Do we need manned space flights?

Space flights are not economically viable

Question: Do we need manned space flights?
Position‹2 of 3›: No the complexity of space flights is too high
Argument1 of 2›: Space flights are not economically viable

It is difficult to think of a economic return with respect to drone expedition

The argument

Currently the plan to make space exploration physically viable is to provide an economic return. This can be accomplished by either importing mineral resources of the planet or implementing factories to take advantage of planet resource. However if questionable that the huge investments requires to initiate mechanism will provide a return in a reasonable amount of time and in the case whether this can be done with a fully drone mission.

Context

To attract huge investments to fund manned missions it is necessary to provide an economic return

Premises

[P1]Making space exploration viable depends on an economic return, through importing minerals or building factories to exploit planetary resources. [P2] It is doubtful the huge investments required to start such operations would yield a return in reasonable time. [P3] It is also doubtful this could even be achieved with a fully unmanned, drone mission. [C] Therefore, because space flights are not economically viable, the complexity of manned space flights is too high to be worth it.

Counter-arguments

Return on space expedition can not only need to be monetary, but can be scientific advances that can fall-out also on everyday life A classical example is the topic of climate changes. So far the only full model we have is the Earth itself. Studying planets like Mars or Venus could provide other references

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The premise assumes the case for spaceflight rests on commercial return, which is not how these programmes are justified: their stated purposes are scientific, and returns of that kind — instrumentation, materials, Earth observation, climate models built by comparison with other planets — appear in no resource-import ledger. [Rejecting P2] Doubt is not an argument. No figures, timescales or cost of capital are offered, so the premise asserts that the investment would not repay without showing it. [Rejecting P3] This point tells against the position rather than for it: if the tasks could be done by drone, that is a reason to prefer unmanned missions, not evidence that crewed flight is too complex to be worth attempting.