This message appears to have failed to transmit the first time; but because the attempt was so slow, i was able to cntlc a copy into an email. If two functionally similar copies of this message turn up, please accept my apologies.

You have in this post - & in the post "Re: OK, then: we've established that there is no common ground, politically..." - made a number of statements about this issue that i agree with (including the statement that most space advocates, whether of the Moon, Mars or Alpha Centauri) are doing so with good intention... hence, i'm breaking my previously stated position of butting out of this conversation. If it reheats again, i'm outa here....

Personally, i've never agreed with the argument that you have to go to the Moon to develop the technology to get to Mars (the lander technology is very different; & even with a low delta v mission out to the weak stability boundaries, you don't fly far enough to really test the life support system the way a Mars mission requires); but we >will< will have to go to the Moon first for other reasons: mostly budget - it will be cheaper - & political scientific (that is to say, despite all of the attempts of the Mars advocates to coerce a common ground behind their preferred goal, given that for every Mars-first scientific advocate you have at least as many pushing the opposite, the only way the scientific consensus can be built up behind it will be all scientific needs are met; & that means the Moon has to be a target... & probably >the< primary target). Demonising other targets in the hope that it makes Mars looks good therefore hurts the Mars advocates as much if not more than the people they're attacking... after all, Asian space cultures like PRChina, Japan & India (as well as European nations linked to these agencies) have zero interest in Mars but a traditional fascination with the Moon; so it's possible that the US could get left behind if it only pushes for an unsellable Mars.

The problem with the NEO option is that is fairly new option - we literally couldn't'ave flown such a mission ten years ago because we didn't have the orbital trajectories - & research is quite immature on the concept in cf with the Mars/Lunar options. The Decadal Survey developed one kind of plan for a much shorter NEO mission (see thttp://www.aas.org/~dps/decadal/whitepapers/jones_120701.doc) than what i'm describing; but mostly it called for further research on the subject. That definitely needs to be done; but knowing the life support capacity of MIR-2 class componentry & the capacity of upper stage rockets capable of docking in LEO from heavy lifters such as Proton & the delta v required by near terrestrial asteroids such as 2002 AA29 countered by the relatively simple modifications required to utilise these components in the higher radiation environment existing beyond LEO & the more complicated changes required for a Soyuz-class return vehicles to deal with the greater (ie, greater than for LEO & Lunar return; but much less than for Mars return) reentry velocity, it appears likely that a three person (two would be better; but it would probably be easier to cut the international deal on three) on a simple NEO encounter trajectory could be flown on a pretty strict budget using mostly off the shelf technology.

Because of the lack of real research on this option, that's about >all< you can say at this point; but the very rough calculations i'm capable of - plus things like the Decadal study - have convinced that this is the budgetary way to go... as much for what you don't have to pay for (the landing technology; more simplified life support challeges; & reduced delta v, in particular) as what you do. Unlike the Mars option, you can even simplify a manned NEO mission further by not stopping at all (ie, do a targetted flyby while staying in Solar orbit on an Earth return trajectory) & still do useful science, which gives you a usefully cheap Apollo 8 test flight to stretch your technological envelope; & if you don't want to take the risk of flying humans beyond LEO on you flight prototype, you could even send an unmanned manrated craft to the target asteroid (& possibly even land it as a base station for future missions). More options cheaper; & less money being spent developing technology without actually flying things.

Very reassuring; & potentially very cheap.

Robert