Merc14 Posted June 21, 2013 #26 Share Posted June 21, 2013 (edited) As a previous poster pointed out, if we could perfect the technology first with an established colony on our own satellite, perhaps eventually capturing an asteroid later would be more efficient. We would benefit from such an approach imo. Why do we require NASA and tax dollars to do that? The reality is that there are limited dollars and corporate america is going there anyways so do the high science thing. Edited June 21, 2013 by Merc14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted June 21, 2013 #27 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Why do we require NASA and tax dollars to do that? The reality is that there are limited dollars and corporate america is going there anyways so do the high science thing. For most of nasa's life, it has returned three dollars for ever one given. Not sure if that holds true right now with usd payig russia to take us to the station. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paperdyer Posted June 21, 2013 #28 Share Posted June 21, 2013 You read my mind. Perhaps that 3+Billion/year to Israel should be going to much greater causes... That's just my opinion, though. While I'd like NASA to be able to do both, where do you suggest the money comes from? I'm sure the Republicans will kick in their fair share since they want NASA to go to the moon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collateral Damage Posted June 21, 2013 #29 Share Posted June 21, 2013 How about we avoid bring off topic Middle-Eastern politics into this and actually discuss NASA's future. I wasn't bringing anything off topic to discussion. How about I speak whatever's on my mind; whether you like it or not. Taking 3+Billion/year and giving it to NASA is surely a discussion of its future. Yes, cancel the asteroid mission, and begin a moon base. Happy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted June 21, 2013 #30 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Do you guys remember airport 2. They were using a nasa style shuttle to take passengers to the moon. That isn't to far off from what we need for a three day trip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc14 Posted June 22, 2013 #31 Share Posted June 22, 2013 (edited) For most of nasa's life, it has returned three dollars for ever one given. Not sure if that holds true right now with usd payig russia to take us to the station. What does Russia taking astronauts to the ISS have to do with what I said? NASA is developing a new capsule (you can see the escape tower test vehicle at the Virginia Air and Space Center) and it would carry us to the asteroid to collect samples. Harvesting asteroids could prove to be very profitable if you could fine one loaded with exotic metals. Edited June 22, 2013 by Merc14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MedicTJ Posted June 22, 2013 #32 Share Posted June 22, 2013 A mission like this could get canceled, and we have a probe circling the moon that's about to celebrate its 4th anniversary in orbit. NASA should be the poster child for the term, "Misappropriation of Funds". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NiteMarcher Posted June 23, 2013 #33 Share Posted June 23, 2013 It should be cancelled and looked at further down in the future, but not at this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skookum Posted June 23, 2013 #34 Share Posted June 23, 2013 (edited) Surely all this planning and cancelling is just setting them back from any kind of mission for many more years. I think it has finally sunk in that NASA is falling behind the Russians and Chinese in manned space missions at an alarming rate. I cannot believe a manned space station on the moon is economically feasible at the moment. I have no doubt they can build one and get it there, then man it. But maintaining it after would be a huge commitment for many years to come. Nasa, ESA and Russians are struggling with the international space station financially, imagine how much more it would cost to resupply a moon base. How many launches from Earth did it take to build it? Edited June 23, 2013 by skookum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted June 23, 2013 #35 Share Posted June 23, 2013 Nasa is struggleing because their budget keeps getting cut, do to the people thinking the money should be spent sending tanks and fighters and cash to an enemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skookum Posted June 24, 2013 #36 Share Posted June 24, 2013 Nasa is struggleing because their budget keeps getting cut, do to the people thinking the money should be spent sending tanks and fighters and cash to an enemy. Agreed, but they have also run up a national debt that is almost impossible to service. Until this is tackled I can't see NASA ever getting a budget like it did with the first moon landings, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chooky88 Posted June 24, 2013 #37 Share Posted June 24, 2013 Personally I can't see why we want to explore a floating rock. We should have a moon base and should have started building one on the 70s. Asteroid mission is completely pointless. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted June 24, 2013 #38 Share Posted June 24, 2013 Nasa is struggleing because their budget keeps getting cut, do to the people thinking the money should be spent sending tanks and fighters and cash to an enemy. I wonder if you know what proportion of the US's spending is on the military and what is on entitlements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted June 24, 2013 #39 Share Posted June 24, 2013 Personally I can't see why we want to explore a floating rock. We should have a moon base and should have started building one on the 70s. Asteroid mission is completely pointless. A bit of a "know-nothing" attitude (glib and ignorant). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted June 24, 2013 #40 Share Posted June 24, 2013 What does Russia taking astronauts to the ISS have to do with what I said? NASA is developing a new capsule (you can see the escape tower test vehicle at the Virginia Air and Space Center) and it would carry us to the asteroid to collect samples. Harvesting asteroids could prove to be very profitable if you could fine one loaded with exotic metals. What does Russia taking astronauts to the ISS have to do with what I said? NASA is developing a new capsule (you can see the escape tower test vehicle at the Virginia Air and Space Center) and it would carry us to the asteroid to collect samples. Harvesting asteroids could prove to be very profitable if you could fine one loaded with exotic metals. Do you want to spend six months inside a capsule with up to six others with you. I know I wouldn't. I might have a problem for three days. Six months to mars, one year on the ground and six months home. Three days to the moon and three days back. No, to do any mission beyond the moon. We will need a true space ship, something built in space. We could use the capsule as the command capsule. This ship will need radiation shielding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc14 Posted June 24, 2013 #41 Share Posted June 24, 2013 Do you want to spend six months inside a capsule with up to six others with you. I know I wouldn't. I might have a problem for three days. Six months to mars, one year on the ground and six months home. Three days to the moon and three days back. No, to do any mission beyond the moon. We will need a true space ship, something built in space. We could use the capsule as the command capsule. This ship will need radiation shielding. I agree that a capsule makes any Mars trip a one way deal but if getting to Mars via a ship built on the moon is the ultimate goal then they had better learn how to mine asteroids because the materials to build this ship aren't all available on the moon. Anyways, you are missing my point which is that industry is perfectly capable of and is now willing to explore and exploit the moon's resources. Why, then, should NASA spend its resources on doing the same thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted June 25, 2013 #42 Share Posted June 25, 2013 The moon has the same stuff earth has including water. The gold on earth was brought by meteors, since the moon has taken more hits than us it should have gold too. But, using our current tech it isn't worth the trouble to mine it. If you take as loaf of bread into orbit, then turned itti gold it wouldn't pay for the trip. This is from nasa. We need reusable landers and launchers with engines that don't need to be refilled after every trip. That might be a nuclear engine. But, too many would worry it might blow up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinysbox13 Posted June 26, 2013 #43 Share Posted June 26, 2013 I can understand wanting to go to a near asteroid, especially for mining purposes. Acquiring precious or even unknown metals! I also think it very awesome to have a moon base of some sort. In hopes that everyone could get a chance to visit, not just privileged individuals. I do believe money plays such a big role in all this that we do not need to do either of the two as of this point in time. Let's take care of some more things down here on Earth first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted June 26, 2013 #44 Share Posted June 26, 2013 When we start putting families on board a satilite. We will need dirt more than anything lse except water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted June 26, 2013 #45 Share Posted June 26, 2013 It occurs to me that more research on the problems of living in isolated environments may be needed. The one experiment I'm aware of failed, but it struck me as mainly hype anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted June 26, 2013 #46 Share Posted June 26, 2013 It occurs to me that more research on the problems of living in isolated environments may be needed. The one experiment I'm aware of failed, but it struck me as mainly hype anyway. The experament didn't fail. The people did. They forgot to close a door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mysticwerewolf Posted June 27, 2013 #47 Share Posted June 27, 2013 I vote Moon base first, gold mining ( or anything else) on an asteroid later. and I have to agree there has to be something valuable on the moon that could be mined before we start on the asteroids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted June 27, 2013 #48 Share Posted June 27, 2013 Well human error is the cause of most experimental failures. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted June 27, 2013 #49 Share Posted June 27, 2013 I vote Moon base first, gold mining ( or anything else) on an asteroid later. and I have to agree there has to be something valuable on the moon that could be mined before we start on the asteroids. I don't perceive moon mining because of the cost of getting the stuff back to the earth. When self-sustaining colonies are on the moon, then of course mining will happen to help maintain them rather than transporting everything from the earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mysticwerewolf Posted June 27, 2013 #50 Share Posted June 27, 2013 (edited) IF we are going to populate the rest of this solar system ( which seems to be a goal for some people) we will have to learn to mine in space eventually, if for no other reason than raw materials for building. Our planet cannot sustain being stripped of it's resources for bases on other planets, and the logistics & costs of transportation is just as bad as ( and maybe worse than)what was just mentioned by frank. IF we can get a moon base up and running as a long term colony style base, then there is a base to learn to mine in space. it's not going to be any harder getting whatever might be mined back from the moon as it would from some asteroid in the belt between mars and Jupiter, most likely not as hard and less expensive due to the distances involved. and the translation/transportation from space to earth will be just as hard and just as expensive regardless where it was shipped from. we need someplace to learn these things and a working moon base is the first step. So again I say, I vote Moon base first, gold mining ( or anything else) on an asteroid later. I have to agree with one of the previous posts in that there has to be something valuable on the moon that could be mined before we start on the asteroids. Even if that value is only learning the knowledge of how to do it correctly. In my mind A Moon Base is... has to be the first/next step. As to whether or not it ever happens???........ Edited June 27, 2013 by mysticwerewolf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now