Space exploration is not the only thing that generates spin off effects. It’s not the only interesting science. Directly funding research into solving real problems actually works. So yes, I think it should be funded, but at this point, unmanned missions are a much better way to spend the resources: for the same money you get more science, more spin off, more everything. Just less spectacle. Space will not be profitable, or habitable in this century and that’s fine.
Ultimately, space exploration is outside the realm of production and will stay there at least for a long time. Therefore, what we spend on it is part of our societal surplus: the value we collectively create, that is left over after reproducing society. What happens to that value should be decided democratically. But in capitalism, it isn’t. Corporations control almost all the surplus and spend it on what’s profitable for them. All of space funding in the US is just crumbs falling off the table of the military industrial complex mixed with the potential for propaganda.
For example, all those year, when Hubble was the best telescope, the imperial oppression apparatus had multiple of Hubble sized telescopes whose potential was wasted on intelligence gathering for wars. Then they got even better ones and offered a few of the left overs to NASA, but NASA couldn’t even afford to make use of several free Hubble sized telescopes.
Here are some quick thoughts:
Ask, who’s making the original claim and who much do they stand to gain and lose from lying about it if it were false and compare that to how much they stand to gain and lose from not covering it, if it were true. There’s pressure to lie, but there’s also pressure to report on real events. Think about material gain, but also about reputation, hype, clicks and career options. Think short term and long term.
For example, economic news offer lots of opportunity to gain from lies short term, but if an economic journal loses it’s reputation, it might lose more long-term, as investors lose trust.
If you want to compare multiple sources, make sure they have different incentive structures, or you won’t get truly different perspectives. For example compare news from imperialist and anti-imperialist countries.
To check if a story is plausible, it helps to have an historic materialist understanding of who the actors in the story are, what their history is and which classes material interests they share in.
Ideally, you shouldn’t come away from a confirmed story with the notion: “Wow it’s true, they really did that crazy thing! How dramatic and sensational!”. Rather, in confirming the story, you will have developed a deeper understanding of the underlying social forces driving individual actors decisions. So instead you’d be more like:“Now I understand why this thing that first seemed very surprising to me was bound to happen sooner or later.”