All good points. I wouldn't try to disprove them, only try to explain those that seem to embody paradoxes.

There are many more people who want to settle than to explore, but I'd say that those aren't two separate groups; many people would want to follow the historical pattern of exploring then settling down. This is in a sense the ultimate satisfaction of settling--not just to move to a new place, but to have discovered it yourself and chosen your home site as the first in the wilderness. When you're the first, you get to put your name on the place. Explorer-settlers at the vanguard of the wave generally prosper more than the more timid folks who come later to live in the town, with your name on it, that you've prepared for them. This, BTW, is a variation of dtb's observation of the pattern during the Gold Rush. Those who went on ahead to build an infrastructure prospered, generally more than those who went to make a quick buck and go home. The first people to arrive are the "Renaissance Men" combining explorer, pioneer, builder, and entrepreneurs; specialization comes with time and population growth.

I think that in terms of a message that will engage lots of people, I'd go with that continuum of experience, to make sure that the connection is understood between the exploration we're thrilled to watch now, and the ultimate goal of settling the Solar System. Consider the popularity of the Web sites that "sell" land on Mars and the Moon. I hope their customers all understand that it's just a game, but it's obviously an engaging game for people. They typically get to engage in virtual exploration by browsing maps and imagery to pick a homestead, then get a little certificate to symbolism their settlement of Mars or the Moon. Lots of symbolism to that game.

I observed how human ingenuity can short-circuit long-range planning, and that's a good example you gave of underwater settlement. Why hasn't it happened? Well, I can't claim to know the answer for sure, but I could speculate that it's psychological, that portrayals of life underwater portray a world visibly different, in which you can never forget you're not in an atmosphere and that the water could drown or crush you. Life underwater looks cold. The environment of Mars may be just as deadly, and ironically much colder, but it doesn't look like it. In fact, the environment of Mars just happens to resemble Earth's last two significant frontiers in historical times, the American Southwest and the interior of Australia. That, I'd say, is why all the rational and technical arguments for going first to the Moon or building L5 habitats or going to the asteroids don't seem to sway people from their focus on Mars. Mars appeals to something deep in our souls, in the way that an undersea habitat or an orbiting can can never stir us.

This is the theme I keep coming back to: For something as big and momentous--and expensive--as the drive to explore space, human psychology and emotion emerge as significant factors that can sometimes overrule cold rational planning. It may make sense to go the Moon first or build undersea habitats, but so what? if people don't want to live in those places. If people are inspired by the thought of living on Mars, we go to Mars. Go with the flow of the gene pool, as I like to say.

Automation's another potential way to short-circuit exploration; good example of the commsats. There you go: If the argument is just economic or utilitarian, human ingenuity will find a way to do it faster, better, cheaper...which, for our purposes, unfortunately means stripping away the overhead of our hidden agenda of exploration. It doesn't work to hide our objectives behind the promise of profit; somebody will find a way to get the profit without following our agenda.

What can I say about ISS and the way people overlook its significance? NASA has the most incredible gift for making the most exciting adventure of our time look boring and bureaucratic. Yes, there they are, people living in space aboard a permanent settlement...and NASA PIO meat puppets drone on about spinoffs and profit from growing crystals in orbit and how many thousands of Earth observation images have been snapped....yawn...oh, excuse me, I almost fell asleep there.

This may sound corny, but maybe what ISS needs is something like "American Idol in Space". Hold a big flashy competition in which ordinary people compete for a tour of duty aboard ISS, with lots of publicity and nationwide voting lines (more people voted for the "American Idol" than voted in the last election). The winner, with much fanfare, would be sent up with video gear and an Internet connection to write a daily blog and produce a daily show about life aboard ISS. Ostensibly the shows might focus on some experiment or construction project, but the context would reinforce, every day, "I am living in space!", along with the important subtext "(and I am not a government employee!)".

However, it's a beautiful day here on Earth, and I think it's time I pried myself away from the computer and the Zone and go enjoy it.