[ineedasername]

They're supposed to be quite intelligent about a very specific scenario: operating a specialized vehicle in launch, low/zero gravity, and landing. I wouldn't look to them for understanding or insight into the geopolitical or economic role their missions might be a part of. When listening to experts it's always very important to remember precisely what their expertise happens to be.

[greenyoda]

Astronauts also have first-hand knowledge about the risks of sending people into space, and have had friends that died or almost died on space missions. So they have a much more concrete concept of the cost-benefit tradeoffs of space travel than the rest of us.

[ineedasername]

Okay, but even if I concede that point, that doesn't translate into a strong strategic view of the value of initiatives. To say otherwise is like saying a soldier that's been in battle has the same strategic view of things as a general in overall command. The soldier is more informed than the average person, but far from an expert level knowledge of the big picture.

And that may be besides the point: It seem to me this astronaut didn't make make a cogent argument from the perspective of cost-benefit tradeoffs and risk of human lives. Instead he raised vague criticisms: "It's ridiculous" and "what's the imperative... I don't think the public is that interested"

In fact available data directly refutes this astronaut's view: at least one survey from a few years ago found widespread support (about 75%) for a manned mission [0]. As of this year interest has declined somewhat [1], but still 63% rate mars as important or higher.

[0] https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/11/poll-america...

[1] https://www.fastcompany.com/40581121/survey-most-americans-s...