Mars and Asteroids are a waste of time

[bdewoody]

I still say that if we (read humanity not just the USA) are to have a long term manned prescence off planet then building a base on the moon is the only way to go regardless of the type of vehicles we build to get there. All these other wild ass ideas are just publicity stunts including Obama's plan.

 

[SpacexULA]

I still say that if we (read humanity not just the USA) are to have a long term manned prescence off planet then building a base on the moon is the only way to go regardless of the type of vehicles we build to get there. All these other wild ass ideas are just publicity stunts including Obama's plan.

That would be great but for 1 factor, gravity. The moon has a HUGE gravity well in comparison to every other solar object besides the planets. It's the 5th largest solar body in the inner solar system. It takes a huge amount of fuel to land, and another huge amount of fuel to take off.

IF ISRU is a workable idea (which has not been proven yet), then the ice from any asteroid would be many orders of magnitude cheaper than the moon, just as the moon would be cheaper than the earth.

The idea that once you climb out of a mine, the best way to get water is to then down a well is silly, drink from the puddles on the top of your gravity well.

Your idea's are not "wild ass ideas", neither are any of the others. All HSF is a publicity stunt, if it wasn't then there would be humans at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico trying to patch the well leak, not robots.

 

[JonClarke]

If we can't afford to establish a lunar base, we can't afford Mars OR asteroids.

An asteroid mission would cost less than going back to the Moon as you would not need to develop a lander.

Regular Mars missions are unlikely to be substantially more expensive than regular sortie missions to the Moon or a lunar station

I also agree with previous posts that the lunar resources would be priceless in supporting future efforts! In a practical sense, the environments are not that different.

Lunar resources are precieless to establish a lunar station. It will be a long time before they are going to be useful in helping people go elsewhere though, given the amount of infrastructrure on the Moon and in orbit that would be required to allow this.

 

[bdewoody]

If we can't afford to establish a lunar base, we can't afford Mars OR asteroids.

An asteroid mission would cost less than going back to the Moon as you would not need to develop a lander.

Regular Mars missions are unlikely to be substantially more expensive than regular sortie missions to the Moon or a lunar station

I also agree with previous posts that the lunar resources would be priceless in supporting future efforts! In a practical sense, the environments are not that different.

Lunar resources are precieless to establish a lunar station. It will be a long time before they are going to be useful in helping people go elsewhere though, given the amount of infrastructrure on the Moon and in orbit that would be required to allow this.

Are you kidding? A Mars mission won't be substantially more expensive than a moon mission? Just in fuel and food a Mars mission has to be an order of magnitude more expensive than a moon mission. Not to mention the safety factor and safety issues that a Mars mission brings that a moon mission doesn't.

Look I would like to see men on Mars before I die but I would rather see a base on the moon long before a stunt mission to Mars.

The likelyhood though is that the robotic people will win the battle and men in space will be history before too long. Those in charge now would rather not spend a nickel in space and instead spend that money on welfare and socialized medicine.

 

[JonClarke]

First of all Phobos has many of the same cost issues that Mars has. It requires enormous ships with advanced propulsion and a huge supply of consumables to keep the astronauts alive for the 1 year round trip. With a round trip time of only 10 days missions to the moon on the other hand could be done with far less supplies and employ far less massive spacecraft.

You don't need enormous spacecraft, advanced propulsion or a huge supply of consumables top go to Phobos or Deimos of Mars.

Secondly I disagree with Phobos being more attractive and inspiring.

Phobos is an unknown quantity, but it it is still an interesting place in its own right, and very accessible - more so than the lunar surface.

As far as the moon goes we know that it has extensive reserves of the materials we need.

Correction, it has some some potential reserves of some of materials we need.

It is way to far away to be used as a launching Earth satellites.

So is the Moon

It is way to far away for any potential military use.

So is the Moon

It is way to far away to be used for space tourism.

Space tourism is not the main reason to go.

Honestly how many people even know about it.

If people go there a lot more people will hear about it.

Any settlement or outpost we construct must be close enough to be useful to Earth in order to justify the investment.

Define "useful". Is abstract knowledge useful? Is resource potential useful?

The moon being only 5 days away is close enough to provide enormous benefits to the Earth both militarily and economically.

The Moon is useless militarily for the foreseeable future. The Moon also has no economic benefit for the near future. It is still worth going to though.

 

[halman]

To my mind, the most critical reason for selecting the Moon as the focus of our efforts in space, at least in the near term, has nothing to do with orbital mechanics, resources, or gravity wells. It is a result of the human mind associating more strongly with what it can see than with what it cannot. There is no more visible goal in space than the Moon, no simpler destination to explain to ignorant voters, no closer world with gravity.

I have pointed out the International Space Station to many people, and I can tell that most of them just kind of shrug it off, because all that they see is a point of light in the sky. (Obviously moving, but still just a point of light.) The Moon is a PLACE in their minds, or, at least it has the potential to be a place in their minds. If there were people up there living and working, 24/7, year in, year out, the impact on the consciousness of the average person would be profound, I am convinced. For the first time, they would be aware of somewhere besides the Earth, somewhere else other than HERE.

Nothing will stimulate interest in space exploration like a permanent base on the Moon. We could build cities on Mars, have thousands living on an asteroid, but they will still just be lights in the sky to most people. But the Moon is different, because you can say that someone is stationed near Tycho, or in the Sea of Rains, or at the south pole, (Is that the one on the top?) and people can look and SEE those places. Space will no longer be Star Wars, but the Wild Wild West all over again. "Why, hell, I could go there!" people will think, something which I can assure you most of them have never thought about Mars.

 

[kelvinzero]

Im a fan of robots, but certainly not as an excuse for humans to stay at home! Im hoping the opposite would be true.

These are the ways I think robots would help encourage people.
-- Doing basic science necessary for designing manned missions.
-- Teleoperation, which could be perfected on the moon without risking people, and then could encourage a (comparatively safe) manned mission to phobos to teleoperate robots on mars.
-- To land and set up infrastructure in advance in order to maximize the safety and effectiveness of a following manned mission.
-- To provide worthwhile missions that can justify the mass of sending multiple high mass but unmanned missions to gain confidence in the same landers that will be later used for people.
-- Once you have a large robotic infrastructure, the value of sending people just to repair these robots would be obvious.

However I think we have to move beyond asking whether robots or humans are better for science, and instead ask how science and robots and people can help us become a multi-world species. Sometimes robots are better for the job but obviously at some point we have to send people.

 

[Booban]

Good points Halman, but they are essentially about PR.

We've had people on the moon, and the interest for that dropped off very quickly. It should have led to even more inspiration and development of a moon base but it did not.

We need more than publicity stunts for space development. We need economics. Now Obama has pointed out that space investment has paid back 'pennies on the dollar'. Ok, fine, but put that in comparison to directly investing in more commercial technology research, like put all that money into making electric cars so that GM and Ford can compete against the Japanese and Chinese. How much higher return of investment would that be compared to a moon base and the economic spin offs that would generate?

They say space has brought us the microwave oven. Couldn't we have developed a microwave oven without sending a man to the moon? And who produces all these micro wave ovens nowadays? With all the investment NASA puts into aviation, Boeing is now second place behind Airbus. US barely has a foothold in the commercial launch market, almost all it's launches are military while other countries are making money launching satellites for private companies.

American economic dominance has been steadily eroding, and with it will go luxuries like space exploration and 11 Nimitz class carriers. Many people say NASA or govt. is not there to meddle in private companies. That attitude better change because no other country plays by that reasoning.

Most countries are geared pretty much to an economic war footing where the entire resources of the state is used in industrial espionage and economic development. Companies like GM need govt. meddling because frankly their CEO's are incompetent idiots. How often do you see an American car outside of the US or Europe? Almost NEVER. Because the US car companies have been LAZY catering to the large and easy American market for SUV's which nobody else buys! Except the Taliban but then they choose JAPANESE! Without a national strategy to push American CEO's they will still play it lazy and collect their golden parachute after 5 years and do the same thing at the next company.

Ok, went a bit off topic there, but the point is that unless that moon base is beaming down cheap micro wave solar energy to China for money nobody is going to support it.

 

[JonClarke]

Are you kidding? A Mars mission won't be substantially more expensive than a moon mission? Just in fuel and food a Mars mission has to be an order of magnitude more expensive than a moon mission.

Not kidding. Fuel - typical dV for a round trip to the Moon is 32 km/s. Of this 12 km/s is shed by atmospheric braking, leaving 20 km/s of propulsion. For Mars the round trip is typically 50 km/s of which 20 km/s can be shed by atmospheric braking, leaving 30 km/s for propulsion. That is 50% more than the Moon, not "an order of magnitude". And propellant is the cheapest commodity to launch. It is the spacecraft that costs.

Consumable use is going to be similar on the Moon or Mars. On the Moon or Mars 18 months of surface operation is going require the same about of food (about 540 kg per person). Of course on Mars you have a longer transit time compared to the Moon, say 10 days for a round trip against 360 days, so 10 kg per person rather than 360 kg. Taken together for the same surface stay a person on the Moon is going to require 190 kg of food as against 900 kg. That is about a factor of 4.5, again not "an order of magnitude". Food of course is going to be a small fraction of overall mission mass, a few percent at most.

Not to mention the safety factor and safety issues that a Mars mission brings that a moon mission doesn't.

There are actually plusses and minuses for both. On Mars of course you have have more strict daily time constraints - nobody will want to get caught out after dark. And of course you are further away with not quick return possible. On the other hand the Moon has lower gravity and higher radiation levels.

Look I would like to see men on Mars before I die but I would rather see a base on the moon long before a stunt mission to Mars.

Why would a mission to be Mars be any more a stunt than a mission to the Moon?

The likelyhood though is that the robotic people will win the battle and men in space will be history before too long. Those in charge now would rather not spend a nickel in space and instead spend that money on welfare and socialized medicine.

There is no evidence that justifies this sort of pessimism.

 

[scottb50]

[

The would agree for the most part, though I don't thing it takes that big of a ship, or two or three ships. Individual modules to orbit as cargo containers or upper stage fuel tanks, same module. Once orbited by pretty much any of the existing boosters and being assembled in orbit it could easily get to Mars, leave modules for orbital stations as well as landing and initial base.

Every thing is built from the same module, the diameter and length can vary as needed, physically they remain the same from rocket tanks to pen size Hydrogen tanks. Obviously different diameters will not dock to one another end to end, a common adapter allows universal attachment at any other universal adapter. End to end creates larger modules, a sturdier connection and large inter module hatches, that open after docking on larger modules.

Fuel tanks in the fly-back first stage and upper stage, payload modules, stations, vehicles and then stations and vehicles, landers and habitats.

 

[NelsonBridwell]

I entirely agree with the Vision for Space Exploraton's "Moon, Mars, and Beyond" strategy, and Constellation as the most logical architecture to begin reaching these goal.

http://www.MobileRobot.org/NASA.htm

Augustine's "unsustainable" claims were flawed excuses to terminate our manned space program, and his "flexible path" was a plan to kill off popular support by diverting astronauts to meaningless destinations such as empty space.

Space is going to continue to be a very dangerous and very expensive place, but it is also our destiny.

 

[aphh]

Next giant telescope should be built on the moon, together with a moonbase, of course.

42 meter diameter is not enough to study extra-solar planets in detail. 150 meter liquid mirror on the moon is not science fiction, but a actual business case for setting up a shop on the moon.

The rotating liquid mirror would be in permanent shadow with no stray infrared emission sources while solar cells would bathe in constant sunshine providing power for the telescope and the moonbase.

I am surprised there aren't more astronomers calling for this, but on the other hand I realize they are rather modest people and are happy to have a probe every once in awhile launched, a large telescope on earth or a small space observatory on orbit.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/r ... _36AR.html

 

[DarkenedOne]

I still say that if we (read humanity not just the USA) are to have a long term manned prescence off planet then building a base on the moon is the only way to go regardless of the type of vehicles we build to get there. All these other wild ass ideas are just publicity stunts including Obama's plan.

That would be great but for 1 factor, gravity. The moon has a HUGE gravity well in comparison to every other solar object besides the planets. It's the 5th largest solar body in the inner solar system. It takes a huge amount of fuel to land, and another huge amount of fuel to take off.

IF ISRU is a workable idea (which has not been proven yet), then the ice from any asteroid would be many orders of magnitude cheaper than the moon, just as the moon would be cheaper than the earth.

The idea that once you climb out of a mine, the best way to get water is to then down a well is silly, drink from the puddles on the top of your gravity well.

Your idea's are not "wild ass ideas", neither are any of the others. All HSF is a publicity stunt, if it wasn't then there would be humans at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico trying to patch the well leak, not robots.

Well we need to put things into perspective here. It takes around 1.8 km/s to go into low lunar orbit. At that speed there are some cannons that can put things into lunar orbit. By comparison achieving LEO from Earth requires somewhere around 9km/s.

Is it ideal no. However I think its short distance from earth makes up for the gravity problem.

An asteroid on the other hand has the same problem as an iceberg. Every mining operation requires a certain amount of infrastructure. As with practically everything else you want this infrastructure to remain useful for as long as you can in order to maximize your return on investment. If you are going to pay the large capital cost for that infrastructure you are not going to do it in a place that is not going to drift away from Earth.

 

[DarkenedOne]

Next giant telescope should be built on the moon, together with a moonbase, of course.

42 meter diameter is not enough to study extra-solar planets in detail. 150 meter liquid mirror on the moon is not science fiction, but a actual business case for setting up a shop on the moon.

The rotating liquid mirror would be in permanent shadow with no stray infrared emission sources while solar cells would bathe in constant sunshine providing power for the telescope and the moonbase.

I am surprised there aren't more astronomers calling for this, but on the other hand I realize they are rather modest people and are happy to have a probe every once in awhile launched, a large telescope on earth or a small space observatory on orbit.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/r ... _36AR.html

Indeed astronomers have long thought that the moon would be a great location for an observatory if isru is used. Without an atmosphere an observatory on the moon would have all the benefits that space telescopes have over Earth telescopes. These include being able to see all of the radiation that is blocked by the atmosphere, no atmosphere distortion, and no background radiation generated by human society.

Of course the benefit over space telescopes that Earth telescopes have is that they can be built far larger and inexpensively.

 

[scottb50]

Next giant telescope should be built on the moon, together with a moonbase, of course.

Indeed astronomers have long thought that the moon would be a great location for an observatory if isru is used. Without an atmosphere an observatory on the moon would have all the benefits that space telescopes have over Earth telescopes. These include being able to see all of the radiation that is blocked by the atmosphere, no atmosphere distortion, and no background radiation generated by human society.

Of course the benefit over space telescopes that Earth telescopes have is that they can be built far larger and inexpensively.

No one discounts the advances in telescopes that could be possible from the moon, it's more if it's worth the effort. Technology has come a long way in the last 30 years and terrestrial sites are doing comparable resolution to the Space Telescope.

I think we should go to the moon to learn more about the Earth and our solar system, mining or other uses would inevitably happen, but you can't just jump from moon1.0 to moon 4.0. The same for asteroids and Mars, fixed or mobile robots then human exploration. I would submit we have done enough on the moon and Mars to prove a manned presence is possible on either. That one is a more compelling target is the reaql question, if it has to be an either or I would go with Mars. I don't think it should be either or and the same technology could be used for both.

When a service call costs as much as a Shuttle mission does a Space telescope is far from inexpensive.

 

[blawo]

Relocate entire space-related R&D onto Moon

If you search for a goal for massive space initiative "worthy for 21st century", this is a GOAL of such order as original Moon mission proposal from 1960s: to relocate entire space-related infrastructure onto surface of Moon. Yes, this means to have 10-100 thousand people on Moon. This means to have Moon universities, R&D centers, observatories, solar plants, biospheres, farms, mining, bars, electromagnetic catapults, swimming-pools.. all that stuff. Yes this will cost enormous money. How much money, precisely? Precisely, as much money, as many people are involved in!

If you want have a new home, you are probably ready offer quite large amount of money, in cash or as mortgage. This can be easily 1/3 or 1/2 of your income, right? So if mankind is seriously onto having his new domicile - the Solar system (for the begin) - it should be prepared to pay those enormous money.

Just what can be done with Moon, if it is not clear yet?

- Large base optical interferometry (planet imager)
-- optical interferometry telescope design, construction and maintenance
-- materials and technologies for telescope construction from Moon resources
-- astronomy departments of main universities and R&D centers
(this telescope will be living with steadily changing properties given by the state of knowledge in that field, and this knowledge will be born just there...)
- Ultrasensitive dark-side radioastronomy
-- radiotelescope design...
-- excavations, construction, maintenance
-- R&D on space rated and low noise electronics
-- on-site radioastronomy science departments and high speed downlink to the Earth
- Nuclear and ion propulsion systems
-- design and testing of nuclear reactors and engines for space conditions
-- R&D on ion engines and plasma behavior in space
-- R&D on radiation shielding and thermal maintenance
-- isolated testing facility with gigawatt nuclear source
- Electromagnetic catapult
-- design, construction and maintenance of supraconducting electromagnetic catapult
-- supraconducting electromagnet fabrication with Moon resources
-- site excavations, regolith transportation
-- logistic support for item storage and delivery through Solar system
-- R&D on energy storage and retrieval
-- energy generation and storage for electromagnetic catapult (1km square solar plant, storage inductors)
- Earth-Lunar operations
-- office for joined LEO-GEO-LMO access for cargo and human delivery, maintenance, rescue
-- design, construction and maintenance of Moon-rated low-dV vehicles for EL operations
-- prospecting agency for propellant resources
-- training and simulation facilities for astronauts, construction workers
-- Moon space port(s)
-- Moon surface transportation
- Biosphere
-- research on isolated closed biological systems with and without human presence
-- oxygen and food production
-- R&D on biological terraforming
- Autonomous systems and robots
-- R&D on vehicle propulsion, navigation, attitude control, descend, surface operations, communication...
-- departments of universities focused on space exploration, cognitive research and robotics
-- probe fabrication and integration facility
- Space academy
-- university with space flight, space medicine and space technology departments
-- graduated on a special high school, students start 19yo, with 25yo leave as fully trained astronauts, space engineers...
-- large physical activity department for both research and endurance training for students
--- there is a swimming-pool on the campus, could you imagine swimming in 1/6 of Earth gravity? under a large Moon-made glass copula, illuminated only by Earth-shine?

 

[Booban]

--- there is a swimming-pool on the campus, could you imagine swimming in 1/6 of Earth gravity? under a large Moon-made glass copula, illuminated only by Earth-shine?

I'd imagine you'd drown with all the water floating/splashing about?

Just what R&D can be done on the moon (or space) that can't be done on earth that is beneficial for earthlings on earth?

 

[srmarti]

We're not ready to even start Mars and asteroid missions. Maybe it's a popular and political view that the Moon is a "been there and done that" topic, but most of those that have " been there and done that" have retired or are deceased. The rookies that figure "heck let's just head for Mars or an asteroid" are going to be shooting themselves in the foot while they relearn what the oldtimers figured out. It's been what, 38 years since the last Moon landing? I'm pretty sure a refresher course is in order. In fact for most that will participate it's going to be the first time.

 

[rockett]

Relocate entire space-related R&D onto Moon

If you search for a goal for massive space initiative "worthy for 21st century", this is a GOAL of such order as original Moon mission proposal from 1960s: to relocate entire space-related infrastructure onto surface of Moon. Yes, this means to have 10-100 thousand people on Moon. This means to have Moon universities, R&D centers, observatories, solar plants, biospheres, farms, mining, bars, electromagnetic catapults, swimming-pools.. all that stuff. Yes this will cost enormous money. How much money, precisely? Precisely, as much money, as many people are involved in!

If you want have a new home, you are probably ready offer quite large amount of money, in cash or as mortgage. This can be easily 1/3 or 1/2 of your income, right? So if mankind is seriously onto having his new domicile - the Solar system (for the begin) - it should be prepared to pay those enormous money.

Just what can be done with Moon, if it is not clear yet?

- Large base optical interferometry (planet imager)
-- optical interferometry telescope design, construction and maintenance
-- materials and technologies for telescope construction from Moon resources
-- astronomy departments of main universities and R&D centers
(this telescope will be living with steadily changing properties given by the state of knowledge in that field, and this knowledge will be born just there...)
- Ultrasensitive dark-side radioastronomy
-- radiotelescope design...
-- excavations, construction, maintenance
-- R&D on space rated and low noise electronics
-- on-site radioastronomy science departments and high speed downlink to the Earth
- Nuclear and ion propulsion systems
-- design and testing of nuclear reactors and engines for space conditions
-- R&D on ion engines and plasma behavior in space
-- R&D on radiation shielding and thermal maintenance
-- isolated testing facility with gigawatt nuclear source
- Electromagnetic catapult
-- design, construction and maintenance of supraconducting electromagnetic catapult
-- supraconducting electromagnet fabrication with Moon resources
-- site excavations, regolith transportation
-- logistic support for item storage and delivery through Solar system
-- R&D on energy storage and retrieval
-- energy generation and storage for electromagnetic catapult (1km square solar plant, storage inductors)
- Earth-Lunar operations
-- office for joined LEO-GEO-LMO access for cargo and human delivery, maintenance, rescue
-- design, construction and maintenance of Moon-rated low-dV vehicles for EL operations
-- prospecting agency for propellant resources
-- training and simulation facilities for astronauts, construction workers
-- Moon space port(s)
-- Moon surface transportation
- Biosphere
-- research on isolated closed biological systems with and without human presence
-- oxygen and food production
-- R&D on biological terraforming
- Autonomous systems and robots
-- R&D on vehicle propulsion, navigation, attitude control, descend, surface operations, communication...
-- departments of universities focused on space exploration, cognitive research and robotics
-- probe fabrication and integration facility
- Space academy
-- university with space flight, space medicine and space technology departments
-- graduated on a special high school, students start 19yo, with 25yo leave as fully trained astronauts, space engineers...
-- large physical activity department for both research and endurance training for students
--- there is a swimming-pool on the campus, could you imagine swimming in 1/6 of Earth gravity? under a large Moon-made glass copula, illuminated only by Earth-shine?

I LIKE IT! (despite some nay-sayers!) Sounds just TOO COOL. How about one more form of recreation, human powered flight would be really easy on the moon! Just strap on some wings and GO!

 

[Kansan52]

It's a waste of time. The next admin will corrupt it as well. Augustine got one thing correct in that NASA is mandated but not funded. There is nothing in the plans for a manned anything.

If NASA doesn't have any manned vehicles, why have NASA? We don't train to be a pilot to be a passenger. Obama has made the Astronauts nothing but passengers. Give all robotics to universities. Earth observation to NOAA. Aeronautics to the FAA. Advance research to DARPA. Drop ISS Mission Control and just rent space on the ISS. The Centers have to find sponsors with universities or other agencies or close. Maybe the Cape could be made over into a theme park.

Let's face it, Obama's killed the manned program with these changes. There's no manned launcher and there's no manned vehicle. How is anyone to get anywhere, buy a Soyuz?

We went from Moon, Mars, and Beyond to Not Mars and a Baby Step Beyond. And no way to do that.

 

[rickman2k]

we need to stay focused on the moon for a while, working on the do's and don't close to home before trying it on Mars

 

[no1star]

Honestly since we have announced to the world that we are now a second class space power - that in order to fit with the present adminstration's true plan - let's just abandon all that we have accomplished, and let the rest of the world pass us by.
Afterall, we can let them spend the money, we can later buy tickets, and most of all - that money saved can be wasted
by all those who want space research ended anyway. Remember, those that DON"T invest in the future are bound to
become spectators ! We were once a proud technological nation who couldn't win WWII - now since we don't produce. But, while we were motivated - we sure as heck :shock: did some great stuff ! : )

 

[writerman]

I think it was Heinlein (or was it Clarke?) who said once you get out of Earth's gravity well, you are halfway to anywhere. The moon's gravity well is one-sixth of Earth's, and it has been established that the resources for relative self-sufficiency are available on Luna--water, solar energy in abundance, raw materials. That and the biggest advantage--it's close.

A permanent human base on the moon is a reasonable first step to longer-range exploration of the solar system. Actually, the money wasted on the ISS would have been better spent on establishing such a base.

I do think the standard vision of such a base is impractical, however--domes, etc. A more practical approach would be to go mole and burrow underground. That offers a lot of very real advantages--protection from radiation, meteor impact, the toxic surface dust, a constant temperature instead of the extremes found on the Lunar surface, and an environment easily sealed to retain atmosphere.

Yes, and Obama has essentially killed our competitiveness and future in the field. This is only one way the man is a waste (I'd be more eloquently profane, but I don't want to get banned from the forum) and hopefully his party of socialist luddites will be thrown out of power this fall and he himself in 2012

 

[SciFi2010]

It is probably a waste of time since we still haven't figured out a way to get cheap acces to LEO whether it is manned or un-manned (besides lowering the manufacturing costs and improving conventional rockets). Going to the moon, asteroids and mars is not crucial for the aerospace industry. The possibility for the civillian audience to afford a ticket into space whether for leisure or work in the end will make or break the aerospace sector. If the aerospace industry doesn't provide a constant cheaper acces into space (and also more jobs) to an increasing civillian audience and if the economic situation doesn't change I am afraid the majority of the public (and the politicians) will just loose its interest for these interplanetary missions. After 2020 it may be technologically possible to send humans to the moon, asteroids, mars or even further in the solar-system safer, faster and cheaper (because of increased funding in VASIMR and nuclear technology). The questions remains will the public and politicians support these missions if the public can't participate in that process. The good news is we still have 10 till 15 years to figure that out before going to the moon, asteroid(s) and mars. We shouldn't forget that Richard Nixon didn't pull out the plug of the Apollo missions only due to economic reasons. The large audience just lost their interest in space-travel, because the public suddenly realized space-travel and colonisation for normal folk would never happen in their life-time. The aviation industry fulfilled their promise of affordable and safe air transport to the public. Now the (commercial) aerospace industry have to fulfill their promise of safe and affordable acces into space to the public.

 

[RogerInHawaii]

Boostrap

I'm all for a return to the Moon. I think we should invest the necessary money and time in developing a bootstrap program, whereby we send just the basic necessities, in terms of material and robotics, to produce self-replicating machines which can then go on to build the Lunar infrastructure and the spacecraft for further exploration beyond the Moon. This bootstrap program would require significant advances in materials processing and computer technologies, which would also be applicable here on Earth, and provide the financial impetus and justification for its development.