Space Exploration is a waste of time and money

My opponent claims that the benefits of space exploration outweigh the costs. However, given our current knowledge and abilities, I will argue that that is not the case. First, I would like to highlight a tension in my opponent's use of the term "exploration". ex⋅plore   /ɪkˈsplɔr, -ˈsploʊr/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ik-splawr, -splohr] Show IPA verb, -plored, -plor⋅ing. Use explore in a Sentence See images of explore Search explore on the Web –verb (used with object) 1. to traverse or range over (a region, area, etc.) for the purpose of discovery: to explore the island. 2. to look into closely; scrutinize; examine: Let us explore the possibilities for improvement. (from http://dictionary.reference.com... ) Does he mean literal travel into space or the study thereof? It would be disingenuous of him to refer to "exploration" of a physical area in a non-physical sense. In other words, to cite the exploration of space through telescopes, as my opponent does, is to misuse the word. Examining the definition, we see that "to scrutinize" is generally used in reference to abstractions rather than objects; in reference to physical objects exploration involves actual travel. Given that, my opponent's argument about expanded knowledge is moot. Everything we know thus far about objects in space has been discovered almost exclusively through observation from earth, or from just outside earth's atmosphere. There is no travel required to discover the knowledge he references. The one space program that did send human beings into space ended up costing American taxpayers $150 billion, almost 8 times the initial cost estimate of $20 billion. {1} By contrast, the things we learned from these missions, while fascinating, are hardly beneficial to humans. Most pertain to the composition and history of the moon.{2} While this settled many scientific debates, there are more tangible uses to which such money could be put. For example, the National Cancer Institute spend about $5 billion a year on various cancer research.{3} The funding for the Apollo program could have funded 30 years worth of research into cancer, possibly leading to a better understanding and improved treatments for the suffering of millions of human beings. Additionally, at least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day.{4} To justify such outrageous expenditures on space exploration for the benefit of future populations, when millions are suffering now, is inconsistent at best and callous at worst. Indeed, my opponent claims that space exploration is necessary to save humanity from extinction, but this is a distortion of the facts. Given our current understanding of physics, either the universe will reach a state of maximum entropy, in which we won't be able to survive, or the gravity of the universe will overcome its expansion and all the matter will collapse back to a singularity. In which case we won't be able to survive. The extinction of humanity is inevitable. The question of when it occurs is a question of what conditions it is tolerable to live under, and my opponent has not provided any reasoning as to why potentially colonizing space and trying to extend the longevity of the human race is preferable to alleviating the suffering of those who already exist. Money thrown into the space program is basically being thrown away; certainly any returns will not be seen this generation or the next. Our current technology is nowhere near advanced enough to propel us to distant star systems and we have yet to discover any planets or moons that we know would support us even if we could get there. The ephemeral nature of the goal, the outrageous costs, and the more beneficial potential uses to which the money could be put conspire to make space exploration an untenable goal for society at its current level of scientific expertise. My opponent claims that: "We can never know exactly which benefits will emerge from the space programme in future, but we do know that we will constantly meet new obstacles in pursuit of our goals, and in overcoming they will find new solutions to old problems. We understand - just maybe - .1% about space and space-time. We must proceed with future missions and create more." This is nothing more than an appeal to ignorance, and it is the basis for his entire argument. Something really good might possibly come out of it so we must take action. Given the amount of money involved this is not a justifiable position. 1.http://history.nasa.gov... 2. http://www.nasm.si.edu... 3. http://www.cancer.gov... 4. http://www.globalissues.org...