This being said, a form of profit that would be in part subsidized by the government for commercial entities may happen. In other words the government(s) may want to provide seed money for space exploration. It will then be the responsibility of commercial entities to find whether there is money or not to be made, for example with ISRU on the Moon or anywhere.

Also somehow the commercialization of LVs/RVs may end up costing a lot less to the government to carry exploration per se or any other space activity.

Here again there are a lot of “ifs”. On the other hand, barring extreme imminent danger, I cannot see any real reason for exploring space away from Earth. And even were it to be an asteroid coming at us we would most likely be unable to go anywhere since we could not survive the long term exposure to space with the current technology.

So, I think we ought to have more humble goals: Use robotics for the most part as scouts through the Galaxy. Check out what’s there. At the same time start developing the technology required for human settlement of some sort, e.g. VASIMR. We could as well launch crews on scouts too a la Flexible Path. All the while we collect the necessary data to understand how to survive there.

But we must accept that in the end there may just be nothing to do for humans in space or on any other planetary body. Period.

Bottom line (again): We do need an overarching plan, not just a collage of stunts that will get us nowhere. And it must be long term like in “centuries” long…

After 1492, Spain had turned a net profit from the New World in a time shorter than the “Space Age” has already existed. Human spaceflight… well, there’s still no profit in sight.

The same benefits of increased national wealth Spain, Portugal, England, France received from the New World……

really? based on what product? what would come back from the Moon that would make money for The US?

Robert G. Oler

I have to say I do admire the level of patience you display at trying to explain why we are on a train wreck (current HSF) to those who think we should just do it regardless of pretty much anything.

Remember though that some of these people would not mind a one way ticket to Mars. Now what does that tell you/us?

“what would the “average working American” receive from government spending on space settlement? What’s an office secretary or truck driver going to get in their lifetimes”

The same benefits of increased national wealth Spain, Portugal, England, France received from the New World.

“And why do you want NASA (or any government agency) running a space settlement program, anyway? ”

Which is why you are convincing me NASA does need to be shut down, or at least have its budget seriously reduced to a couple of billion a year for robotic missions only.

“If you want to colonize space, the program would look nothing like what NASA is pursuing today (or may pursue after the Augustine Committee).”

Exactly. And that is why NASA doesn’t have the strong support it used to have. Its not seen as opening the frontier any more as it was with Apollo. Its just a science welfare agency.

Yes, you have convinced me. NASA does need to be shut down in its current form it is just another waste of tax payer dollars. Maybe Congress could allocate that $18 billion a year wasted on NASA as prize money to the parents of kids born on the Moon, Mars or in space during that a specific fiscal year. That would stimulate space tourism and human space settlement far more then the money we are now wasting on NASA. I sure with such a prize the medical industry would solve the insolvable problems you see to human settlement of space.

If you don’t know the difference between technology and science, then I can’t help you. You need to complete your education.

“National pride, and/or international confidence building = Science”

If you don’t know the difference between international relations and science, then I can’t help you. You need to complete your education.

“Sounds like a science policy agenda to me.”

Even if technology and international relations were the same thing as science, you failed to fully read my post (yet again) and left off several other justifications:

“new resources, the protection of our homeworld against certain predictable threats, and/or a revolutionary perspective about the potential for life elsewhere and the place of our species in the universe”

And even if all these justifications were the same thing as science, what’s wrong with a “science policy agenda”. (What’s wrong with science? This isn’t the Dark Ages.) NASA’s science program is wildly successful, especially compared to NASA’s human space flight program. Using science goals to drive choices in human space flight would ground that program in much better informed design tradeoffs that it currently lacks. Instead of wasting years pursuing enormously expensive space stations and lunar architectures without no firm idea of what astronauts are going to do at those locations, NASA’s human space flight programs could be scaled and paced to address specific research goals and make measurable achievements that have utility to someone besides NASA and contractor employees.

“But its definitely not an agenda for opening the space frontier (SFF) or expanding human settlement into space (NSS). So again what is in it for the average working America [sic] they wouldn’t get from the Olympics or from some other form of entertainment?”

Even if we assume that homo sapiens can live out healthy lifetimes and reproduce in the high radiation and low gravity environments that lie beyond the Van Allen Belts (which our species almost certainly can’t, but let’s pretend), what would the “average working American” receive from government spending on space settlement? What’s an office secretary or truck driver going to get in their lifetimes other than higher taxes so a few dozens to hundreds of their countrymen can survive and do little more in a wildly expensive environment for decades, maybe centuries, to come?

And why do you want NASA (or any government agency) running a space settlement program, anyway? That’s not how frontiers have been settled on Earth. Governments may provide incentives to individuals and companies to settle frontiers, but frontiers are not settled by employees at government agencies — they’re settled by individuals, families, and companies making individual economic, governance, or religious decisions to move into the frontier.

The question you should be asking yourself is, given the incredible expenses and deadly environments involved, why would any “average working American” (or even any above-average American) want to move into space permanently to live out the rest of their and their children’s lives there?

If you can’t answer that question effectively, then it’s not going to happen.

And again, this all assumes that our species can live out healthy lifetimes and reproduce in high radiation and low gravity environments beyond the Van Allen Belts, which it almost certainly cannot without a lot of reengineering of our genomes and/or bodies.

If you want to colonize space, the program would look nothing like what NASA is pursuing today (or may pursue after the Augustine Committee). Launch vehicles, landers, habitats, etc. are not on the critical path to enabling humans to live for decades in space and reproduce successfully there. Rather, understanding what changes we have to make to our genomes and bodies (and probably elements of our Earth ecosystem — especially symbiotic microbes that are crucial to our survival) to survive near-constant bombardment by high-energy cosmic rays, occasional bombardment by solar proton events, and low gravity environments is what’s critical.

That, or we wait until terraforming artificial Earths or FTL travel to an extrasolar Earth become possible — which may require infinite amounts of patience given the unknown engineering and/or science involved.

FWIW…

““Scientific discovery, technological advancement, national pride, and/or international confidence building… at a minimum.”

Scientific Discovery = Science

Technological Advancement = Spinoffs from the scientific research, the Old justification of NASA to the masses = Science

National pride, and/or international confidence building = Our scientists are better then yours…. = Science

Sounds like a science policy agenda to me. If the shoe fits wear it.

But its definitely not an agenda for opening the space frontier (SFF) or expanding human settlement into space (NSS). So again what is in it for the average working America they wouldn’t get from the Olympics or from some other form of entertainment? What is about NASA is worth 18 billion taxpayer dollars a year, a few more academic publications and bragging rights on how good are scientists are? Or Space Dots ice cream?

I didn’t ask where you were born or about your citizenship. I asked whether English was your first language.

“So for you space is just science… And some bragging rights. And maybe some very, every expensive spinoffs”

For the third time, that’s not what I wrote. Stop putting words in other posters’ mouths and react to what they’ve actually written.

FWIW…