I think the mindset of someone who thinks spending in science -- and, particularly, in space exploration -- is throwing money into a hole goes as follows: "Sure it may benefit us, but that doesn't mean it will. I'd rather put my money on more urgent issues." I think to fight that argument you'd have to come up with some really solid numbers to show the ratio between all the inventions created for space programs which were later used in everyday life and those which weren't. A quick search reveals these: http://space.about.com/od/toolsequipment/ss/apollospinoffs.h... http://curiosity.discovery.com/topic/physics-concepts-and-de... You could argue, for instance, that our understanding of our own weather began when we were studying the weather of other planets. You can even invent a way more efficient firehose, but I don't think that would drive to point home to most people. I think most people feel detached from the cosmos. As if we were watching it from a distance, instead of being a very real and active part of it. If I'm right, how we've come to his point?