Stanley Kurtz has responded to my response to his column.

I want to clarify. This happens often, and it’s forgivable in his case, because he’s probably read very little of my writing and is working from a small sample, but I don’t advocate a “libertarian” approach to space, if by that one means no government funding or involvement. (Other people have less of an excuse for continual oversimplification and misstatement of my positions.)

I would consider such an approach preferable to the current one, but certainly not optimal in terms of opening that frontier. History indicates that governments working intelligently (and often unintelligently) with private interests have always opened new frontiers, and space will be no different in that regard. My position is that the balance of our current approach, which is more socialistic and state-enterprise than even the Soviet Union was (they had more competition among their design bureaus than we do among our overconsolidated aerospace contractors) has to be amended, not that government has no role.

I’m simultaneously thrilled to see so much public discussion of space issues, and (again, not to single out Stanley, or even include him in this group) so much ignorance of the fundamentals, and repetition of flawed and failed arguments about it, which is why I’ll continue to blog on the subject as events develop and I have time.

But once more, the issue isn’t space activities versus none, or NASA versus private industry or no one, or robots versus people, or moon versus Mars–we have to frame this discussion in terms of what we’re trying to accomplish, and that goes beyond “science,” “exploration,” and “missions.” Until we’ve done so (and hopefully reached some sort of national consensus on that–something that hasn’t occurred since the early sixties), the prospects for useful discussion, or fruitful policy output, remain bleak.