Below is an excerpt from something I posted in 2003 to an Slashdot article on "Jeff Bezos' Shot At Space": https://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=62113&cid=58211...

While it is excellent to see multiple billionaires pursuing cheap access to space (CATS), this seems like a problem that will be much easier to solve as new materials and processes come along (diamondoid jet nozzles, fusion, etc.) in the near future. Several of these entrepreneurs are of course already using newer materials and processes (composites, active dynamics, small ground crews augmented by fancy computers and software) relative to what NASA is stuck with in maintaining an aging Shuttle.
While I would never say such innovative effort is wasted, it would seem that launch technologies, while sexy, might really deserve somewhat lower priorities than the issue of what to do when we are in space. The fact is, we can launch people now, and relatively off-the-shelf technology (e.g. Ariane or Saturn V equivalent rockets) if manufactured in large quantities are probably Cheap-enough Access To Space for the next ten to twenty years (until nano-tech makes far better launch systems possible) especially if we are willing to accept 5% human casualties for launch (which is probably a far lower casualty rate than most human settlement travel activities historically).

There is also an issue of focus -- people focus on reusable vehicles, but the reality is that it is so costly to get things into space that there is not much point in returning either people or equipment after they have been launched. At best, Apollo era reentry capsules for people who want to come back to earth are good enough. For example, the space shuttle costs so much to launch relative to its production cost it should really be left in orbit as usable equipment (since anything in orbit is worth its weight in gold), and people returned in a small capsule if at all. Even if launch costs are greatly reduced, I think that a general outward trend of humanity will still reflect some of this economics (short of a space elevator). For example, in the USA, most people who went "West" during the 1800s probably never came back East.

So where is a key area of research that should be a priority among NASA and Billionaires, but is not heavily pursued? The issue is what to do in space once you have gotten there. Because if there is a reason to be in space, then people and collectives will work to get there. And the reality is, that right now, if we could get there, there is nothing to do there short of look around and come back. And if that were the case, Space would not deserve much more investment than say tourism to Mt. Everest. The reality is that we don't know how to support human life in space -- in large part because we have only spent a pittance on thinking about that issue systematically compared to the issues of CATS and Planetary Exploration. Frankly, while we support human life on earth, we have very little meta-knowledge formally about how to do even that. And, most of figuring out how to support human life in space at a nuts and bolts level requires non-sexy activities like sitting around and staring out the window, talking, sending emails, building databases, building software tools, building some small physical prototypes on tabletops and outdoors, and just plain thinking (the hard stuff). This is all the preparation needed for the spiritual voyage into the (physical) heavens. Biosphere II was an excellent start in some ways, although the science mission was a bit dodgy at first and it seems Columbia (the recipient) seems about to abandon that effort for cost reasons --- and in any case, Biosphere II focuses on the wrong question -- we know biospheres can work and replicate (although scale is an issue) -- what we don't know is how to replicate the mechanical infrastructure (e.g. glass pane making machinery) behind them. A lot more money has gone into studying ecosystem food webs than industrial ecologies of pipe webs and assembly line webs (and frankly, a lot of people don't want their "proprietary" manufacturing processes studied or gossiped about by academics.)

Almost everything proposed as a reason to launch into space doesn't make sense, as much as people have touted various suggestions. The closest might be He3 mining for aneutronic fusion if we otherwise had that technology, but even that issues (energy) is probably more easily solved through conservation, energy efficiency (e.g. R60+ home insulation), and photovoltaic and wind etc. alternate energy modes (which are rapidly proving cost effective for many applications, and will be only more so with new processes and materials over the next twenty years). Asteroid mining turns out to not be that useful, since recycling is a much better idea. Zero gravity turns out to not be so valuable after all for manufacturing, since most of the processes can be done on earth, or alternative materials used. And so on for various other issues.

Exploration is noble and important as a long-term spiritual quest, but it is a dubious priority in the short term considering how much ground based telescopes can do quickly on earth, how valuable cheap robot probes are, and how we are already slaughtering the other terrestrial intelligences (Muslims, Aborigines, elephants) and extraterrestrial intelligences (whales, octopods, etc.) we know of without much concern or attempt to communicate and pursue any sort of cosmic brotherhood.

The only really sensible thing to do in space is to live there under various social and technical systems. People like Freeman Dyson, Gerard K. O'Neill, and Marshall T. Savage and many others have discussed these issues. We aren't able to pursue this because we don't know much about how to support human life on earth. We have little understanding of the Comprehensive Anticipatory Design Science Buckminster Fuller proposed back in the 1930s or so. Economics is a multi-trillion dollar joke, with economists having about zero knowledge on how technical economies really work or develop (otherwise, why have no developing nations left that category in one hundred years?) We need to better understand how life is supported on earth both biologically and technically so that we can replicate it out there, and so we can then use asteroid resources, sunlight, and empty space to support quadrillions of conscious souls pursuing diverse ends in some sorts of diverse collaborations (such as J.D. Bernal proposed in the 1920s). [See also NASA dreams under Carter: http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/ ]

As a bonus, once some people live in space, mine asteroids for their own purposes, capture solar energy for their own purposes, use self-replicating manufacturing systems for their own purposes, then CATS really becomes CATE (Cheap Access To Earth) and for spacers who might be 1000X more wealthy than groundhogs in terms of materials and energy and innovation and cooperation, CATE would be easy, and CATS then piggybacks as a slight imbalance in CATE tourism (although why most spacers would want to go anywhere near a gravity well would probably be a deep psychological question with profound moral overtones like "spacer's burden" and all that rot).

So, while it is great to see all these billionaires pursuing CATS, it would be great to see more people pursuing DOGS (Design Of Great Settlements). Since NASA is stuck running an obsolete space ferry it has little attention left over for DOGS. Since Billionaries are doing the sexy CATS stuff, that leaves the rest of us to go to the DOGS.

And disclaimer: DOGS is essentially what I am working on with the Pointrel Foundation and related activities, but unlike Jeff Bezos (a sort-of classmate from Princeton -- Hi Jeff!) what I am working on with just my own spare time (not being a billionaire, and frankly, realizing even a billion bucks is not even a bone to throw to the DOGS) is how that issue of what to do if we got into space could be pursued the same way Debian GNU/Linux is pursued. And, I find, when you pursue such a space settlement design science in the right spirit, the work is also immediately applicable on Earth as sustainable technology (such as our garden simulator -- intended to help people grow food wherever in the cosmos they live). My wife and I published a paper on how an open source / free software collaboration style approaches could be used to make DOGS happen in the 2001 Space Studies Institute symposium on Space Manufacturing and Space Settlement. ... The OSCOMAK site http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/oscomak/ is a much earlier vision along these lines [and includes a link to that 2001 paper]...