By-Pass the Moon?

> From: Combs, Mike
> Their reasoning is that trips to asteroids will more
> quickly
> get us back to the only important space goal, which is Getting to Mars
> Real
> Soon.

'The' only important space goal, or 'their' only important space goal?
Someone else recently used the phrase 'endless Lois and Clark expeditions'.
I'd argue an L&C trip to the asteroids is little different from one to the
moon or mars. It might give us another big stick to hit the creationists
with, but so what? It's not going to make any practical difference to voters
on the ground.

Pretty much the best thing the next president could do is not to shut down
VSE, or change it too much, but put up a ten billion dollar prize (cash, tax
free) for the first organisation, inside or outside America, that can
deliver a vehicle that can bring launch costs down to $500/kg or lower.
(Minor small print: Vehicle must pass FAA regs, money awarded upon delivery
of tenth vehicle, no ****ing wings, etc.) VSE is probably the best that NASA
is capable of doing (though personally I'd modify it as per the Direct
proposal) but private industry has repeatedly quoted a CATS development cost
in the region of $5-$15 billion. Whether a market for such vehicles exists
or not becomes an irrelevant question since a prize that big represents a
'market' all by itself.

If no one takes it, or no one wins, the government & people lose nothing;
and the whole CATS idea can be laid to rest. But if it does work...

About 90% of NASA's budget can be traced directly or indirectly to launch
costs. Bring costs down to CATS level and you can slash $10B from NASA's
budget *every year* and still have them do ten times more. Even if day trips
to space doesn't happen overnight, slashing/freeing up $10B from the federal
budget might be popular with a lot of people.

Or at least more popular than a bunch of space-lotto winners bouncing around
on Mars.

John