Thanks for your comments.
Like you, I avidly support NASA and do not want their budget cut.
In fact, my step-brother is a senior director at the agency.
However, I believe we are long past the point of diminishing returns for manned space projects and manned exploration.
I support a modest budget for low Earth orbit projects like the Space Station and continued funding for things like manned space planes.
I believe the rest of NASA’s space budget should be spent on robotic exploration and space telescopes.
In my opinion, the Hubble Space Telescope by itself has revealed more about the universe then every manned space flight in history combined.
The ten year manned Apollo Lunar Program cost about $150 billion (2012 dollars).
Yes, there were some impressive technologies spun off that program, and a geologic treasure trove was returned to Earth.
However, if we had used that money for robotic lunar exploration instead, the electronics and software would have been at least one order of magnitude more sophisticated than Apollo.
I agree that knowledge of how man can live and work in space is sound basic research.
But it is research that will not be productively useful for thousands of years.
No amount of research and no amount of dreaming will guide man out of this Solar System before the next millennium.
And in this solar system, there are few places to go, and little to do - except stay alive - once you get there.
Extreme heat, extreme cold, radiation, and atmospheric pressure knock Mercury and Venus off the list.
Asteroids have zero gravity, making construction or mining impossible.
Jupiter's moons are bathed in lethal radiation.
That leaves Mars and the Moon.
Helium 3 may have potential, but it is found in parts per billion in Moon dust, and no one on Earth has ever built a commercially viable Helium 3 reactor, which makes it a true “Moon Shot,” as my generation used to say.
I have no doubt that privately funded space tourism will become a viable business in the coming decades.
I can't imagine a better way to study man's health and comfort in space.
Given your other comments, I find this just slightly difficult to believe.
"However, I believe we are long past the point of diminishing returns for manned space projects and manned exploration."
A belief unsupported by ANY sort of facts.
"I support a modest budget for low Earth orbit projects like the Space Station and continued funding for things like manned space planes."
LEO is virtually worthless as a target for manned space EXPLORATORY efforts, and will soon be the target of private enterprise. This is about the steps beyond that.
"I believe the rest of NASA’s space budget should be spent on robotic exploration and space telescopes.
Which is great, if all you want to do is scientific research. Simply put, if man wants to survive, some of us have got to get off this planet.
"In my opinion, the Hubble Space Telescope by itself has revealed more about the universe then every manned space flight in history combined."
Again, the manned effort is about more than doing science, as valuable as that is.
"The ten year manned Apollo Lunar Program cost about $150 billion (2012 dollars)."
Which isn't even a blip in the overall budget.
"Yes, there were some impressive technologies spun off that program, and a geologic treasure trove was returned to Earth."
Gee, I'm glad you can drag yourself to admit that there were at least "some" positive efforts.
"However, if we had used that money for robotic lunar exploration instead, the electronics and software would have been at least one order of magnitude more sophisticated than Apollo."
Sorry, but this is absolute speculation.
"I agree that knowledge of how man can live and work in space is sound basic research. But it is research that will not be productively useful for thousands of years."
You're probably two orders of magnitude high.
"No amount of research and no amount of dreaming will guide man out of this Solar System before the next millennium."
Pure speculation again. For all you know, a breakthrough in physics could make "warp drive" possible in 25, 50, or 100 years.
"And in this solar system, there are few places to go, and little to do - except stay alive - once you get there.
I can just hear some other Englishman telling my Puritan ancestors "....and in the New World, there are few places to go and little to do-except stay alive-once you get there...". We know how THAT worked out, don't we.
"Extreme heat, extreme cold, radiation, and atmospheric pressure knock Mercury and Venus off the list."
Which is pretty much true for all of space.
"Asteroids have zero gravity, making construction or mining impossible."
Impossible??? Baloney. In truth, probably easier than on earth.
"Jupiter's moons are bathed in lethal radiation.
Potentially true for ANYWHERE in space (see solar flares).
"That leaves Mars and the Moon."
"Helium 3 may have potential, but it is found in parts per billion in Moon dust, and no one on Earth has ever built a commercially viable Helium 3 reactor, which makes it a true “Moon Shot,” as my generation used to say.
Re-read my post about the moon and asteroid processing.