Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to EP's Man tended obsession

It is a win-win-win-win-win stratetgy, Doug
E.P. Grondine — (archived)

first off, I've already won, as you're here taking with me about the impact hazard, instead of spending time with Mars images.

So let's start with the technical arguments:

"For finding feint local objects - you need three things. A huge mirror, a huge FOV and a huge CCD."

You left out clear skies.

"None of those require being on the moon. Infact - in terms of financial return - it would be far FAR better to have multiple scopes on the ground here on earth - than in orbit or on the moon"

Actually, the trade has been looked at by Mazanek's team in depth, and the thing to do is write to the Langley PAO for a copy of their analysis. It works out on the cost-benefit level as well.

But, for only the sake of argument here, let me cede your point. Then are you proposing NASA spend money on the use of multiple large dedicated Earth based telescopes? Then I've won my point, as the current NASA expenditure has been only $3.5 million per year.

But still, since Earth based telescopes are not as efective as space based ones, are you proposing that NASA use space based telescopes? Then I've won my point, as the current NASA expenditure has been only $3.5 million per year.

Or will you cede that there might be something that might usefully be done on the Moon?
Then I've won my point, as NASA has been stuck in LEO for years.

Dealing with the impact hazard is about the only thing that people are willing to pay for in deep space. They have no desire to pay for manned Mars flight right now. But if the HLLV and other manned sytems are developed for impact protection, then the costs of manned Mars flight drop.

So in the end, we all win.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (55 posts)