NASA has a $3 Billion dollar shortfall? Well I have an answer.
The EU Nations have a lot of money being wasted every year. Obama should spend time getting them onboard. Once they sign an agreement no one nation will back out for fear of political embarrassment or bad relations. Especially the French. They NEVER want to embarrass themselves in front of Americans. If Congress or Senate (who ever the legislative branch are in USA) won't cut funding off either. To much politics involved.
Middle Earther wrote:
I agree that there have been a lot of spinoff from NASA, but why, specifically, the moon? Don't we get a lot of this benefit from the space station/shuttle program?
It gives us a good testing ground for Mars technologies, while still being in emergency-return range of Earth.
I mean, we need to figure out how to set up automated mining systems somewhere, and helium-3 gives us something to dig for at least.
You know I'm really tired of hearing about Helium-3. Fusion is a long,long,long,long time away from being productive let alone commerically viably to make the moon worthwhile.
From what I've heard to be honest. We're better off skipping the moon and going straight to Mars. The environment of these two heavenly bodies are different and remember. Everything you launch from the moon to Mars involves launching it from Earth first. I shudder at cost of it all.
1:Launch to the Moon
2: Land in the Moon.
3: Launch to Mars
4: Land in Mars
The fuel bill would be horrendous. This one looks much better though.
1: Launch to Mars
2:Land in Mars