But electronics and health were not improved by the space program per se, they were improved by the massive expenditure to support science. If you did a grand expenditure to eradicate cancer (for example) it would have an equal revolutionary effect. There is nothing magic about space science. You say to remain static means death, but what is the definition of movement? In the popular press of the early 1900's, it meant big ocean liners and transatlantic flights, but those really didn't compare to the advances in medicine and physics that were quietly changing the world. You want to fundamentally change the world, figure out renewable cheap energy. Then you can go to Mars with much less effort.
You don't understand energy. Energy is built into a system. A battery, for example, is filled with chemicals whose state is organized in a way that holds the energy, and that state has to change to a lower energy state for the battery to discharge.
Earth has energy built into it that is all stored up from solar-absorption and fossilization of solar-powered bioprocesses. There are nuclear fuels to be mined, but they are not unlimited and if humans get into the habit of mining them generation after generation, they will be depleted and/or radioactive waste will overwhelm us.
In short, Earth functions properly as it does because it hasn't had human engenuity tapping its energy reserves away for unnatural processes. When we tap energy that's been condensing underground for long periods of time, it's like spending money from your savings at a rate much higher than you get it back in income.
That money/savings metaphor for Earth's energy budget is accurate, but humans spending of money is literally tied to our energy use because economic activity doesn't run on human and animal power but fossil fuels and nuclear power. We expect wind and solar to match the levels of power that have been normalized by industrial/consumer culture, but those levels are unsustainable.
So when you want to pay all these people all this money to develop new technologies, you are just stimulating them to destroy the climate and natural resources that much faster. If there was a sustainable culture where no matter how much money people made, they would avoid spending it on anything that would cause unsustainability, then sure you could dole out money all day and there would not be climate/environmental degradation or even inflation for that matter.
But that is not the reality. If you pay people lots of money to do all this R&D, they will go around spending it and BS themselves that they are making sustainable choices so they can feel fine about the economic activity they are causing with their spending.
So what really needs to happen is that people need to commit to thinking and enacting innovations at the level of personal conservation and lifestyle change. Then when enough people have solved the climate problem by simply refusing to waste resources and do things that cause unsustainability, then the economy will be free from harm and it will be good to invest in R&D again.