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.
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.