Except it was.

The rationale for HSF by the United States government in the 21st century was made in the 20th century by President Kennedy. It is as valid today as it was in 1960s: “We go into space because whatever mankind must undertake, free men must fully share.”

That’s it.

HSF is an instrument of politics; a means of projecting national policy– it’s political science, not rocket science that fuels it. Human spaceflight in this era projects geo-political influence, economic vigor and technical prowess, around the globe for the nation(s) that choose to do it. And it plays out on a stage with high visibility that demands performance with engineering excellence from all the actors. The bounties from which are reaped by the participating nation(s) on Earth. That’s why government’s do it.

It is space projects of scale that matter. Which is why, in the long run, short-sighted forays by deep-pocketed NewSpace hobbyists do not.

HSF is, in effect, a loss leader in this era for projecting national power and nurturing a perception of leadership. And in politics, perception is a reality.

Which makes a drive to establishing a permanent foothold on Luna, seen around the world by all peoples in their evening skies, is all the more imperative for the United States in this century.

Commercial is welcome to come along for the ride– to supplement and service an exploration/exploitation outpost on Luna, established by governent(s). But commercial will never lead the way in establishing such a facility on their own. The largess of the capital requirements involved coupled w/t low to no ROI prevents it; the very parameters of the market it is trying to create and service. That’s why governments do it. And will continue to do so. End of story.

Commercial HSF today ia still a paper project and ultimately, a dead end. LEO ibn 2013 is a ticket to no place, gonig in cierrcles, no where, fast.

Commerncial HSF had no future in 1961. And today, as a PRC rover is on its way to Luna, it has no future either. And citing anything Garver as a source for support does nothing to enhance that position. You might as well start quoting Newt Gingrich, ‘Moon President’ as well.

The future for HSF in this era- for space exploration and exploitation- is with govermnent space projects of scale. And the next logical step is a return to Luna, establishing a base and servicing same. And as usual, The United States will find itself in a position of reacting to events by other nations.

What Kenndy did was demonstrate that the establishment of goals for the space program rests with the leadership in the White House. That has not changed as Space X fizzles and the PRC, much to the astonishing chagrin of Oler and his like, launches a soft-landing rover to Luna— as part of their plans for a manned lunar effort, per NBC News. It is another Sputnik moment making Obama more akin to Ike, than JFK.

Do you have an intelligent critique of it, or is that it?

You’re arguing with a guy who thinks that LEO is in the ionosphere. See discussion in the Inspiration Mars thread. Don’t strain his brain by explaining “deep space”.

“The Moon IS in deep space!”

The definition I see for “deep space” is:

“The regions beyond the gravitational influence of Earth encompassing interplanetary, interstellar, and intergalactic space.”

Since the Moon is in orbit around the Earth, and obviously influenced by the Earth, then no, it’s not in deep space.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

“…you all can keep up the fallacious narrative of how a Heavy Lift rocket is not needed…”

Can you show us a funded government program that requires an HLV? Because until you can, then an HLV isn’t really needed, is it?

“I dare those commercial space cowboys…”

You are SO emotional, aren’t you? But those “commercial space cowboys” ideas of yours are just a bunch of fiction Chris.

What we really have are business people that are simply testing out new business models that involve doing things in space. You can dare them all you want, but they most likely ignore stupid challenges like yours because they are focused on building successful businesses. Like SpaceX with their SES-8 launch tomorrow, the Thaicom 6 launch next month, and the CRS-3 flight the month after that.

SpaceX is definitely too busy doing real launches to bother with your silly challenges.

“The reality is that our astronauts are doing far less important work, going into mere Low Earth Orbit, than they were doing forty years ago by voyaging to a distant world.”

40 years ago we were testing the boundaries of what we could do in 12 days while in space. Those 12 days don’t do much harm to the human body, and the amount of technology that is needed to keep someone alive is far less than what it takes to spend months in space.

Since we can’t afford a space program that relies on people only spending 12 days in space, or even 30 days in space, we need to figure out how to keep people alive and well for much longer periods of time – months and years.

We didn’t learn how to do that with Apollo or the Shuttle, but we are learning how to live and work for long periods of time on the ISS.

So if all you want to do is short “Flags & Footprints” type trips to space, then sure, we don’t need the ISS. But if we as a nation are going to learn how to live and work in space for long periods of time, then laboratories in space like the ISS are absolutely mandatory.

I think you should consider Virgin Galactic as the entity to back Chris, since all they plan to do is what you advocate for – quick trips to/from space. NASA doesn’t have the money, or charter, to do that.