Consider these points 1. Most of the technology needed for spaceflight may be both developed and tested on the ground. 2. Therefore, the exploration of near pl

Consider these points 1. Most of the technology needed for spaceflight may be both developed and tested on the ground. 2. Therefore, the exploration of near planets without a solid technological base (and we don't have one, do the research: I mean the correlation between developed and required technology) has merely a sign value, and remains close to none practical use for scientists. 3. Spaceflight and exploration might be a great inspiration for the whole planet of aspiring space engineers, but even I, a space-geek, agree with your administration on this matter. This is not a time to inspire, this is a time to pull up some strings in the economy. And in the meanwhile a competitively set industry private or not might push the technology forward to earn the financing they long took for granted. Many people fail to separate two things: a) the process of evolving technology and exploring space; b) the process of putting people to orbit. Why do you think the space station will be trashed so soon? It has little to none value, but sucks the resources FROM the technology. So if we want to 'harvest' H_3 from the Moon surface, why do we need people up there? The fact is that we actually don't. Even modern robotics as simple as it is, may do most of the resource gathering job cheaply. While human presence and life-support will increase the cost and move this perspective even further into the future. All eyes are turned where there is a prospect of financial gain. Right now, the gain is negative because of the lacking technology that needs investment. That is exactly why we have 3-5 people in space and not a large colony of workers. We use more money on supporting those three, than on making ground for some larger operations. Where am I wrong?