On Sep 23, 10:27*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 9/23/2011 2:04 PM, Matt Wiser wrote:



About time...I'd rather see Moon first than this Administration's
vague promises of an Asteroid by 2025...when they don't even have a
target destination selected yet!

As to why they would have to go to either the Moon or an asteroid from a
base at one of the L points that would have to be shielded against solar
storms rather than one in LEO is a good question.
But this is all about making big exotic future plans that you can't
afford, not rationality.

Pat

What can be afforded? What can be made to pay?
Weather satellites for sure. Spy satellites are likely.
Navigation satellites for sure. Telecom sats for sure.
And even these likely could be trimmed down with
more ground based technologies and long duration high altitude
vehicles in the atmosphere.

Some I suppose some will propose a multinational approach
and history will dispose of the multinational approach, IMO.

What would it take to have a Mars colony? A product to
ship back? An imperative to survive for someone other?
The ability to self sustain the colony for example to make it
own space suits or robotic avatars to work at the surface?
A space based star wars shield to project against the
fragments of creation that hit Mars?

It surely would take an easier way up to orbit, a faster trip
out to the red planet, a more massive ship than anyone
currently dreams to have real shielding, nuclear power,
fusion power, .........................


am I rational or simply rationing reason..........Trig