I think the debate forces an acknowledgement that the objectives themselves don't always have intrinsic value. I agree there's a lot of things that can be gott

I think the debate forces an acknowledgement that the objectives themselves don't always have intrinsic value. I agree there's a lot of things that can be gotten from it like NASA funding, but many people do not really "know" the utility of going to the moon. For example, people will talk about mining on the moon, but I've only ever seen articles debunking the utility of this, and not a single in-depth analysis in favor of this. I might be looking in the wrong spots. My theory is that relatively few people can justify the value of these efforts convincingly. This is part of why NASA doesn't have a bigger budget. "Whitey on the moon"[0] has a ring of truth to it. Developing strong arguments for further development is one of the most effective ways for people to support further development. Otherwise you end up with things like "We'll go to Mars for space tourism/exploration!". Which is... well you do what you want with your money, but that's a hell of a lot of money for tourism. Public funding will be hard to come by. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goh2x_G0ct4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goh2x_G0ct4