Reply #8: Where would we go? You mean permanent colonies?

[gulfcoastliberal]

Cause Mars isn't hopsitable for human life just like Venus. It might be easier to figure out how to reverse the runaway greenhouse effects on Venus rather than focus on a planet that is colder and further away.

I agree the moon could be used as a base, using chem rockets to get there. But that is a long way off. The Hubble replacement is a robot telescope that flies behind the moon to shade it. The science from something like that would be unprecented. Same with the Hyugens probe - no human could visit Titan for generations. Then there's the robot that's going to land on a comet, another on a large NEO. And if they crash, at least it's just money and science gone rather than some very bright people. That's what I'm talking about. Human missions burn so much cash and carry so much risk it really hurts by taking from what we could learn right now with robots. Those Mars rovers cost a tiny fraction of what it would take to get a small manned crew to Mars. Plus look at Mars Express and Polar Lander. Fuckups still happen, and more than likely these exploerers wouldn't make it.

I'm all for R&D to work on human spaceflight, but right now it is not helping us learn any new "legitimate" science. Ditch the spacestation and do more R&D on non-chemical rockets or lifting bodies. The space shuttle is the biggest debacle ever. They should've ditched ISS & the shuttle fleet after the Columbia tragedy. NASA management refused to acknowledge the deadly damage the engineers and even their own simulations told them had happened, they knew that shuttle was doomed and did nothing while it orbited the earth unaware of its destiny. This is a dysfunctional agency that needs a good cleaning out by President Kerry. Sean O Keefe is a big time BFEE lieutenant.