Do you support public space exploration?

[politicallefty]

Yes, absolutely. It is a huge priority for me. We should move quickly to have a permanent settlement on the moon, Mars, and at least begin to explore Jupter's moons (particularly Europa and its possible subsurface ocean).

[politicallefty]

If by public, you mean government, and if by space exploration, you mean manned space missions, then no.  As far as actual useful science, then for the foreseeable future we get more bang from the buck from unmanned missions.  While it would be nice to put a self-sustaining colony on Mars, I don't see the political will existing to do that.  (Especially not in the most cost effective way as it would require accepting a Mars with a radically different social structure.)

I don't agree with your pessimism when it comes to space exploration, but I understand your concerns. Personally, I think we should be using both manned and unmanned missions. I don't think political will should inhibit exploration. It was President Kennedy in 1961 that proposed we set foot on the moon by the end of the decade. We did so in July 1969. If President Obama or our next President proposed a manned mission to Mars within 10 years, I have no doubt whatsoever that we could do it. (To be honest, I don't think we should send people for the sake of doing so. If and when we do it, we should be establishing a permanent settlement.) Ideally, though, I think it'd be best that a permanent Mars settlement be a multinational effort among the great powers (i.e. US, UK, France, Russia, China, etc).

[politicallefty]

Kennedy made his pledge to put a man on the moon in an entirely military context. The Cold War was at its height: in 1957 the USSR scared the USA stiff when Sputnik beeped overhead every 90 minutes and in 1960 the USSR shot down our high altitude U2 spy plane and paraded the pilot and aircraft to show that the US was systematically invading the airspace of the USSR for espionage. Like the public support for a military response to 9/11, the public supported the space race as part of an attempt to recover military dominance atop the atmosphere.

Without a similarly compelling reason, I don't see how any president gets the public behind an all-out manned mission. I think a modest increase is the best that can be sold to the public.

I know exactly what you're saying. I am under no illusions that our space program in the 60s was nothing more than another Cold War fight against the Soviet Union. That doesn't make it any less exceptional than it was. Space exploration is one of the most vital programs we have as a species. I believe it is vital that we soon become an interplanetary species for the first time. It will happen eventually and I hope it happens soon. A multinational effort would be preferable, but I cannot say I would be opposed to withdrawing from the Outer Space Treaty and placing NASA (at least partially) under the jurisdiction of the DOD. I think we could all rest assured that under that paradigm, NASA would get all the money it could ever want.

Realistically, I think we should focus on a permanent human settlement on Mars within 10 years (by the end of the 2020s at the absolute latest). I'm certain we can do it. I support full government action as well as public-private partnerships for the effort. I think a secondary manned effort should be to establish a permanent settlement on the moon as well, although it is a lesser priority than Mars. As for unmanned missions, I believe we should continue what we are doing. However, I would like to see very rapid movement on an unmanned mission to Europa to drill beneath the surface and send a probe to its probable subsurface ocean. The possibility that we find active life on Europa would be one of the biggest days in history (second only to perhaps interacting with actual extraterrestrial intelligent life).

[politicallefty]

I don't mean all states need flight centers, per se, just that I like to see the manufacturing for a space program used towads revitalize struggling areas-particularly in the Rust Belt.

To be fair, it does make more sense to build closer to where you're going to utilize said product. (And, if I remember correctly, Boeing has a huge production facility in Everett.) You're thinking bigger scale in terms of large public works projects and the like. I think space exploration can and should be part of that. If I had my way, NASA's budget would be something along the lines of $100-200 billion. If that involved moving some money from the DOD, so be it. To be honest, I think that could be one of the most acceptable ways to reduce the defense budget while advancing all of humanity. I'm sure many defense contractors could easily move from military-based operations to space-oriented operations.