Even assuming that one doesn't see the value to Earth in doing things in space (which I covered a bunch in a longer comment upthread so I won't revisit that here), I've never understood why people who want to call out misspent money focus so vehemently on space research.
Last year, NASA's budget was about $23 billion. SpaceX (which has made massive advances in rocket reusability and lowering launch costs) doesn't cost taxpayers a dime, other than in space launch fees for space station missions which is included in the above NASA figure, and is in fact a cash positive enterprise as it operates a very profitable business selling services to customers. So it isn't a drain on the economy any more than any other profitable business.
For comparison, people around the world have spent approximately $23 billion JUST ON AVENGERS MOVIES (or I guess MCU movies). People spend about $20 billion on golf courses EVERY YEAR just in the United States. The United States spends $715 billion on defense every year, and the rest of the planet spends a combined $1200 billion on top of that. In 2020, countries exported around $80-100 billion in diamonds, a rough approximation of how much consumers spent on that. College football spends 18.8 billion every year in the United States, with $3.6 billion of that being spent on coach salaries alone!!
The whole point of that rant was just to point out that we as a planet spend money on a lot, A LOT of things with a dubious return on investment. Is space devlopment, which is arguably a positive for the economy even over the short term, and which is a massive boon for planetary science and climate science, really the place to raise moral objections?
Some food for thought!
First of all, let's clarify some things. Branson's flight was a Vomit Comet. That's all. Spaceship Two doesn't reach the Karman Line. It's the TWA plane from 2001.
Musk and Bezos, meanwhile, keep talking about self-sustaining extraterrestrial colonies without acknowledging that for the remainder of the century, at the very least, they will be not be self-sustaining. So, in order for those colonies to exist, Earth will continue to need to be habitable and able to spend resources
both on climate management and mitigation in addition to space exploration and colonization.
There are a lot of preliminary steps that are being either elided or willfully ignored.
You ask:
"Is space development, which is arguably a positive for the economy even over the short term, and which is a massive boon for planetary science and climate science, really the place to raise moral objections?"
Yes.
Let's address the economic questions first...
First, who's economy? The United States is not the only nation on Earth, nor is it the most important. I say that as an American.
Second, define "the economy." Are you talking about employment? Are you talking about inflation? What do you mean by "the economy"?
Three, define "short term." Are we talking about increased employment and consumer spending over a one-year period? A five-year period? What is "short term"?
Four, is "the economy" more important than the ability of the planet to continue supporting 8 billion human beings?
Five, what type of economy are you talking about? Are you talking about the continuation of a consumer economy predicated on the manufacture and sale of semi-disposable goods? Is "the economy" of which you speak sustainable for more than the next 50 years?
Six, is the benefit to "the economy" from reusable rocket technology a greater benefit than the benefit to "the economy" from climate mitigation and environmental research? Do you know who has had a terrible month so far? Insurance companies, real estate investors, and pretty much anyone involved with the sale or ownership of real estate. Because right now, no one really knows whether billions of dollars of insured property will soon be ash, dust, or under water.
An oceanfront condo building in Miami collapsed and every single insurance company and real estate company is praying that it was due to poor maintenance and not because of climate change. On the west coast, wildfire season is starting to be year-round, and everything west of the Rockies is under drought conditions.
If you want to put this in economic terms, then you have to look at how increased temperatures and severe drought has imploded the ski industry supports Utah, Wyoming, Nevada, Colorado, and California. No snow means no skiing. And these are seasonal businesses that can only go a couple of years before they go bankrupt. Or look at the almond industry. 80% of the world's almonds grow in California. And the latest multi-year drought is forcing growers to either fallow other crops to divert water to almond orchards or to start culling almond trees altogether. Meanwhile, wildfires, in addition to burning homes and businesses (including farms), have also caused insurance costs to rise beyond the reach of many, including, for example wineries, another pillar of California's economy. So now you have people and businesses that are a flame away from collapse.
So, is space exploration a greater benefit to the economy than reversing or mitigating the effects of global climate change? I say no.
So, inasmuch as I do not believe that space exploration represents a net economic positive over climate research and development, your basic premise fails.
Seven, is the current approach by Mssrs. Bezos and Musk moral - to wit, a focus on reusable rocket technology with little to no research on terraforming. Both have stated their goals as space colonization. Musk's approach to terraforming is, and I wish I was kidding, to launch all of Earth's nuclear missiles at Mars to release enough CO2 into its atmosphere to capture and retain heat. Basically Total Recall. Meanwhile, Bezos' plan is to have everyone live forever on Rama ships and to just abandon terrestrial life, using moons and asteroid mining for resources.
Seven, are either of these approaches moral where such would almost certainly come at the cost of millions, if not billions, of human lives and the extinction of countless species?
The cart, right now, is in front of the horse. Until we can learn how to continue to have life on Earth, I say that space races like this are wrong. They do not substantially advance the existing research while simultaneously promoting the wrong belief that the immediate dangers to life, and yes, the economy, are less important than some vague undefined idea of space colonization.
As to Mr Branson, I ask this...
Given the decades-long history of failed promises by Mr Branson, is there any proof that his stated goal of "space tourism" - along with his willingness to take non-refundable deposits on flights that have yet to occur - is anything more than a fancy grift?
