The most surprising topic covered in the interview I watched was the discussion of space travel expenses. During this point of the interview, space travel was compared to other modes of technological advancement—namely, air travel in the form of airplanes. Prior to the interview, I hadn't considered how these expenditures were funded. The interview made the point that the evolution of airplanes primarily hinged upon private pursuit of said technology in the sense that the government did not fund research of this type to the same extent that they currently fund space travel. While this point is interesting and accurate (to the extent that early airplanes maintained a similar degree of uncertainty as spacecrafts), I think it is important to additionally consider who is affected by these expenditures. The pollution involved with spaceflight is far greater than that of air travel via airplanes. As such, more people are potentially harmed. The benefits must, therefore, be weighed against the potential costs.
Along this point, if I had conducted the interview, I would centre my questions around who is being affected. The interview brought up the uncertainty of climate predictions in the sense that it discussed how it is unclear, despite advanced renderings, exactly how much the Earth will warm due to climate change, yet did not discuss how other modes of science affect climate change. Space travel is incredibly expensive and damaging to the environment. Despite the benefits gained from it, the costs cannot be ignored—something I felt the interview did not acknowledge.