Comments on: Worlds enough, and time: NASA commitee says Mars too costly, asteroids more plausible http://futurismic.com/2009/10/26/worlds-enough-and-time-nasa-commitee-says-mars-too-costly-asteroids-more-plausible/ Presenting the fact and fiction of tomorrow since 2001 Sat, 19 May 2012 23:03:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: John Hunt http://futurismic.com/2009/10/26/worlds-enough-and-time-nasa-commitee-says-mars-too-costly-asteroids-more-plausible/comment-page-1/#comment-52590 John Hunt Tue, 03 Nov 2009 07:05:42 +0000 http://futurismic.com/?p=9369#comment-52590 The purpose for Apollo going to the Moon was primarily for bragging rights. Sample returns could have been done for far less. But still, that was an amazing accomplishment which I think justified the cost. But after the bragging rights were obtained, the diminishing returns on science made the Apollo program unjustifiable. An asteroid can be sampled robotically (using a robonaut for example) for far less cost than sending people. So it is not really the science that demands such a venture. As far as bragging rights, since a manned mission to an asteroid is a fair step down from Apollo's trip to the moon, those rights are far smaller and hence susceptible to being cancelled. Bringing back a chunk of a volatile NEO might help if that were possible. A manned trip to a martian moon would be a greater accomplishment but would suffer from the realization that it was prominently falling short of where we really need to go which is Mars. What we really need is a purpose which justifies expenses. For me this means these three things: 1) survival, 2) development, and 3) colonization. Specifically, I don't think that science and bragging rights are sufficient justification for manned flights. Survival should be # 1 in my opinion. By mid-century, we'll be facing self-replicating technology from nanotech, biotech, AI, and self-replicating chemicals. It would sure be nice if we had a self-sustaining base off-planet by then. This goal would mandate continued funding until that goal was achieved. Survival also has a time urgency about it which helps. Development of a Moon base would provide access to large quantities of raw materials enabling all manner of LEO, lunar, martian and other ventures. Finally, if the goal is colonization of Mars, then the first trip will require a second trip and then a third, etc. Defunding midway through establishing a colony would mean losing the value of the previous trips even while one is getting closer to the goal. When I think of these goals, the idea of going off to an asteroid leaves me wondering why? The purpose for Apollo going to the Moon was primarily for bragging rights. Sample returns could have been done for far less. But still, that was an amazing accomplishment which I think justified the cost. But after the bragging rights were obtained, the diminishing returns on science made the Apollo program unjustifiable.

An asteroid can be sampled robotically (using a robonaut for example) for far less cost than sending people. So it is not really the science that demands such a venture. As far as bragging rights, since a manned mission to an asteroid is a fair step down from Apollo’s trip to the moon, those rights are far smaller and hence susceptible to being cancelled. Bringing back a chunk of a volatile NEO might help if that were possible. A manned trip to a martian moon would be a greater accomplishment but would suffer from the realization that it was prominently falling short of where we really need to go which is Mars.

What we really need is a purpose which justifies expenses. For me this means these three things: 1) survival, 2) development, and 3) colonization. Specifically, I don’t think that science and bragging rights are sufficient justification for manned flights.

Survival should be # 1 in my opinion. By mid-century, we’ll be facing self-replicating technology from nanotech, biotech, AI, and self-replicating chemicals. It would sure be nice if we had a self-sustaining base off-planet by then. This goal would mandate continued funding until that goal was achieved. Survival also has a time urgency about it which helps.

Development of a Moon base would provide access to large quantities of raw materials enabling all manner of LEO, lunar, martian and other ventures.

Finally, if the goal is colonization of Mars, then the first trip will require a second trip and then a third, etc. Defunding midway through establishing a colony would mean losing the value of the previous trips even while one is getting closer to the goal.

When I think of these goals, the idea of going off to an asteroid leaves me wondering why?

]]> By: The Abbot of Unreason http://futurismic.com/2009/10/26/worlds-enough-and-time-nasa-commitee-says-mars-too-costly-asteroids-more-plausible/comment-page-1/#comment-51407 The Abbot of Unreason Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:41:53 +0000 http://futurismic.com/?p=9369#comment-51407 Once they start having to compete they _should_ die, IMHO. The vision should be to do what nobody else is going to do. Fine, if they have less money, try something smaller, but it still shouldn't be something someone else is going to do anyway: that's just as much a waste of resources. Once they start having to compete they _should_ die, IMHO. The vision should be to do what nobody else is going to do. Fine, if they have less money, try something smaller, but it still shouldn’t be something someone else is going to do anyway: that’s just as much a waste of resources.

]]> By: Paul Raven http://futurismic.com/2009/10/26/worlds-enough-and-time-nasa-commitee-says-mars-too-costly-asteroids-more-plausible/comment-page-1/#comment-51405 Paul Raven Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:14:42 +0000 http://futurismic.com/?p=9369#comment-51405 Historically, yes, I'd agree with you. The point is that they're all out of cash, though, and I doubt there'll be budget increases coming down the pike any time soon; they're already outsourcing their cargo runs to the commercial operators. I think it's a case of compete or die. Historically, yes, I’d agree with you. The point is that they’re all out of cash, though, and I doubt there’ll be budget increases coming down the pike any time soon; they’re already outsourcing their cargo runs to the commercial operators. I think it’s a case of compete or die.

]]> By: The Abbot of Unreason http://futurismic.com/2009/10/26/worlds-enough-and-time-nasa-commitee-says-mars-too-costly-asteroids-more-plausible/comment-page-1/#comment-51401 The Abbot of Unreason Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:41:36 +0000 http://futurismic.com/?p=9369#comment-51401 It is precisely the risky, non-pragmatic, envelope bursting goals that NASA should be running after. Leave the lucrative, investment-style exploration to the commercial industry. That's what they're good at. NASA should be doing the things that the commercial sector wouldn't touch, not competing with it. It is precisely the risky, non-pragmatic, envelope bursting goals that NASA should be running after. Leave the lucrative, investment-style exploration to the commercial industry. That’s what they’re good at. NASA should be doing the things that the commercial sector wouldn’t touch, not competing with it.

]]>