Most of your post is about visiting planets and exploring the solar system, but you close witha comment about disrupting science communication. What aspects of science communication are you referring to?
The fact that missions like Cassini, Kepler etc. have to fight to keep the lights on is IMHO testament to the fact that we've failed in communicating their value to society. I try to post stuff on my blog [1] to engage people in the wonders of space science and exploration: it doesn't feel effective though. Someone that figures out how to fully convey the value of missions like New Horizons to the public deserves a serious pat on the back.
[1] http://kepler.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&Ne...
You can't argue with the results though; Over a thousand planets discovered with another four thousand candidates. I'm not sure why we don't have multiple Kepler-like missions running simultaneously to map out our entire section of the Milky Way.
I see a small / niche market in space tourism; Virgin Intergalactic is probably going to get on there. But it'll be limited to those that can shell out 100K for it.
There was some talk about a company a few years back that wanted to mine asteroids; I personally think that's science fiction and won't be a profitable endeavour, but, if I'm wrong, it'll unleash a new kind of corporate space race.
I think it can go very fast if there's enough money to be made. As it stands though, besides satellites, there is nothing to be had.
Of course going into space is so expensive and so few of us would make the cut as astronauts that hardly anyone realistically expects to become a space explorer, but we would like to live vicariously through other space explorers, but this isn't possible if our explorers never go anywhere. I think the reason people get so wrapped up in the story of the Mars rovers and the Rosetta/Philae mission was that those probes are the most relateable things since people walked on the Moon in the 1970s.
Really, I think we should be doing manned Moon missions regularly. People point out that there's nothing on the Moon that we want, which is sort of true (although we've learned so much since the last time we went that we should reconsider that angle) but that's a dreadfully consumerist mindset. The Moon is a (relatively) accessible destination that we could use as a proving ground for interplanetary exploration techniques. But more importantly, making regular visits or having a permanent outpost there gives people something to project their imaginations onto (including their political and technological imagination). I have a small collection of old newspapers and my favorite is one published the day after the first Moon landing with the simple headline 'Men on Moon'. Reading it still gives me a shiver of excitement, followed by disappointment that we abandoned Moon exploration by the mid 1970s.
One often-forgotten detail of the Moon landing was that at the time there was a Russian observer spacecraft orbiting the Moon, and it dropped down to within 10 miles of the surface at the time of the landing (presumably to observe what the Americans were up to). I saw Neil DeGrasse Tyson on Charlie Rose last week and he was joking that his favorite daydream is meeting the Chinese President at a conference and persuading him to leak a fake memo saying China aims to land a man on Mars, which would galvanize the American body politic back into serious investment in space. Sad but true.
You can be the best speaker in the world, but you'll still only end up communicating to a small sliver of the average people.
I think changing the cultural attitudes towards science will do far more good in the long run, but it's very difficult. Ultimately, I think science isn't loved because it's slow, difficult, and filled with probablistic truth that will likely change in a few years.
This compares poorly to the easily marketable absolute truths that fill most people's days. The worst of science reporting happens when reporters try to make science fit into this mold.
If you have a passion about anything at all, good for you. Preaching its importance to the world at large means very little to those who don't share your interest. You might introduce a few new people to a topic which they will then grow into themselves, but the majority of your words will fall of deaf ears.
Fanatics of science are especially prone to this problem, because of this idea that it's all based on facts and improving life, and so surely every single damn person on the planet HAS TO CARE.
Not to mention that the real science buffs typically can't even begin to understand that _not everyone thinks the way they do_. Brainy people tend to think everyone else alive must be as curious and obsessed with details about every aspect of life. You know what, some people are very happy living without daily intellectual bombardment.