SoylentNews

Americans Polled on Attitudes Toward the Space Program

posted by martyb on Monday June 24 2019, @01:33AM   
from the meat-brains-need-not-apply dept.

takyon writes:

AP-NORC poll: Asteroid watch more urgent than Mars trip

Americans prefer a space program that focuses on potential asteroid impacts, scientific research and using robots to explore the cosmos over sending humans back to the moon or on to Mars, a poll shows.

The poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, released Thursday, one month before the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing, lists asteroid and comet monitoring as the No. 1 desired objective for the U.S. space program. About two-thirds of Americans call that very or extremely important, and about a combined 9 in 10 say it's at least moderately important.

The poll comes as the White House pushes to get astronauts back on the moon, but only about a quarter of Americans said moon or Mars exploration by astronauts should be among the space program's highest priorities. About another third called each of those moderately important.

"More than 80% say the United States is not leading the world in space exploration."

---

Original Submission

• Re:LOL, what? (Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Monday June 24 2019, @11:28AM

  by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Monday June 24 2019, @11:28AM (#859311) Journal

  Besides, no one is saying that the mars craft ever have to land on the moon. They can be in a high lunar orbit, or at a LaGrange point. The cost of launching toward mars will be considerably less than launching from earth, and also less than launching from the moon. Something like a Saturn 5 or Musk's heavy lifter, sitting at one of the LaGrange points, fully fueled and loaded, would make child's play of a transit to Mars orbit. And, back again, for that matter.

  It sounds like you're supporting the Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway (LOP-G) and the like as an essential part of the "Journey to Mars". It just isn't.

  BFR would refuel with multiple BFR fuel tankers coming from Earth and landing back on Earth until it has enough delta-v and fuel to reach Mars with the full payload. It would reach that point long before it reached the Moon or a Lagrange point, AFAIK.

  You could produce methane from water and carbon from the lunar regolith, in order to ship fuel into trans-lunar space. This would be less straightforward than doing it on Earth or even Mars where there is abundant carbon dioxide, and would be more expensive. It would be useful for refueling spaceships that landed on the Moon (for the purpose of being there, not Mars) and need to return to Earth.

  If there is any sense to going to the Moon before Mars, it's just that it should always be a cheaper and easier target to send humans to and study. It's relatively easy to reach, resupply, and return from. Mars may be a more attractive colonization target in the long term, but you could have a small base on the Moon for scientists. In any case, robots/rovers should be sent frequently. It will become cheaper to do this with BFR. No rocket crane needed for Mars, orders of magnitude more payload mass and fairing volume, and low launch costs. It could be tricky to lower all of the payloads to the surface from the upright rocket, but if they manage that, you could send out 100 rovers in one mission.

  --
  [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]

  Parent

  Starting Score:	1		point
  Moderation		+1
  Informative=1, Total=1
  Extra 'Informative' Modifier		0
  Karma-Bonus Modifier		+1
  Total Score:		3