Re: How to save $100 Billion
I agree with most of what has been said. But I think some people are missing the point that viable fussion strongly depends on Moon exploration. The Moon is the only plentiful source of H3 in our grasp. H3 is one of the most promising potential fuels for nuclear fussion. Strategically, going back to the Moon can possibly be explained by this. However, I honestly cant for the life of me understand the need for MANNED missions...? This seems absolutely wasteful! ~:confused:
Re: How to save $100 Billion
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
I guess no one wants to hear my "privitize space" program, huh. That would save lots of money that could be better spent, on like, tanks.
Crap!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
If you really want to do something big you have to aim for Mars...and that is probably two orders of magnitude more difficult and prohibitively more expensive for a govt/citizenry that don't even feel the need to pull in enough tax revenue to cover current expenditures.
That`s why we need to return to the Moon; it`s the first step toward human exploration of Mars, wich is actually interesting and important. This time "we" are going to stay and build permanent bases. Also We`re going to use the Moon as testing ground for new technology.
However, I am not too excited by the fact that NASA is not getting more funds for this vision, and that the unmanned exploration, wich I think is the more exciting, is going to pay heavily for this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spino
I deliberately included the term 'manned' because the last two Mars rovers proved that it is simply unneccessary to send human beings out on exploration voyages. Autonomous or remote controlled probes don't need to breath, eat, defecate, sleep, exercise or stretch. These probes can also endure far more physical punishment than human beings (i.e. prolonged G forces due to acceleration, deceleration & maneuvering, exposure to solar radiation, etc.). Basically the space and mass (supplies, fuel, etc.) required to support human beings on long voyages can instead be diverted towards bigger, more advanced probes that can reach their final destination in less time. Because of the factors I mentioned the cost to send a remote probe to the moon or mars simply pales in comparison to what it would cost to send a team of human beings. And last but not least when a robotic/AI probe gets lost or trashed, there is a comparatively small loss of morale (on a national level) versus when a human crew perishes.
Sure, the AI and robotics fields are in their infancy but it's a hell of alot easier and cheaper to deal with those gray matter rooted obstacles than it is dealing with the innate physical requirements and weaknesses of human beings. Eventually we will devise extremely effective, reliable and compact power sources for these probes and when that happens their capabilities and overall effectiveness will skyrocket.
Manned exploration missions are a necessary stepping stone that will one day lead to human beings colonizing other planets. It is inevitable that we should colonize the stars and it would better guarantee the survival of our species in case anything happens to Earth. However, as of right now sending a human being anywhere is more of a glorious, egotistical achievement than a practical one.
If we`re going to look for life on Mars, we`ll most likely need humans. And if there`s life on Mars it might be anywhere else.
The clolonazion part is very important, and return to the Moon is going to aid this. I hope and think not that NASA is going for glory this time, though they see Mars on the horizon.
