Re: [Utah-astronomy] Potential for lunar policy shift at NASA
Tracking this down futher, it appears that the administration was requesting a $900M increase in funding for FY2010 at the House appropriations hearing that was the subject of the article, raising NASA funding to $18.7 billion. But the administration is overdue on its detailed FY2010 budget request. The acting administrator's statement was upbeat. The chairman of the appropriations subcommitee was more somber - noting that the administration is suggesting a flat budget for the next 5 years, that they cannot come up with a replacement for the head of agency, and it appears NASA is trying to do much within its current budget. So, it looks like a developing story that S&T and New Scientist was hyping a bit. - Clear Skies - Kurt The acting administrator's statement: http://appropriations.house.gov/Witness_testimony/CJS/Christopher_Scolese_04_29_\09.pdf Subcommittee Chair statement: http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/CJS-FY10-04-29-09.pdf
Yes, I agree, which is why I only expressed disappointment in the Planetary Society's recommendation. That said, I'm not confident that those in charge of the purse-strings will make terrific decisions, either. Assuming we don't kill ourselves first, I'm confident that we will get to Mars one day; it just might be 50 or 75 years from now. I even predict permanent human colonies there, and one day independant government. But that will take generations, short of a quantum leap in technological progress. We're not going to see the "2001" world in our lifetimes, fellow astronomers on the wrong side of 50, lol. On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 12:27 AM, Canopus56 <canopus56@yahoo.com> wrote:
So, it looks like a developing story that S&T and New Scientist was hyping a bit.
I represent that remark! ;) The movie "Outland" was on yesterday (the one with Sean Connery about miners in space). Is commercial mining of asteroids/moons foreseeable, or is the cost to bring ore home gong to remain too prohibitive? --- On Sun, 5/3/09, Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> wrote: ...fellow astronomers on the wrong side of 50, lol.
We're in the same age demographic, brother, I'm right there with you. ;o) Rich, I think humanity will see that eventually, but for it to happen, the cost of obtaining those resources on earth would have to exceed the cost of procuring them from space. The value of those resources would have to be enormous. This could also mean that those resources have been depleted on earth and are just no longer available. Major technology advances could also bring down the costs of extra-terrestrial mining. I think too that if the technology and infrastructure exist for extra-terrestrial mining, then space-based manufacturing is probably going to exist at the same time. Except for very large items, only the finished goods would be de-orbited and brought back to earth, or the moon, or Mars. I think we're talking about scenarios that still lie a couple of hundred years hence. Lots of changes are going to take place on earth first. Humans don't share very well. War will be cheaper than space-based mining for a long, long time to come. On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Richard Tenney <retenney@yahoo.com> wrote:
I represent that remark! ;)
The movie "Outland" was on yesterday (the one with Sean Connery about miners in space). Is commercial mining of asteroids/moons foreseeable, or is the cost to bring ore home gong to remain too prohibitive?
--- On Sun, 5/3/09, Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> wrote:
...fellow astronomers on the wrong side of 50, lol.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
participants (3)
-
Canopus56 -
Chuck Hards -
Richard Tenney