Posted on 02/04/2016 2:57:22 PM PST by BenLurkin
The moon would make an ideal base for testing equipment, crew radiation protection, etc., and a less difficult launch site for a Mars mission than either the Earth or near Earth orbit. Plus, we should have had a base or bases there since the 1970’s and would if it hadn’t been for loss of nerve and focus.
But if we want government to do the most with the least amount of money, then I say limit NASA to probes and robots.
Let SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, etc. spend their money putting 0g-hating, non-cosmic-ray-proof bags of mostly water into space.
We won't be doing any significant travel into space until we've merged with robots anyway. So why try and put feeble human flesh up there?
The Queen should have sent the Coldstream Guards to stop Tenzing Norgay and Sir Edmund Hillary from going to Mt. Everest.
You know, we should send time agents back to Andalusia to stop Columbus from going to the New World.
This exploring thing is a useless waste. Humans need to know their place.
I would rather be a Spacer on Aurora than to survive in a dystopian Cave of Steal.
The key is ‘sufficiently’ and if there is no warning then no bunker protection will help - many asteroids come in from behind the sun and cannot be seen until they are to close to do anything about if they were on an intersect course. No enemy who is about to launch will give warning. So in either case bunkers will do you no good unless you live there permanently.
Easiest thing is to hollow out an large asteroid like Ceres or Eros and install engines (name your brand), supplies, etc and off you go. Assuming that some asteroids are not already hollowed like the captured moon of Mars Phobos is thought to be ... Then there is Iapetus ...
“Spend most of our money,” there you go again. It is not about spending money. Just throw that out. If you go there, then you are not serious, as there is always a reason to spend less and less until the thing is canceled ... just ask the Russians about their manned lunar program, or even about some of their current plans.
Right ... o
Agreed; not only learn to live in a hostile environment, it helps to have a base that is days away, not months/years.
True, but if emotional and intellectual satisfaction are the only selling points to using humans, then it’s entertainment, which shouldn’t need to be funded by the taxpayers.
I took a tour of Johnson Space Center two years ago, a/k/a “The Angry Birds Exhibit.” They showed us the planned mission control for the Mars mission, along with the mock-up of the space vehicle.
The mock-up looked like a slightly larger Apollo capsule (four guys are going to live in that for over a year on a one-way trip? Sure they are...).
At the mission control, the guide said they were looking at a launch window around 2035. My question “So you’re telling me the astronauts for that mission are maybe in Kindergarten?” He looked annoyed and said “Yes.”
We aren’t going to Mars.
That really is the most practical thing to be focusing on. It seems like either the crudest approach to orbit (rockets) or the most unfeasible (space elevators) are the only ones people are interested in though.
I think we’d have more success if we focused on spaceplanes, or rail launchers, or even dirigible launch platforms. All of those have big technical hurdles, but they could be achievable.
We need to seed the clouds of Venus with some cyanobacteria and start terra-forming the place.
No it’s limit NASA to launching Muslims on one way self-esteem voyages
Coliseums, Amphitheaters and Stadiums have been funded by taxpayers as long as there have been taxpayers.
:-)
(People will more readily approve the expenditure of 'public funds' for Entertainment' than they will for 'Education, Information & Enlightenment'!)
“Of course there will always be humans in space, and I have no problem with private corporations shooting people into space.
But if we want government to do the most with the least amount of money, then I say limit NASA to probes and robots.”
The moon is a great place to set up a base. Have the government let out contracts for private contractors to deliver supplies there.
We are bound to get some profit making stuff out of that. Think how useful it will be to be able to fabricate things on the moon, in near earth orbit, or at the L5 point.
I long to see an earth orbit based private Internet service that cannot be shut down by government decreee - maybe we can call it, whimsically, SkyNet.
But one great potenial for private enterprise in space is freemarket communication that is encrypted and not censored.
Horah! for seeing through the reality distortion field ... the kids are not going to get anywhere near the education they will need for such a trip even if it were to happen. The best that could be hoped for is that they will know which button to push when and which screen shows what ... but if anything goes awry, they will be unable to think without something to tell them what to do, unable to improvise on their own.
Three guys had a difficult time living in the Apollo capsule for 7 days ... I’m sure the guy who did not go down to the surface was relieved to be alone.
There really is no serious plan to return to manned missions - what there is is a) just for show, b) keep the skills alive, c) keep the politicians happy, d) and most importantly keep their jobs.
Any serious plan would see a major effort to return the US educational system back to what it was prior to 1936. Short of that, look overseas - the US is done (all thanks goes to Nixon).
“Coliseums, Amphitheaters and Stadiums have been funded by taxpayers as long as there have been taxpayers.”
That’s infrastructure, and besides, those bring in revenue and tax income...
Ask St Louis for a confirmation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.