[TeMPOraL]

Yes, it would be. Being awesome for some (like myself) is obviously not an argument in itself; I added it as a bit of humour :).

Regarding your very good question - it has been asked before. I'll direct you to the classic:

In 1970, a Zambia-based nun named Sister Mary Jucunda wrote to Dr. Ernst Stuhlinger, then-associate director of science at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, in response to his ongoing research into a piloted mission to Mars. Specifically, she asked how he could suggest spending billions of dollars on such a project at a time when so many children were starving on Earth.

Stuhlinger soon sent the following letter of explanation to Sister Jucunda, along with a copy of "Earthrise," the iconic photograph of Earth taken in 1968 by astronaut William Anders, from the Moon (also embedded in the transcript). His thoughtful reply was later published by NASA, and titled, "Why Explore Space?"

The response is to be read here: http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/08/why-explore-space.html.

[TranceMan]

Thanks, I have read that. It seems to have a premise that we can only feed all the people on Earth from space. Is farming really dead?

When will this promise be delivered? It's been 40 years and I can imagine Billions spent. Are people still starving?.

[the8472]

> Is farming really dead?

No, there's plenty of research to make agriculture (industrial and subsistence farming) more efficient. But it's not trivial getting it into the hands and heads of people since you can only do that locally.

> It seems to have a premise that we can only feed all the people on Earth from space.

No. Nasa and noaa are contributing some parts to a larger machinery. It is not the sole purpose of space missions, but it is a synergetic effect. You need weather forecasts to optimize farming, satellites help with that. GPS helps with international trade which in small part also covers shipping of fertilizer or pesticides to countries.

[LeifCarrotson]

More than billions, it's been approximately 1 trillion dollars in the past 50 years according to the table at [1]. Do note, however, that in a single year the US spends more than double that amount on keeping people fed, housed, and healthy through programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Unemployment, and Labor. Also remember that this is just American spending - other nations also have space programs and social programs.

But what can you possibly mean by "when will this promise be delivered?"

Yes, some humans are still starving, cold, thirsty, or hurt. Some are fighting - some for good reasons, like protecting/providing basic rights and needs for themselves and others, but many are fighting for stupid reasons. Humans still become sick and injured, and we still die.

We cannot "solve" these problems today by throwing money at them. We will probably never be able to completely solve them. By analogy, you cannot complete the task of having clean dishes and laundry by buying new place settings and clothes. But consider that these endless chores have become easier and less impactful with the advent of indoor plumbing, washing machines, cotton gins, sewing machines, and synthetic fabrics - not to mention advances in transportation, communication, and other seemingly unrelated fields.

In the same way, the work of keeping people healthy and fed has been improved by the development of agricultural, medical, and other technology. Certainly, feeding the hungry is important, and we should spend a great deal right now to help those in need. But there are other needs, and it would be foolish to not use some of our effort on making future needs less.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA

[Beltiras]

Some areas in the world are in a constant state of war and strife. It's not a matter of logistics or food production. The problem is getting warlords to stop their detrimental activities.