Jeff Foust asks a question (scroll down about thirty comments):

...should settlement be an explicit goal of the space agency, with programs specifically tailored to that, or should settlement be instead a commercial initiative that is either an outgrowth of, or even completely independent from, government space efforts?

I've some thoughts on that, but no time to put them down right now. The comments section is open, however.

Cross posted at space politics:

I am not confident that the modern nation-state is well suited to be the lead actor in permanent settlement. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 for example creates very real issues concerning claims of soveriegnty over celestial locations. But to withdraw from the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 will require tremendous persuasion of the Washington DC powers that be.

That said, the US Congress can and should help facilitate space settlement by people who hold in their hearts the Enlightenment ideals that were written down in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution of 1787. Mike Griffin, by the way, has expressed similar ideas.

England has plainly benefited from having the US as an ally (shared language and political philosophies) even though Britain asserts no claim of soverignty over US territory. Likewise the US government can and should facilitate the settlement of space by people with American values.

Commercial operations and making money in space will be essential to permanent settlement. Tax revenues will always be woefully insufficient to fund settlement. But making money in space via free enterprise is part of the "how" not the "why" for space settlement.

My own thought is that religious groups might make ideal candidates to sponsor the first permanent settlements and I believe that to the extent such groups reflect core American values, the US government should facilitate such efforts.

A religous sponsored settlement peopled by folks holding American values in their hearts might be an easy route to by-pass the Outer Space Treaty. The US renounces any legal jurisdiction over the colony, confident that the colonists will retain loyalty to the US regardless of the legal technicalities.

The federal government has a responsibility to ensure the prosperity of the United States. This responsibility does not mean that it should undertake all efforts designed to strengthen and invest in the nation's future health. Indeed, this is discouraged and in many instances prevented by law. However, it does mean it is best suited, as representative of the people of the United States, to develop a policy that brings together all national assets to bear when it comes to ensuring national prosperity.

Ensuring national prosperity covers all people and segments of the nation's current and future capabilities, ranging from economic power, national security power, and so on.

It is for this reason that I think the president, as chief executive, should have announced a national economic development plan for space. Such a plan would necessarily span many decades, perhaps even a century or more, and represent a strategy of investment. The responsiblities and roles of each space sector would be spelled out, but it would be made clear that partnerships are critical to success.

The plan would also recognize that commerce will likely represent the bulk of human and robotic activity in space across the long-term, but that the government will play a crucial role in high-tech, high-cost RDT&E and infrastructure development. It would also play a critical (and obvious) role in the establishment of laws and regulations designed to protect the rights of citizens, gather taxes, and other aspects provided for by law. Of course, its role in protecting national security is understood, though this will require further definition as non-terrestrial activities ramp up.

The government must also play a key role in promoting space activity via the Department of Commerce, and Congress must provide laws designed to enable and facilitate new industries and processes related to establishing a growing American society in space.

It is much easier to define the role of the public sector in space than it is to characterize the nature of commercial activity in space. As we see across the nation today, commercial activity is such a dynamic force that trying to forecast its nature, say, 100 years ago simply wouldn't have been possible. But is it clear that the government should establish its recognition that commercial activity will eventually dominate human and robotic activity in space, and that it will do whatever it can, according to the law, to make this possible.

Agh. As I read my post above I find it is sloppy. Not enough time to correct or amplify...

Settlement should NOT be an explicit goal of any space agency. If we gave them that goal they'd spend tens or hundreds of billions to build an igloo on the Sea of Tranquility and say "Now what?"

The goal of any Space agency should be to do basic R&D, meet specific government needs (such as military sattelites), and share any technology they make in the process with the American private sector. They should also share their insights on what it takes to get to space with Congress so any regulations they feel the need to legislate will at least be semi-based in reality. This will promote an organic, low-cost, always-improving system. It creates an infinite series, to use Virginia Postrel's terms.