Another key issue is popularity of the programme seeking funding.

I’ve long thought that a first mission to Mars (and back to the Moon) will have great media value … and that a good realistic movie (or TV series) story about Mars can help to build popular consensus around going to Mars as a goal. Just a matter of finding the right story that appeals to a broad audience …

As a token Christmas gift from South Africa to all the “old guys” of this forum (I’m merely 47 and feel like a kid around here ;->) I’d like to recommend a fantastic hard sci-fi novel I discovered on Amazon called “The Martian” by indie author Andy Weir. It is very pro-NASA and reminds of the movie Apollo 13 .. except this is a very gripping and engrossing story that plays out over nearly 500 days as an astronaut with a sense of humour is stranded of Mars, he endeavours to survive while NASA endeavour to rescue him.

You can read the reviews (currently 120) on Amazon at:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Martian-ebook/dp/B009IEXKXI

or if you don’t have Kindle then the book is accessible in other ebook formats and in basic html on the Web at:
http://www.galactanet.com/writing.html

Bob Clark

Look, all I’m saying is that 50 years on, asteroid manipulation should be part of the conversation. Planetary Resources has it as the culmination of their business plan. It’s expensive now, but won’t always be.

Planetary Resources might be tied up legally in the international courts for years over this.

“Chump change to the Pentagon. Remember the missing $2 Trillion big ones Rumsfeld was looking for in 2001?”

Oh, I forgot – all unexplained things are conspiracies…

Look, regardless how bad our military accounting is, the money and capabilities required to start moving asteroids is far beyond the capabilities of not only the U.S., but every other country too.

And you have yet to identify why such an endeavor is a better solution than what is available on Earth today. Because you read a science fiction story about it? Anthrax and Sarin are much cheaper weapons of mass destruction than wrangling and dropping an asteroid on someone.

Chump change to the Pentagon. Remember the missing $2 Trillion big ones Rumsfeld was looking for in 2001? I’m sure the amount has accumulated a bit since then.

Also a well placed gravity probe or solar sail on a small NEO to put into an intercept orbit is cheaper than mass producing nukes. At least for the Pentagon.

That’s like saying hippos supersede rhinos…

No, more like Abrams tanks superseding hippos, rhinos and elephants.

And backdoor international “gentleman’s agreements” are a time honored strategy, not tinfoil conspiracy.

“what I’m saying is that don’t be surprised if the DoD partially pays for an Orion asteroid mission or purchases the tech from Planetary Resources.”

I would be surprised, since there are far less expense ways to kill people or intimidate misbehaving countries.

“But my theory is that a possible backroom deal was made with other nations not to develop this technology is for the very reason you mentioned…”

I’m not much into conspiracies myself, and considering that everyone in the world could see that it was going to take the U.S. at least $100B and 20 years to return to the Moon, I’d say no backroom deals were necessary for everyone to see that trying such an effort at this point would likely bankrupt anyone that tries.

“And asteroid moving technology would surely supercede nuclear arms in my view.”

That’s like saying hippos supercede rhinos…

But my theory is that a possible backroom deal was made with other nations not to develop this technology is for the very reason you mentioned, we don’t need more weapons when we’re trying to eliminate nuclear warheads.

And asteroid moving technology would surely supercede nuclear arms in my view.

“You would never conclude that there was deep satisfaction with America’s space program by reading this forum.”

Wow, ya think? However, if Congress would kill the SLS and MPCV pork programs, and use that funding for space hardware that utilize existing rockets for beyond LEO human exploration, then you would see much more enthusiasm not only on this forum, but the space community in general.

we really dont

AT best about 30-35 hours of something other then keeping the station going gets done a week and the average is more like 20 hours…thats 1/2 to 3/4 of a “person week” and it is indicative in large measure of the fact that the agency has no clue how to use the station.

Coupled with that is an inability on NASA’s part to put something on the station that is remotely representative of any real ie non NASA science.

It is not that the station cost to much, those cost are done and lamenting over them is mostly a fools errand…but the “what do we do now Wally” questions need to be asked…and what we are doing now is not worth tits on a boar. RGO

” You would never conclude that there was deep satisfaction with America’s space program by reading this forum.”

because there is not RGO