Gaps In Exploration

Are they “normal“?

If it’s exploration for exploration’s sake, probably. But if it’s for creation of wealth, I’d expect things to happen faster.

4 comments on this post.
  1. Leland:

    We sent moon rocks to ISS? I’m beginning to believe that NASA isn’t really about exploration at all. I think NASA is more interested in Theater.

  2. ken anthony:

    Forgive for forgetting who here said it first, but sending moon rocks to ISS sounds a lot like the alternate Asteroid Retrieval Mission somebody here suggested.

  3. wodun:

    The reverence placed on the magical rocks and their journey to locations the demigods of exploration visited was a very touching addition to the religion of sciency. Are they relics of religious import or are they talismans of power?

  4. wodun:

    When we go back to the Moon, much of these lessons learned in Antarctica should be reviewed. Old concepts will still be valid – and they can be alloyed with half a century of technology and operational experience.

    What concepts and lessons? Instinct says that this is correct but it would have been useful for the author to lay some out.

    A lesson from exploration stunts is that there needs to be robust logistical support. Another lesson is that exploration stunts don’t necessarily support further activity or development.

    But if it’s for creation of wealth, I’d expect things to happen faster.

    A lot of this energy has been channeled into other forms of exploration but with dramatically lower launch costs combined with dramatically higher payload mass on the horizon, perhaps things will change?

    Could a hundred billion investment in asteroid mining yield a trillion dollar return?

Leave a comment