|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 11, 2009 17:31:23 GMT -8
In this book, Heinlein posited a Lunar colony that begins as a penal colony and eventually declares independence much as our ancestors did in this country. The question I have is this - is it worthwhile, in any definition of the term, to put our NASA bucks into returning to the moon? I don't think it is. I think Mars should be the target, even if I'm dead before the first flight goes there (most likely I will be).
I'm not very good at this sort of stuff, but my cousin tells me that coming up with a fuel that could drive a ship at a constant acceleration of less than 1 gee could take a ship to Mars in less than a week (everyone on here is quite welcome to disabuse me of that, but my cousin tends to be correct on these things). The problem, of course, is finding the damn fuel system.
But as usual, NASA states the budget isn't there for even going back to the moon, let alone Mars. Christ, it's been 40 years since we walked on the moon and at this point we should have permanent colonies there. I blame the left more than the right for us not having them because the left always wants to whine about spending bucks here rather than in space. But I also blame the right given its penchant for constant whining about taxes and only supporting space efforts if there is a threat, such as the "space gap"; I mean really, would the right have supported NASA in its early days if Russia hadn't managed to put satellites and people into orbit?).
We need to get off this planet - the sooner the better.
=Bob
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 12, 2009 9:27:30 GMT -8
I think your concept of constant acceleration is correct. It still wouldn't make interstellar travel possible (except maybe to the nearest star and only then with travelers who don't mind a very long trip), but it might open up our own solar system to serious exploration and exploitation. For instance, there is a lot of valuable mineral material available in the asteroid belt. As for who is to blame for the lack of follow through with exploration, there are many suspects. I remember Pelosi saying several years ago that she would be in favor of increased space funding, but only after all our problems are solved here on Earth. Right! (I wonder if anyone said the same thing to Queen Isabella in 1492 when she was considering funding Columbus's trip! ) Here's another thought. Probably the best way to increase space exploration is through private enterprise. I think we are just now seeing that non-governmental exploration is indeed practical. And it isn't slowed down by D.C. politics. (Remember how efficiently WalMart was able to get relief supplies to victims of Katrina?) NASA is probably not terribly enthusiastic about that, however, in the same way that the Postal Service is not terribly enthusiastic about FedEx and UPS. AzWm
|
|