Thanks to the space missions we get technology that is useful for X and Y. So why not invest that money to research solutions to X and Y in first place instead? Presumably, with similar allotted funds we'd stumble into discoveries that are useful for Z (and maybe even W, if we're really lucky).
That's 3 or 4 letters for you, easy. And all we had to do was start with an useful goal. Who knew?
> Thanks to the space missions we get technology that is useful for X and Y. So why not invest that money to research solutions to X and Y in first place instead?
Technology doesn't work that way. Real life is not Sid Meier's Civilization where you pick what to research.
Because the fringe benefits of X and Y might not be apparent. Here's a long list of things that were developed for the space program and which have turned out to be valuable in other contexts; but which might not otherwise have passed the 'necessity test' for investment: http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html
Find some X and Y that pass the 'necessity test' then.
If X and Y don't warrant express investment in first place, how come they justify investments on space programs after the fact?
To defeat this reasoning, I suggest you try and find a reason why serendipity should work better in projects with less immediate usefulness. I could be convinced that's the case, but I haven't heard arguments in favour of this hypothesis so far.
That's 3 or 4 letters for you, easy. And all we had to do was start with an useful goal. Who knew?