Man to Moon? Mars? NEOs?

[Airbrush]

The answer is NEOs! Men have been to the Moon. Send robots there and to Mars. What we really need to do to win the respect of the world is develope a fool-proof defense against bolides. The other projects are very expensive, just for fun. A defense system can save the planet. Yes an extinction level event is very, very unlikely in the near future, but we don't know all the threats. Better to be safe than extinct, or living in the stone age, again.

[VedekPako]

The reason men went to the Moon was more political than scientific.

 

The chances of an asteroid that would cause the human race to go extinct hitting the Earth within our species' lifespan is so remote, any defense system would be a waste of resources*.

 

We probably won't go extinct from an extra-terrestrial source. It will be a a terrestrial source.

 

*Unless it's our species that causes the asteroid to hit the Earth.

[SH3RL0CK]

Politics notwithstanding, the Apollo program was an incredible achievement for science. We are still trying to understand all the data and samples that were gathered 40 years ago.

 

Mars is going to be out of reach for people for quite a while yet, IMO. Had we maintained the knowledge of how to build the Saturn V rocket, a NEO asteroid might be possible. And it will be possible again, assuming the Aries rocket is actually built (though I have to ask why not just re-construct the Saturn V?).

 

A visit to a NEO asteroid would no doubt provide a scientific bonanza far beyond the application of how to prevent an earth-impact with one. I don't feel this would be a waste of resources.

[Airbrush]

We probably won't get hit, but it CAN happen any time. Tunguska-sized objects are not all identified and can destroy a city or worse. If they want to play around in space, then do it for something that has real tangible benefits, like survival of our species, rather than bases on the Moon or Mars. There would be more world-wide appreciation for the country(ies) that develop the means to defend ALL people, along with other species. It is the most altruistic of all space missions, better than just frolicking around on the Moon or Mars to answer science questions which robotic probes can do just as well and at far less cost. Such a noble mission of the US and others defending all people and life on earth could cut back on terrorism against the US. So that adds up to political benefits. Then other countries may help out with environmental conservation.

 

Most people in the world don't think so much in probabilities, the way scientists do. If you are a country working on a defense system, you will be admired for that. Even if we do start missions to NEOs it will be a hundred years before viable defense systems are tested and on line, ready for action.

Edited July 21, 2009 by Airbrush

[djrams80]

If they want to play around in space, then do it for something that has real tangible benefits, like survival of our species, rather than bases on the Moon or Mars.

I think you are underestimating the value of a Moon settlement. I'd say that the long-term survival of our species depends much more heavily on exploring the known universe, than it does on avoiding an asteroid impact. Learning to live on the Moon and Mars and any other livable, foreign body we can find a way to get to, is something that obviously must be done, or we perish in this finite solar system.

 

The resources available on the Moon also make a settlement there completely necessary, both financially and politically. I personally feel that the Helium-3 on the moon, is the next "must-have" natural resource, no different than oil is now. The countries that have Helium-3 will rule this planet and those that don't, will be relatively poor. Those countries that are not well into their own Moon settlement project at this very moment are very much "behind the curve" and will probably regret this lack of foresight for an extremely long time.

[Airbrush]

Interesting post Djrams80. Is that your picture in the top right?

 

What I would like on the Moon is an NEO detection station on the far side of the moon. That would always face away from Earth and sweep space for moving dots.

 

What makes helium-3 a must have?

 

I still would rather spend most of our space exploration money on planetary defence systems. Why not have bases in Antarctica that learn to be self-sufficient? That would prepare them for the Moon. The low Moon gravity will cause serious physical problems over the long term. Unless they figure out how to have artificial gravity on the Moon.

[insane_alien]

helium-3 is a 'must have' because it has a lot of uses in fusion power.

 

helium-3 is roughly 10 times more expensive by weight than gold at the moment.

[djrams80]

Interesting post Djrams80. Is that your picture in the top right?

Yeah, um, not so much.

 

What I would like on the Moon is an NEO detection station on the far side of the moon. That would always face away from Earth and sweep space for moving dots.

Probably not going to happen, given the immense cost to benefit ratio. Who's going to fund this, considering that no one is even willing to pay for a serious potential impact project here on this planet?

 

What makes helium-3 a must have?

Clean fusion power, enough to power the Earth for probably 10,000 years exists on the Moon. This is of course assuming that we can get a fusion reactor running. If not, then Helium-3 becomes basically worthless.

 

I still would rather spend most of our space exploration money on planetary defence systems. Why not have bases in Antarctica that learn to be self-sufficient? That would prepare them for the Moon. The low Moon gravity will cause serious physical problems over the long term. Unless they figure out how to have artificial gravity on the Moon.

Nah. There's no money in an Antarctic settlement, while there's potentially unlimited fundage in a Moon settlement.