Nothing first.Everything everywhere ASAP.If you think that's beyond NASA's budget, you're right.
First of all, by NASA and exploration I think 99% of us think HSF, not space science or earth science.I don't think HSF is really about exploration, nor should it be about shooting clowns from cannons. Here are two popular definitions I think are closer to the mark:Expand earth's economic sphere.Space settlement.I don't think these are quite right either though. The first implies we are doing it for the good of humanity, which implies not viable commercial activities in their own right. To focus just on space settlement would imply, for example, turning our back on SSP if it turned out it could only be done efficiently robotically, and that the goal was purely altruistic because most of us wont benefit from space settlement except in very indirect ways.Here is the best I could come up with:To open new frontiers to commercial activity.This still isn't quite right. Some frontiers are not relevant to NASA. On the other hand some frontiers I think should be relevant but are ignored because of the underlying political assumption that the real purpose for HSF is to create missions for certain launchers. For example I think developing teleoperated mining technology for the ocean floor, or technology for self-sufficient communities living entirely separate from our biosphere should be entirely within HSF's domain.Although from some respects it is a piddly small goal (and yes I would really love a moon base) the asteroid capture mission is not that bad to me.It lets us practice all the things we should be practicing: robust life support away from earth, long term missons in deep space environments, EVAs to actually interact with materials not sent up from earth, ISRU even if the first uses may just be for shielding. Also as noted in the OP we could visit the location regularly, have a small base there and practice all those skills.With these sorts of skills you can think about visiting practically any rock in the solarsystem but perhaps it isnt NASA's job to do so. If you are going to spend a lot more money and not specifically to master extra skills then probably your motive should be commercial by that point. NASA would just have solved all the problems.
If the objective is to have a permanent lunar or Mars base than we have to think about more than just getting there. We have to consider how are we going to sustain, maintain, and even extend a human presence on the moon or Mars or both for many decades given budget limitations.
Quote from: DarkenedOne on 04/28/2013 02:12 pmIf the objective is to have a permanent lunar or Mars base than we have to think about more than just getting there. We have to consider how are we going to sustain, maintain, and even extend a human presence on the moon or Mars or both for many decades given budget limitations. This.
Quote from: Lar on 04/28/2013 03:58 pmQuote from: DarkenedOne on 04/28/2013 02:12 pmIf the objective is to have a permanent lunar or Mars base than we have to think about more than just getting there. We have to consider how are we going to sustain, maintain, and even extend a human presence on the moon or Mars or both for many decades given budget limitations. This.Huh? Even Jim probably wouldn't understand that response!
Although I suppose I could be considered "moon first," I was wondering if there is a more productive way to think about this than just feeding the ongoing cage match between various fiefdoms (Moon vs. elsewehere, SLS vs everyone online, etc).So I'm wondering if, at least as an intellectual exercise, start with this principle: our BEO missions should be to bodies and regions that we can visit repeatedly. I say "regions" because I don't see a point to visiting one asteroid one time, and I don't know if anyone asteroid would be worth visiting again and again. But routine access to NEA orbits to study and tag passign asteroids, that would make more sense. And so the NEA region would make the list, along with the Moon, Mars, other planets and Cruithne.Just a thought.
Quote from: QuantumG on 04/27/2013 10:35 pmNothing first.Everything everywhere ASAP.If you think that's beyond NASA's budget, you're right.It is. Nevertheless it's the right strategy. Don't focus on one objective as a project, focus on multiple objectives of opportunity as they arise.NASA cannot do this, I think. Private Enterprise can. But will it? It's my fervent hope it will.... \\ which makes me a fan boi. However, I am rational enough to realise it may not come out the way I hope.
You know, I am really starting to re-think things.I've gotten so into the weeds on the tech, the politics, the budgets, the personalities, the destinations, etc., that I feel like I lost the forest for the trees.So focussed on the how, I forget about the why.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 04/28/2013 05:57 pmQuote from: Lar on 04/28/2013 03:58 pmQuote from: DarkenedOne on 04/28/2013 02:12 pmIf the objective is to have a permanent lunar or Mars base than we have to think about more than just getting there. We have to consider how are we going to sustain, maintain, and even extend a human presence on the moon or Mars or both for many decades given budget limitations. This.Huh? Even Jim probably wouldn't understand that response!? Seemed obvious to me... you want a base, not just a flag? Just getting there (and back) is the smaller part of the problem. You have to sustain and maintain (live off the land, not off supplies from earth) and extend (solve ISRU ... raw materials-feedstocks-machinery-equipment) and it is not a project, it's a many decade process.If that's not what was meant then never mind. But that's how I read it.
.... We should go back to the Moon to stay, and use it as a springboard for Mars .....
..... However, the USG has no need of such a sustained effort, and it will not be done.