Space/Science — HabitableZone

Space/Science » in reply to Ah, I understand where you're coming from now..

True, but It doesn't just apply to colonization
Marsby — (archived)

You are correct that the colonization angle is a prime filter that I evaluate NASA through, but the difference in ease of resource utilization isn't just a colonization issue. It's a program cost issue. Do we want to due something very expensive for a decade or something far less expensive with a similar or better science value? Look at all the money spent just shipping supplies to the ISS. NASA is stretched for funding. We need to look at the long term efficiencies of the programs we are supporting even if they are just research bases. I don't belive it should be NASA's job to promote colonization of space in terms of building colonies and moving people there, but it should be it's job to do research of use to colonization as well as basic research. Things like heavy lift, life support, using local resources, growing crops, and addressing medical issues. The reason is these things make the cost of doing basic research by humans much less. It makes sense for NASA to spend a small portion of their research budget on these issues as an investment to reduce research cost, but it wouldn't make sense to spend ten times as much as the research budget to do something similar on the Moon. Lunar tourism is the driver that could justify that kind of budget and I hope we get a heavy lift vehicle that will enable that.

Regards,
Mark

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (59 posts)