Can We Afford a New Telescope?

Whether we can afford it or not, the world has a new telescope in the Atacama Desert of northern Chile.
According to C&E News April 8 Edition, it cost $1.3 billion to build, and US taxpayers put up $500 million of that through the National Science Foundation. 
The new telescope will look for new molecules in space. By other means, 160 molecules have already been identified in outer space. Theorists have said that with the continued discovery of new molecules in space, they come closer to a more refined understanding of how these molecules formed. It may be interesting to the inquisitive, but it doesn't seem interesting enough to be spending my money on.
Some have also said that the operation is a worthwhile endeavor, because no one knows exactly what will be found. A prime example is exploration for a new continent, which was discovered by Columbus. Other valuable explorations are the search for new sources of petroleum and gas. On the negative side, are the many expeditions which have explored the North and South Poles, with the only confirmation being that it is cold there.
This writer knows about research through his previous academic achievements and through his experience in industry. There are basically two kinds of research; Curiosity Motivated and Need Motivated. Examples of Curiosity Motivated research are, "how many beats of his wings does a butterfly make in his lifetime", or "how many new molecules can I find in outer space". Examples of Need Motivated research is "where can I find new sources of oil and gas", or "what can I use as a substitute for a rare earth, which has been monopolized by the Chinese".
The difference between the two types of basic research is obvious. Curiosity Research has no significance of practicality. That is, it will likely be a fundamental financial loss, because concentration will be on the expenditure of funds, without any consideration of financial return. Conversely, Need Research is much more likely to achieve a financial gain, as concentration is based upon the value of results, with a minimum of expenditure.
With those explanations in hand, it is easy to understand how government can routinely be involved in impractical research. It has no obligation to achieve a financial positive result. Its source of funds for expenditure on research projects are the taxpayers, who are generally unaware and disinterested in how their money is being spent. Conversely, industrial research must lead to a financial advantage. Checks on the prospect of financial success are made periodically, and if it is found that the likelihood of a final financial success is not present, the project is terminated.
The one half billion dollar expenditure of taxpayer funds by the National Science Foundation for the ALMA telescope falls in the typical range of usual Curiosity based government research. The likelihood of the expenditure leading to any financial return is so remote as to not even justify consideration. It is completely typical of usual government research.
However, the money has been spent. Why do I harp on it? I suppose the only reason is the forlorn hope that Congress will slowly change its position on providing money to various government agencies to blow on ridiculous projects. There is also an aspect of futility in this hope, because Congress had been supporting this practice for at least the last 60 years, which is the reason why we are now $17 trillion in debt.