I interpret his Congressional testimony from October 2003 to say that permanent settlement (not presence, but settlement which must mean children) is perhaps the ONLY goal that can sustain space exploration long term. Ultimately, its the only reason that can justify the risk to life and expenditure of billions in national treasure.

Since I believe this personally, perhaps I am biased when I read his remarks yet his October 2003 testimony seems pretty clear to me.

Back to this thread.

=IF= settlement is the objective in the reasonable near term (not 100 years from now, maybe) I favor humans over robots and science. But, tell me NASA is NOT in the settlement business and I would say buy more robots, fully fund science and give the rest to midnight basketball programs.

= = =

As Tumlinson might say, do it O’Neillian and not von Braunian and not Sagan-aut.

If you are looking for a science-only agency, please ask for directions to the NSF/others.

And human spaceflight addresses such profound issues as the sustainability of human life beyond Earth. Which matters because life support systems would be useful both on Earth and in space.

Again, the actual exploration planned in the VSE is scientific exploration. Unfortantely, except for some of the unmanned missions, it is science that doesn’t interest scientists.

When you folks here suggest things like engineering and colonization as alternatives to science, you’re onto something. If Bush or Griffin removed the Potemkin science from the VSE and made the missions — not just the “goals” — something else like colonization, then at least it wouldn’t be a problem for scientists.

Personally, I believe the s-word (settlement) or the less PC c-word (colony) would fire up public support for space exploration. I also believe anything LESS than settlement/colony will continue to leave the public yawning with the space-nuts facing annual cliff-hanger battles to pass skimpy NASA budgets.

If only President Bush had said “settlement” (as Griffin has in the past) rather than “presence” (which is ambiguous).

This is not all about NASA. The idea that space exploration is only for science is bad for the inventment market in private space companies. I have lots of reasons for wanting to go (and live) on other planets. Science is really not hig on the list. I suspect very few other potential “spacemen” are in it for science, either.

Maybe I am showing my age, but What does the whole “Kilroy was here” thing mean?

What does presence mean?

Kilroy was here?
“Virtual” presence by tele-robotics?
Little dome on the regolith?

To my knowledge, all efforts to tease out what NASA actually means by “presence” are met with feel-good vague tautologies.

• Implement a sustained and affordable human and robotic program to explore the solar system and
  beyond;
• Extend human presence across the solar system, starting with a human return to the Moon by the year 2020, in preparation for human exploration of Mars and other destinations;
• Develop the innovative technologies, knowledge, and infrastructures both to explore and to support
  decisions about the destinations for human exploration;
• Promote international and commercial participation in exploration to further U.S. scientific, security,
  and economic

He goes on to talk about ISS goals to “support US space exploration goals” and Lunar goals to ” to enable sustained human and robotic exploration of Mars” and “Use lunar exploration activities to further science, and to develop and test new approaches,technologies, and systems…” Oh there it is. So exploration is about new science. Oops and new Engineering (which as an engineer I can tell you is not science).

So what I see it 3 goals. Science, New Technologies (Engineering & Product development), and colonization (sustained human presence).

A Potemkin village is a political showcase that looks elaborate and impressive but lacks substance. The House hearing on ISS research two weeks ago was a perfect show of Potemkin science.