth the trouble, and that it would never be practical. Or we can just do the engineering and try it out, and maybe new markets open up. Or not; at least we got some cleaner air.
There's a lot of risk, like any venture. Possibly garbage is just garbage. Possibly there's no reasonable return on investment. Possibly entire industrial supply chains shift to a new technology for the marginal improvement. Possibly a new process for extracting carbon nanotubes is discovered. Or we simply find a cool new color of black for our sports cars.
Maybe the data collected from the moon tells us that it's really just some fairly boring rock not worth our time. Maybe we learn that crystals grown in space can have a perfect crystal structure useful in manufacturing stable q-bits. Maybe we find an asteroid made of platinum and all energy markets brace for a massive tech change, or parhaps it's made of iron and we move on. Or... not; at least we got some pictures for the philosophers and the next generation is inspired to try harder.
The wins from basic research come from the unknown unknowns, and as such can be disruptive like an outside-context-problem [0]. Or are trivial duds; you can't tell at the start, but you can hope. Transistors and lasers are pretty useful! They alone are likely worth all the money we've ever thrown (or ever will) at basic research. Likewise satellites also changed the world, allowing us to do things that likely make all the money we spend on space easily worth it.
<insert some comment about Y Combinator startups maybe becoming billion dollar enterprises... but many fail.>
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excession#Outside_Context_Prob...