Re: APOD: Phobos South Pole from Mars Express (2011 Jan 24)
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 8:20 am
APOD and General Astronomy Discussion Forum
https://asterisk.apod.com/
I definitely think science should be the primary criteria. I don't think it should be the only one. And I don't think every mission has to be "economic" in some simplistic sense. There is such a thing as an investment in technology- very little that is of value was immediately so. But I do think that if we're going to put people in space, it needs to be for a good reason- either clearly scientific, clearly commercial, or clearly something with the potential to become valuable. I don't class "the next frontier" or anything like that in such a category.neufer wrote:It only blows the human space flight argument away if you agree with Chris that science is the primary criteria. Robots should be in space in a big way, now and forever more, doing things that (only at first) don't make economic sense. Suggesting otherwise is short term thinking and long term folly. Suggesting otherwise is like suggesting several decades years ago that we shouldn't bother with Voyager spacecraft that don't really accomplish anything important such as having men plant flags on other planets.
without a magnetic field, terraforming would't stand a chance.workgazer wrote:Why no speed up the decent of Phobos , let it slam in to the surface, the resulting dust, possible melt, could kick start the terraforming effort?
from WIKI
Sounds like a rip off. Somebody's skimming some money along the way. If it were worth sending something up to the Phobos Grunt probe, there will be another window for embarking to Mars.JohnD wrote:Sorry, hip shooting at costs. NASA estimate $1.5 TRILLION per Shuttle launch over the life of the programme, but $500 MILLION at the end when all the non-recurring costs are paid.