Michael Griffin deflected criticism to the "vision for space exploration" lunar plans, by saying it wasn't about science or getting to mars, but about becoming a "space faring society." OK, I'll take the bait. What would be the most effective way to become a "space faring society?"

I think there are two large issues. One is to reduce the cost to get stuff to orbit and beyond. Second is to be able to "live off the land." Of course there is some symbiosis between these two items, in that if you reduce the cost of transport then accessing of off world resources may be profitable (worth it). Likewise if you can access off world resources at a certain cost(e.g. rocket fuel) then it may lower the cost of transport.

Several different tracks are being laid to reduce the cost to orbit. One is big government projects--we've seen how well that has gone. Frankly there is little incentive for big aerospace companies that currently make billions off of NASA inefficiency to change there ways. Having a monopoloy on cost plus multiple billion dollar projects leaves little reason anything other than protecting the turf of the "jobs program." Another is extremely low funded exotic alternatives, like the space elevator. Finally, there is the space tourism industry attempt to bootstrap profitable access to space by having wealthy individuals pay for rides.

Unless there is some amazing breakthrough (e.g. space elevator tether becomes technologically feasible), only the space tourism industry provides a feasible process. Once cash flow is developed there will be a natural incremental improvement of space vehicles to improve profits, capability, and the "tourist experience." Destinations will be built (e.g. Bigelow habitats) and the process to move tourism farther afield will begin (all with a profit motive!). This is really the only way to benefit from economy of scale as well, in contrast to "sorties" by NASA.

OK, now how do we go about "living off the land" to help defray the costs of solar system travel and colonies. Well, the very first step is to prospect the hell out of everything that is most accessible and feasible to utilize. It is pure fact that robotic probes are at least a 100 times more cost effective than manned probes for this purpose. The second step would be to actually develop the processes to access the resources for off world use. Once again, at least with our current state of manned costs to get off planet, I only see robotic manufacture as feasible.

Only if and when sufficient off world resources are available does it really become potentially reasonable to seed some colonies. OK, all the assumptions I've made I think are not only reasonable but absolutely necessary. Given these assumptions our best course is to 1)encourage the fledgling space tourism industry, and 2) a) build a bunch of robotic probes meant for prospecting b) further develop our robotic technology to make off world prospecting and resource access cheaper.

Timing is very important to not waste dollars. If you attempt to do things prematurely you potentially spend 10's or 100's of times what it would cost to do it later. NASA's current manned space efforts have fit into this category virtually from its inception but has gotten worse over time. Once you reduce costs and are able to better live off the land, then such things as artificial gravity (spinning space habitats), and radiation shielding become much more doable. If you sap money out of the fastest way to reduce these costs (our current manned program) then ultimately you actually slow the program down.

Pragmatically, just replacing humans with teleoperated robots for our lunar prospecting plans, would be a vast improvement over current plans. It woudl move the potential for resource access and cost reductions, probably decades ahead of where it is currently headed.