The idiocy of this article is in the title itself. I haven't actually even bothered to read the rest, because given such a false premise, it's pointless.

How do we get them out of this futile rut in their thinking?

The problem is that no one has bothered to tell people that our space program is about anything but exploration.

However, if we were resolved that any space program should have as it's driving goal the spread of human civilization beyond the Earth, then everything else would follow.

I have a question Rand. Why is this idiocy? It's a legitimate question that was raised as a direct result of the Challenger and Colombia disasters. When we want to difuse bombs or search for biological chemicals nowadays, we can use a disposable, piece of metal that can easily be rebuilt more than a human life. Once we determine that the process is safe for humans then we can use human astronauts. I think this is a very logical argument.

Thomas, you are making the assumption that everyone agrees with that being the purpose of America in space. Personally I could give a flying leap about that kind of stuff since its just as easily doable on the planet. IMHO, the goal should be getting large numbers of humans into space permanently and in a economically self sustaining way. If you want to do your kind of science when you get there then that's your business. I personally would like to open up a pizza and beer joint on a space station, something that robots just can't do....

Thomas, it's only a logical argument if you accept the premise that the only reason we have a space program is for science and exploration. I don't accept that premise, thus the argument falls apart.

BTW, after looking around I found Mr. Stenger's email address: Richard.Stenger@turner.com. I sent him a synopsis of the discussions and links to the important blogs...

NASA can't even come to grips with it's own sense of purpose much less explaining to the public why it's important to into space.

Better grit your teeth and read that article, Rand. It's not as stupid as the headline implies. Answering your question means wading through a lot of this stuff to understand the bad ideas in people's heads so that we can replace them with good ones.

Right now, I'd say that the needs are: 1) split the unitary idea of "space exploration" most people hold into several categories, and 2) emphasize that these are complementary activities, not either/or.

I'll try to comment more on this over on Arcturus sometime soon.

It still seems to me that Gene Roddenberry at least had an inkling of the way to get us into space. The premise of the first Star Trek series was pure exploration, which inevitably led to alliances with friendly sentient beings, etc. etc. etc. But, that wasn't the first mission in space.
According to the "Enterprise" back-story, humans were in space on cargo transports (business and economy) and colonizing the Moon and building orbiting assembly docks before they built a vehicle whose sole purpose was to "Go out there and see what we could find." I believe it took 50-100 years after "meeting the vulcans" before they "got a Warp 5 engine" to make it feasible
Now, I know it's dangerous to get mired in the fantasy world of television, but it still seems to me that this is still a valid theory of how to get into space. Space-based businesses such as asteroid mining and space tourism, once started, will eventually outgrow their britches. And then those businesses will provide their own funding to "take it to the next step" to keep ahead of their competitors. Whether that means new methods of mining asteroids, new methods of finding valuable resources, or a space hotel "farther in space than anyone else", is up to the business owners.
I'd like to be one of those businessmen some day. Because humanity thriving off this planet is something I'd like to see in my lifetime.