A new plan for space

Later this month, NASA will start talking publicly about a plan to put humans on an asteroid and bring them back to Earth again. The Telegraph has a preview.


  1.  The way I see it: Putting robots in space = science. Putting humans in space (further out than our moon) = PR. I think this is true until we’ve truly mastered doing science with robots, and we’ve just started.

    Unfortunately this kind of PR with humans costs way more than doing science with robots. So even less real science can be conducted with NASA’s budget restrictions, much less! Makes no sense. Unless of course if you don’t care about science at all, but just want to see some Americans walking on stuff before anybody else. ಠ_ಠ

    1. Robots can’t plant the Nuke that saves us from the asteroid about to impact with Earth.  Didn’t you watch Armageddon?

      This sounds like some kind of Cold War era planning for the future going on here.

  2. I would love to support this, but I fear it will wind up with all the other “back to space exploration” proposals.

    They are stored in a crate right behind the Ark of the Covenant, next to the crate labeled “Middle East Peace Plans”.

    1. …three crates over from Jimmy Hoffa’s body and a few rows up from the Roswell alien (I’ts being kept in case others show up wanting to take the body home.)

  3. Has anyone seen a good graphical representation of what the Earth would look like from a near Earth object? Exactly how near is near?….and put me in the column of people who want to see people on the asteroid. Imagine what it would mean for little kids all over the globe to see a person, man or woman, standing there on a rock in deep space.

  4. Bring them back, or bring it all back?

    I was always under the impression that an asteroid could contain lots of heavy metals and minerals.  If you make it there, why not design the ship to get it back?  (Obviously energy and thrust might be an issue, but hey go big.)

Comments are closed.