It's not "morally questionable". It's morally wrong. That's something that The World is usually unafraid to recognize and take seriously.

I'm enthusiastic about human beings exploring and colonizing the cosmos, but not so much as to violate important principles.

Our commitment to free speech isn't tested by having to defend speech that we agree with, but speech that we find horribly wrong. Likewise, our commitment to limited government is tested by having to oppose government projects whose consequences we expect to like. The World has failed this test.

It's ironic that this post comes immediately after one in which The World correctly denounces enforced treatment of spurious diseases by saying: 'This breach of human rights is casually justified as being “for their own good”.' It seems to me that The World is guilty of the same thing here against those who would prefer to pursue their own goals rather than ours.

Also, I think Tom Robinson is right that a government space program could inhibit progress rather than accelerate it, and that there are already good private alternatives to government-run space programs.

The government has a role. It can clarify property-rights and liability issues. It can remove obstructive regulations that make it difficult for willing people to pursue dangerous projects. It should pursue space-based projects with justified security-related benefits. Otherwise, it should stay out of the way.
Gil