No, we focus on making it possible to get anywhere beyond LEO first, and then we can figure out where we want to go, and how much.

That was what was happening under Constellation, with little prospects for ever getting even back to the moon, let alone anywhere else. Flexible path isn’t a destination — it’s an actual capability. That’s why it’s called flexible.

No it doesn’t. Deep space doesn’t have temperature extremes. Vacuum/airless? Go to LEO. Starkness? Well, um …

“whatever length of time you spend upon its surface, or in orbit around it, you are clearly rehearsing the situation of interplanetary-distance flight. Keeping men alive there for five or six months, is in itself a test-bed case for the one-way trip to Mars.”

International Space Station. Check that box. Oh, but then there’s that starkness we’ve got to get used to. Maybe LEO isn’t stark enough?

“There is a treasure trove of natural resources to be utilized.”

So say some people. But the proof of that will come before humans are necessary to be there with shovels and driving bulldozers.

“Constellation was all open ended about how quick we’d get on with that”

The words “quick” and “Constellation” don’t go together. Open-ended? I’ll say. The end was never really in sight.

Re Antarctic exploration “The expansion of the human presence on the glaciated continent. We go back to the Moon, to transform it into humanity’s overseas province! ”

Riiiight. Much like we did with Antarctica. Humanity’s overseas province, eh? Have you ever wintered over there? The outdoor pool isn’t heated, you know. Yes, we put human beings in Antarctica because there was good work to do there, but also because telerobotics didn’t exist. And also because compared to space, putting humans there is dirt cheap.

Get a grip. The lunar surface is not off the table in the new strategy. In Constellation, the Moon *was* the table. That was the problem.

Space has a temperature of 2.725 deg. Kelvin. The Moon varies from 100-390 K. In short the Moon simulates the Moon and nowhere else. Just to hilight one little example: Electric Craters.

You can simulate the interplanetary flight at the ISS and the radiation exposure with some shielding and mice in Lunar Orbit.

“There is a treasure trove of natural resources to be utilized. Industrial development can take place.”

Well putting the OST and Moon Treaty to one side; if this were true why hasn’t the Moon Rush started already? The answer is that there is a cheaper treasure trove on the ocean floor and as your gulf coast is discovering it ain’t that easy! As others have pointed out even if there were Moon Diamonds and Platinum Rocks (which there are btw) it would not be cost effective to mine the Moon without some game changer like matter transmission or anti-gravity.

There is no Anti-Moon Lobby. (With the notable exception of Zubrin et al.) There is a pro-sustainable space program lobby (me) that realises that the Moon can be explored and (shh) exploited using robots. And is trying to get the message across to people who want the glory days of Apollo all over again that the place for humans in the space exploration loop are in locations where ROVs fear to tread. I.e. where comms latency and chaotic conditions prevail.

And the real reason for American Adventures in Antarctica? Byrd! But let’s not go there.

The other issue I have is a broader one that leaves me wondering why we do not just bite the bullet and develop the infrastructure that gets us to and from LEO reliably and relatively cheaply. Infrastructure ain’t sexy but it is necessary. We could then tailor our LEO access vehicles to just one task and not many. as we do with current launch vehicles. For instance we could have one rocket that does nothing but lift cargo to a specific LEO and one that just takes people to that same LEO and back as necessary. Given that we can then build whatever we want to in LEO and more importantly we can develop the ships and spacecraft that can go elsewhere. Fuel depots are then just one part of a larger infrastructure.

As for diving into strange gravity wells; I guess we’ll do it sooner or later but they do add a level of complexity to programs that is not necessarily warranted at the moment, especially if an atmosphere is involved

Of course, this is logical and I have very carefully avoided things like markets and money. Just want to see if we can get an exploration or exploitation philosophy in place first that most people can buy into.