Thank you for the clarification. I’m glad to hear that. But that’s NOT what you originally said.

“There are robotic missions that are more closely aligned with places we’ll go to first, but all of them build up our knowledge and capabilities.”

Ah, c’mon. We’re not going to send humans to Pluto for a century or two. Why not pack all those dollars for missions to Mercury and Pluto, and put them where we’re really going to go?? Your “long view” answers my question about JWST. Hey, we’re going to go to primeval galaxies someday, so best build up our knowledge and capabilities about them! The “long views” that pertain today are our efforts on ISS, not robotic missions to distant planets.

“They can’t even keep the government running, so I have no confidence they can articulate a meaningful policy that delineates what our HSF goals are for the next few decades. I think it will need to come from a President, but since this is not a big priority right now, it may take a while.”

That’s exactly right, and it’s why the days are dim for taxpayer-funded human space flight. We have a Congress that has a hard enough time just keeping the wheels on the bus, and a President who is too distracted to give human space flight any serious thought at all. It would take some imagination to have any confidence about federally funded human space flight these days.

“The way I parse it, robotic exploration (and, I suppose thereby science), has no “real reason” to you.”

You keep misinterpreting this. I do in fact see a value in doing science separate from HSF. It’s part of human nature to learn as much as we can about what surrounds us.

“As to reducing risk for human missions, that would seem to apply just to robotic missions to Mars and the Moon. Is Juno scouting out Jupiter for human visits?”

I take the long view. There are robotic missions that are more closely aligned with places we’ll go to first, but all of them build up our knowledge and capabilities.

“But Congress doesn’t know why, or isn’t willing to admit it.”

They can’t even keep the government running, so I have no confidence they can articulate a meaningful policy that delineates what our HSF goals are for the next few decades. I think it will need to come from a President, but since this is not a big priority right now, it may take a while.

No it isn’t. Please reread carefully. You said “We really don’t have a well known enough real reason for HSF, or even the robotic exploration stuff”, and then you went on to define robotic exploration as science. The way I parse it, robotic exploration (and, I suppose thereby science), has no “real reason” to you.

As to robotic exploration “Reducing risk for future human exploration missions” … yep, that’s that the HSF people say. No surprise. Fair to say that’s just one thing those machines do. Of course, they used to say that HSF was about doing better science. In fact, that’s just one thing those blokes do. As to reducing risk for human missions, that would seem to apply just to robotic missions to Mars and the Moon. Is Juno scouting out Jupiter for human visits? Is Messenger looking for comfortably shady places on Mercury? Of course, New Horizons well tell human Pluto pioneers how heavy a coat to wear, no? Dare we speculate what risk JWST is looking to reduce?

“but we also don’t know WHY people will want to expand out into space.”

PRECISELY right. And that’s the whole banana. Lot’s of people think they know why. But Congress doesn’t know why, or isn’t willing to admit it.

“Yes, actually we do have a really good reason for the robotic stuff. Just read the Space Act. It’s about learning about the cosmos.”

And that is science, right? Isn’t that what I said?

“As to human space flight expanding the sphere of influence of humanity, what the hell do you think the robotic missions are doing?”

Reducing risk for future human exploration missions.

“So the value in harvesting space resources is what you can do with them in space.”

For now, yes. I’ve never argued that we would expand quickly out into space, but we also don’t know WHY people will want to expand out into space.

For instance, we already know that Bob Bigelow wants to create leasable space stations, Elon Musk wants to create a human colony on Mars, Golden Spike wants to operate tourist trips to the Moon, and that DSI and Planetary Resources think there is money to made by mining asteroids.

Will any of these endeavors succeed? I don’t know.

But I think eventually people will succeed in doing activities off Earth, and then resources off Earth will become more important.

When? If I knew then I’d be able to make money off of it, and I wouldn’t tell anyone. But as it turns out, I don’t know when, but I think it’s just a matter of time. But I do know that it will be sooner if the government collaborates with the private sector than if they don’t.

“I think that colonization and settlement are endeavors that should be considered, in a preserve-the-species kind of way.”

I’d like if our government was so far-thinking, but as you point out colonization may not lead to a “United States” on Mars and a nice steady ROI for the taxpayers who funded the whole thing. Because of that, I think the best approach is focusing instead on the near-term economic endeavors that provide near-term ROI for taxpayers, either directly or indirectly.

As to human space flight expanding the sphere of influence of humanity, what the hell do you think the robotic missions are doing? Who do you think sends those robotic missions? Who designs them? Who controls them? What HSF doing is expanding the sphere of influence of human flesh, which is slightly disgusting to think about. Those robots are extensions of our inquisitiveness if not extensions of our flesh.

As to extending our economic sphere of influence, it pretty much comes down to what there is to harvest. The solar system is largely made of what the Earth is made of (though if you like hydrogen and helium, there are better places to go). So the value in harvesting space resources is what you can do with them in space. So the argument is circular. You can expand our sphere of economic influence in order to expand our sphere of economic influence. If you want to mine resources in a hard place, just go undersea.

Opening up new frontiers has benefitted us because those new frontiers have been fine places to live. The Moon is not. Mars is not. How has Antarctica benefitted us? How has the Sahara Desert benefitted us? Let’s open up the “frontier” on the ocean floor. Sound good? Eh. I don’t see may people wanting to live there.

Sorry, but we have to do better than that.

I think that colonization and settlement are endeavors that should be considered, in a preserve-the-species kind of way. But I think everyone understands that a colony far out in the solar system, well separated from the Earth, won’t really preserve us for more than a few generations. A “United States” on Mars probably won’t last that long. Thank goodness Congress shows virtually no interest in doing that, at least since 1988 when a NASA Auth bill blathered about it to no evident effect.

“As a result, Congress is deathly afraid to question the value of human spaceflight as a geo-political instrument, because such skepticism would cut the legs off the justification for the whole enterprise.”

Fair enough. We really don’t have a well known enough real reason for HSF, or even the robotic exploration stuff.

I see robotic exploration as science, and human involvement as extending humanities sphere of influence.

No doubt there needs to be an ROI for the U.S. to justify sending humans out into space, and the non-apocalypitic version is that we’re extending our economic sphere beyond terra firma.

How does going to Mars do that? That does involve quite a few dots to connect humans traveling to Mars with some sort of payoff for the U.S. Taxpayer, and maybe that’s why no one has been able to make that argument?

But I think the simple way to explain it is to use the analogy from old, that opening up new frontiers has historically benefited us. And because of that (in my best Presidential voice), I would make it the goal of the United States to become a space faring nation, and to extend our economic sphere of influence out into space. And to enable that, I would direct the agencies of the government to actively support national and private efforts to do that. And unless it is necessary for national security interests, the U.S. Government is to guide and support private expansion to the fullest extent possible.

The “guide and support” part is important to me, since that means the government can act as an organizer and facilitator, which is what government can do well. But it keeps the focus on the economic benefits of expansion, which has to be realized by the private sector. If that means the expansion is slow, then so be it. But if Musk is trying to get to Mars, then the U.S. Government should be helping to some degree, even if it’s just to keep government from slowing down their efforts.

If the goal is economic, then it’s easier to see than “soft power”, which is too undefinable today.

My $0.02

As a result, Congress is deathly afraid to question the value of human spaceflight as a geo-political instrument, because such skepticism would cut the legs off the justification for the whole enterprise. While human spaceflight may still be about national pride and even entertainment, it isn’t clear that those things deserve major federal investment any more than do other sources of national pride and entertainment. Should Congress accept that cosmic settlement and colonization is a national priority (which they have not, thus far), the rationale for human spaceflight would become powerful and unarguable.

“When Dragon flies to LEO with humans on board, we can puff out our chests with soft power…”

No doubt, lot’s of pride. But beyond the Russians, and potential customers of our new commercial service, does anyone else care?

I mean, isn’t that the true measure of “soft power”, or any geo-political power, that being able to do something gives you influence beyond the direct impact you have?

Does Africa care if we have our own crew transportation system to LEO? Or Brazil? Does China even care, and if so, why?

Back in the Cold War, when nations were trying to figure out which alliance to ally with, things like space programs were used to help measure which country was “stronger”, or whatever measure they thought applied. I think the strength of our economy and companies is a better measure today, along with our educational system.

I don’t think much stock is put in how we spend money to send things to space…

That’s a fair question. Congress thinks it is. I don’t see what else it could be used for, and it certainly has a history as an effective instrument of geo-political power, long ago. Quite possibly it really isn’t an effective contemporary instrument of geo-political power, but since we have no explicit goals for human spaceflight now, saying that it is an effective instrument of geo-political power fills the bill. Whew! We have a goal! That is, the purpose of human spaceflight is as an instrument of geo-political power, but there is no evidence that it really works. Instruments sometimes don’t work. I never said it was an effective instrument.

“I guess the question is if not having to depend on another country for something you think is a key activity a sign of “an instrument of geo-political power”?”

I guess the answer is that depending on another country is seen by many as a sign of a lack of geo-political power. When Dragon flies to LEO with humans on board, we can puff out our chests with soft power and say to the Russians — there, we’re as good as you are now. Oooh, power! Just like what the Chinese will do if they send humans to the Moon. That power sure scares some people.

“That’s from the same Auth bill. National pride, as well as enhanced influence, relationships, and security is clearly a geo-political advantage.”

Yes, people throw around the words and think they have meaning. I’m looking for evidence that it does.

The Apollo program was pretty explicit, in that we had a specific goal to attain. We have no explicit goals right now, so again, other than waving our hands around and saying that HSF is “an instrument of geo-political power”, what evidence is there that it is?

“With the partnership on ISS, those pronouncements have to be made with some subtlety. But consider the painful wailing about not having our own human launchers, which of all our partners except Russia, only we wail about.”

If they are so subtle as to not be obvious, then maybe they don’t even exist?

As to not having our own human launchers, I guess the question is if not having to depend on another country for something you think is a key activity a sign of “an instrument of geo-political power”? Or is it just wanting to control your own destiny as well as creating new national industries for the obvious benefits they provide (employment, taxes, etc.)?

“I think we agree there, and we just have to figure out why our nation insists on being lazy.”

Lack of consensus, from all parties involved. That’s my guess. And if true, then it’s a hard one to solve. But I hope it is during my lifetime.