Hello, have you met the Republican wingnuts on the House Science Committee? They include: Paul Broun, who has told supporters that evolution and the big bang theory "are lies straight from the pit of hell," and Dana Rorhabacher, who once suggested that temperature fluctuations on earth millions of years ago can be traced to
I believe the main purpose of this particular NASA proposal is to gain some experience with a long-term deep-space manned mission (and maybe to get a little planetary-asteroid science done on the side).
What the folks at NASA know, but the House GOP obviously doesn&#039;t, is that a manned mission to Mars would be a vastly different experience from either a tour on the ISS or a three-day trip to the Moon. The <i>point</i> of the project is the manned mission. The reason for the asteroid is to give them something to do while they&#039;re out there.
While I appreciate your general point, your factor of 10,000 is off by one or three orders of magnitude. Most of our modern robot explorers cost upwards of $100M, because they go further and/or are more capable than our earlier robot explorers.
The rejected NASA plan would have allowed a golf ball to be hit off an asteroid for probably under $2B, so a factor of 20. Now, if you insist on Mars as the next available ungolfed world, I suppose we could be looking at $100B, so the factor would be around 1,000.
The entirely rational side of my brain is well aware of the fact that unmanned spaceflight is by far the most economical and efficient (not to say safest) way to conduct research in space. The only unarguably valid use of manned missions is to perform maintenance or repair on orbital installations, and within a few years remotely-operated devices may well be able to take over even that task.
The less rational hemisphere is still stirred by the idea of human exploration. While I am thoroughly awed by Curiosity and the magnificent job done by its designers and operations team, I have to admit that the emotional impact (and I was on the livestream well into the night) was nowhere near what I experienced watching Neil and Buzz bouncing pointlessly on the moon.
I&#039;d like to think that we (the human race) could devote a couple hundredths of a per cent of the World Domestic Product to human exploration. I know this is a First World viewpoint, but it is how I feel. As it happens, I would be just as happy if we invested in exploring the ocean depths (well, initially shallows). But my impression is that most others who feel an urge to support exploration are thinking upward and outward.
I am what you might call a traditionalist concerning humans in space. I don&#039;t agree with the GOP nutballs, but I also don&#039;t agree with the slightly vacuous Obama roadmap. If we are serious about putting humans in space the first thing to do is to construct a proper space station, with a proper earth to orbit transportation capability. The second thing would be to send a number of probes, and possibly a few manned missions, from orbit to the Moon, to investigate whether or not there are usable quantities of metal ores available.
If the answer was yes, the next step would be to establish mining and refining operations, and to boost the refined metals to the L5 point, where they would be used to construct another proper station. And, from L5, it would be possible, eventually, to launch an expedition to Mars using ion drive.
If the answer was no, it would probably set the limits of human exploration of space, absent a new technology. If everything had to be lifted from Earth, it would be hard to justify a station at L5, and if there were no exploitable resources on Luna, it would be impossible to justify a permanent base. It might still be possible to put together a Mars expedition from low orbit, but it would probably have to be an Apollo-style one-shot, or a KSR-style one-way trip.
In either case, we&#039;re talking about a project that would run over decades. Thrilled as I was by the Apollo missions, they were the wrong way to go. If we had instead worked on the proper space station, et al, would by now have that station, and either have a station on the Moon and one at L5, or know that that wasn&#039;t gonna happen. We might already have sent some folks Mars-ward, either one-way or round-trip.
Sanity check: I know none of this shit is going to happen in my remaining lifetime. The only reason the Apollo program happened was that it was a dick-measuring contest with the USSR. Maybe in thirty years the Chinese will have a dick-measuring contest with somebody (maybe the US), and who knows? But I doubt that any country will ever elect the steady, building block approach.
Maybe we&#039;ll look into the oceans.
/rant off
Frankly, if this option turned out not to exist, I
Sure, GOP, the <em>seventh</em> moon landing would create so many more &quot;bragging rights&quot; than the <em>first</em> asteroid capture.
Also, what kind of morons would use a large moon with significant gravity and no indigenous fuel source as a staging post for a Mars mission? Oh that&#039;s right, Goobers. Say, you know what would make a much better staging post for a Mars mission? An asteroid.
The Saturn V was the best penis substitute EVAH.
I believe the main purpose of this particular NASA proposal is to gain some experience with a long-term deep-space manned mission (and maybe to get a little planetary-asteroid science done on the side).
What the folks at NASA know, but the House GOP obviously doesn&#039;t, is that a manned mission to Mars would be a vastly different experience from either a tour on the ISS or a three-day trip to the Moon. The <i>point</i> of the project is the manned mission. The reason for the asteroid is to give them something to do while they&#039;re out there.
While I appreciate your general point, your factor of 10,000 is off by one or three orders of magnitude. Most of our modern robot explorers cost upwards of $100M, because they go further and/or are more capable than our earlier robot explorers.
The rejected NASA plan would have allowed a golf ball to be hit off an asteroid for probably under $2B, so a factor of 20. Now, if you insist on Mars as the next available ungolfed world, I suppose we could be looking at $100B, so the factor would be around 1,000.
Or, just spitballing here, the L5 point.
The entirely rational side of my brain is well aware of the fact that unmanned spaceflight is by far the most economical and efficient (not to say safest) way to conduct research in space. The only unarguably valid use of manned missions is to perform maintenance or repair on orbital installations, and within a few years remotely-operated devices may well be able to take over even that task.
The less rational hemisphere is still stirred by the idea of human exploration. While I am thoroughly awed by Curiosity and the magnificent job done by its designers and operations team, I have to admit that the emotional impact (and I was on the livestream well into the night) was nowhere near what I experienced watching Neil and Buzz bouncing pointlessly on the moon.
I&#039;d like to think that we (the human race) could devote a couple hundredths of a per cent of the World Domestic Product to human exploration. I know this is a First World viewpoint, but it is how I feel. As it happens, I would be just as happy if we invested in exploring the ocean depths (well, initially shallows). But my impression is that most others who feel an urge to support exploration are thinking upward and outward.
I am what you might call a traditionalist concerning humans in space. I don&#039;t agree with the GOP nutballs, but I also don&#039;t agree with the slightly vacuous Obama roadmap. If we are serious about putting humans in space the first thing to do is to construct a proper space station, with a proper earth to orbit transportation capability. The second thing would be to send a number of probes, and possibly a few manned missions, from orbit to the Moon, to investigate whether or not there are usable quantities of metal ores available.
If the answer was yes, the next step would be to establish mining and refining operations, and to boost the refined metals to the L5 point, where they would be used to construct another proper station. And, from L5, it would be possible, eventually, to launch an expedition to Mars using ion drive.
If the answer was no, it would probably set the limits of human exploration of space, absent a new technology. If everything had to be lifted from Earth, it would be hard to justify a station at L5, and if there were no exploitable resources on Luna, it would be impossible to justify a permanent base. It might still be possible to put together a Mars expedition from low orbit, but it would probably have to be an Apollo-style one-shot, or a KSR-style one-way trip.
In either case, we&#039;re talking about a project that would run over decades. Thrilled as I was by the Apollo missions, they were the wrong way to go. If we had instead worked on the proper space station, et al, would by now have that station, and either have a station on the Moon and one at L5, or know that that wasn&#039;t gonna happen. We might already have sent some folks Mars-ward, either one-way or round-trip.
Sanity check: I know none of this shit is going to happen in my remaining lifetime. The only reason the Apollo program happened was that it was a dick-measuring contest with the USSR. Maybe in thirty years the Chinese will have a dick-measuring contest with somebody (maybe the US), and who knows? But I doubt that any country will ever elect the steady, building block approach.
Maybe we&#039;ll look into the oceans.
/rant off
Frankly, if this option turned out not to exist, I
America Drinks and Goes Home
Or even an asteroid at the Lagrange.
(I take you mean earth-moon L5, staying below 1/25th of the moon&#039;s mass isn&#039;t an issue and 1 million years of stability is plenty)
sounds like somebody is holding out for a jetpak.
Indeed. My apologies to those with 3rd grade or better educations everywhere.
The inflatables take up much less room on a spacecraft.
Sure, GOP, the <em>seventh</em> moon landing would create so many more &quot;bragging rights&quot; than the <em>first</em> asteroid capture.
Also, what kind of morons would use a large moon with significant gravity and no indigenous fuel source as a staging post for a Mars mission? Oh that&#039;s right, Goobers. Say, you know what would make a much better staging post for a Mars mission? An asteroid.
Just tell &#039;em we&#039;re going to put fricking lasers on it, and they&#039;ll be all in favor.
Turker jerbs!
Was he calling from within a can, and did he also inquire whether their refrigerator was running?
I&#039;m sure the Sierra Club would be happy to put pen to paper.
All the teachers could save us by shooting it to pieces!