Besides that somewhat useless fact (really, what I said is useless), I think the meaning of what he was saying was that space exploration is best done manned rather than unmanned, and with that I can wholeheartedly agree.

Robots are wonderful, and there’s a lot of artificial intelligence that can be created in robotics, but you know I always argue that when God created the human eye, there’s never been a better camera, when God created the human nose there’s never been a better sensory device, when God created the human ear there’s never been a better listening device.”

In one breath, the Governor makes note of some of the very technologies that have greatly enhanced humanity’s ability to perceive the world around us, and then, a couple breaths later, claims that no technology can surpass human sense organs (despite the obvious fact that innumerable telescope, microscopes, spectroscopes, sonographs, and more far surpass human capabilities). Mr. Simberg is right that the Governor’s statements are not intrinsically creationist, but there’s evidence in this passage that the Governor’s beliefs are affecting his logic and view of reality.

“As long as the public sees space as science, flags and footprints no one will buy into it beyond the existing space advocates…”

We have to differentiate between NASA’s science and human space flight programs. There is arguably huge public support for science missions like the Hubble Space Telescope and the twin Mars rovers. For a good decade or so (before Griffin’s Ares 1/Orion cutbacks started), that support translated into strong White House and Congressional support for a steadily increasing budget in what is now the Science Directorate. NASA has yet to breach (nevertheless explore) the upper boundary of what the nation will buy in terms of a well-managed space science program that actually pushes back the boundaries of space exploration, produces regular and inspiring results, and that provides answers to some of the big questions about our origins, our place in the universe, and our future.

Public and support for human space flight is arguably limited to a level of spending roughly equivalent to that of the STS and ISS, two programs with very little benefit in terms of science, technology, or exploration but which at least fly the flag (even if there are no footprints). If tied to a concrete, fear/greed justification — like Apollo beating the Soviets in a demonstration of missile-building power — the nation will even temporarily afford a human space flight effort that is somewhat more expensive than even STS and ISS. But unlike space science, NASA has arguably reached the limits of what the nation will afford in a civil human space flight program. (Commercial human space flight efforts are another question…)

“The key to making VSE sustainable is to change it from the Vision for Space exploration to the Visions for a Space Economy and then link it solidly to clear benefits to the nation’s economic competitiveness and national security.”

Even if ESAS wasn’t so screwed up, it’s far from clear that the timeline for a “Space Economy” would produce “clear benefits” in terms of “economic competitiveness and national security” on a politically useful timeframe. Seeing a commercial return on activities like lunar mines and propellant depots are decades into the future, well beyond the horizon of political decisionmaking. Although an economically sustainable approach is a key to the VSE — and one could even articulate a rationale for the VSE in terms of revamping the U.S. space industry if ESAS had produced a different implementation plan — the VSE cannot (and does not) rely on economic benefits alone for its policy justification.

FWIW…

It also proves what I have been saying for years now and that is the “Humans to Mars” goal is the giggle factor in space policy. If you want to build serious sustain politcal support you MUST link space goals to real life issues and needs of the country. Humans to Mars killed the first President Bush’s space goals and its in the process of killing the second, both from the giggle factor and in terms of Dr. Griffin’s ESAS.

The key to making VSE sustainable is to change it from the Vision for Space exploration to the Visions for a Space Economy and then link it solidly to clear benefits to the nation’s economic competitiveness and national security. That is something the political candidates will buy into because it links to want gets them votes. As long as the public sees space as science, flags and footprints no one will buy into it beyond the existing space advocates…

— Donald