Look at the ISS way over budget and not even attempting to do much of the science it was supposed to. Large portions of it were cancelled do to its cost over runs. The public does not support an open pocket book for NASA. The ISS is a huge failure and basically a dead end when it was supposed to be a stepping stone. The problem with the ISS is that wild speculation and exaggeration was used as justification rather technology just over the horizon. I said before it launched that the space purification justification was BS. How many compounds are being commercially prepared in space now? How many look like they will be in the future? 0 to both.
We know we can easily harvest resources on Mars to support missions and reduce their cost. We should be able to harvest some resources on the Moon, but with much greater difficulty requiring much more infrastructure with far fewer resources available.
Regards,
Mark
Space/Science » in reply to Given TWO choices between a 'boondoggle' that returns humans to deep space 380,000 kilometers from Earth, or one that strands humans in LEO (380 miles up) for decades, I'll take the FIRST CHOICE.
The Problem With Any 'boondoggle' Is That It Will Get Rejected humans to deep space 380,000 kilometers from Earth, or one that strands humans in LEO (380 miles up) for decades, I'll take the FIRST CH…
The whole thread (8 posts)
- Tom Matula, over on the Space Frontier Foundation's Return to the Moon board, weighs in on the Moon vs Mars question
- re: Tom Who?
- From a recent Aviation Week & Space Technology editorial
- Hope You Memorized That Definition Of Boondoggle
- Given TWO choices between a 'boondoggle' that returns humans to deep space 380,000 kilometers from Earth, or one that strands humans in LEO (380 miles up) for decades, I'll take the FIRST CHOICE. (n/t)
- Hope You Memorized That Definition Of Boondoggle