abracadabra wrote:
"B1ackwater" wrote in message
...
(CNN) -- NASA Administrator Michael Griffin rolled out NASA's plan for
the future Monday, including new details about the spaceship intended
to replace the shuttle and a timeline for returning astronauts to the
moon in 2018.



OK - the question is "WHY ?". A few people for a few days at
a time ... it's just not worth doing (except to enrich certain
aerospace companies).

While doing the 'final frontier' thing is appealing, there just
HAS to be a little cost/benifit thinking done first. Describing
this particular endeavour as "Apollo on steroids" is quite apt -
because it doesn't seem to accomplish much beyond what Apollo
accomplished, just a little more of it for a lot more money.

IMHO, we should not return people to the moon until they're
in a position to STAY there, with plenty of company. This
means a whole different sort of program - with the first
phases being entirely robotic. First of all, a supply of
water MUST be found and exploited. Secondly, habitats and
equipment for a growing colony MUST be in place. Only then
should people start arriving.

I know they found at least one decent water supply in a crater filled with
ice on the dark side.

Not precisely, They think water is there, but not absolutely proven.


One decent fiction book I read had humans terraforming Mars by crashing
comets into the planet's surface - comets rich in frozen nitrogen, oxygen,
water, etc. Are there enough asteroids in the belt with water that it might
be worth fetching some to put on Mars or the moon?

Asteroid belt, no. Try Kuiper belt and Oort Cloud. Also, moons,
starting with Jupiter outwards, are rich with H20 and other necessary
volatiles. Robotic vehicles could being back all that would be needed
to support a Moon and Mars habitat.



Robots can explore, robots can drill and mine, robots can
construct habitats from imported and natural materials,
robots can assemble equipment - and do it cheaply, safely
and well. Any moon colony should be set up from the get-go
to be perpetually self-sustaining ... because financing it
from earth would be a perpetual and heavy drain on cash and
resources.

Agreed. I'd hate to be colonists on the moon depending on one party staying
in power.

In any event, it never hurts to put our eggs in more than
one planetary basket, but the next step is to MAKE the
damned basket rather than just shuttle veritible tourists
to the moon and back and watch them do pretty much exactly
what their predecessors did before. The 'next step' isn't
one of volume, doing more of the same old crap, but a whole
different paradigm - colonization. THAT will be worth the
money and effort.

The USA will fall, as all empires fall, but what a legacy to leave behind -
a colonized Moon, Mars or colonies in the asteroid belts.
Sadly I don't think the current administration is serious about space, and
the Democrats can't seem to get excited about it either. My fear is that
it'll be the Muslims or Chinese who actually get around to colonizing space
while the USA twiddles it's thumbs. What a waste.