But you're the one using these inventions as justification for future space exploration - shouldn't the burden of proof fall on the one making the claim?
Those inventions provide justification for space exploration - they establish this field as a tried-and-true way of generating very useful spinoff tech.
To counter this argument, the other side needs to justify that either those same inventions can be achieved in a different and more cost-effective way, or that we don't really need new tech (relative to its costs).
To counter this argument, the other side needs to justify that either those same inventions can be achieved in a different and more cost-effective way, or that we don't really need new tech (relative to its costs).