If the goal is pursuing knowledge for its own sake, then yes: I think the depth and breadth of human knowledge would now be greater if the moon missions were u

If the goal is pursuing knowledge for its own sake, then yes: I think the depth and breadth of human knowledge would now be greater if the moon missions were unmanned and the money was instead spent on other areas of scientific research which were judged to be cost-effective. Perhaps the following experiment would be a way to resolve our differences: Let's survey a random sample of 100 scientists asking whether they agree with the above statement. But not just scientists involved in space exploration - all types of geologists, climatologists, astrophysicists, neuroscientists, anthropologists, palaeontologists, etc. If less than say 25 scientists agree then I would accept that I was wrong about the wastefulness of manned moon missions. If more than 75 scientists agree would you accept that I was right?