Minimal time difference between NEO and HEO/Lunar scenarios

> One argument against the initial use of NEOs as sources of extraterrestrial
> resources is the long flight times to and from the NEO, and their impact on
>

> Scenario would be fully developed in less than 180 days? I think when we
> consider this, any perceived time difference between the NEO Scenario and
> the HEO/Luna Scenario either disappears or becomes far less important than
> it would seem at first glance.
>

180 days of debt service on, say, US$10billion is a good chunk of change. It would be prominent in at least two quarterly shareholder reports.

============

Sending a manned vehicle such as ISS to a NEO has all the same problems as a manned mission to Mars. What if a crewmember falls sick ? OR what about an Apoll-13 type scenario (critical failure in the life support system). These types of problems lead us to look at what type of abort scenarios are avaialble. IT effectively killed the 1989 Space Exploraiton Initiatve,
the astronaut office demanded safe abort mode for any point of the mission. This meant nuclear propulsion, chemical would not suffice.

Developing nuclear rockets is a political hot potate, nobody wanted to touch that one. And of course very high development cost.

For a NEO mission I would recommend designing a mission which is 100% robotic and/or teleoperated.