Should NASA return to the Moon instead of doing ARM?

[Bill Phil]

Not much technology differences for rocket engines between the 70s and now.

Rockets are rockets. That's it.

Even aerospikes aren't new ideas. They had a proposal for converting the J-2 into one, in the 70s.

[Kibble]

Imagine describing how moving the earth to extract a rare precious metal in massive quantities and getting it all to temperatures hotter than fire, in order to melt it so that you can shape it into thousands of flying machines, each heavier than an elephant to move people to the other side of the world could possibly bee "profitable" to a Sumerian farmer. It would bee crazy for the Sumerians to build a trans-continental jet and expect profit, even if they had the technical capacity.

[magnemoe]

Not much technology differences for rocket engines between the 70s and now.

Rockets are rockets. That's it.

Even aerospikes aren't new ideas. They had a proposal for converting the J-2 into one, in the 70s.

True, once you understood chemical rocket engines it was not much more improvements to do. Add that rockets are expensive to develop and you don't get many new

SpaceX or other don't do much new here, recover first stage is something different, it require good control systems and navigation and would probably not be practical in 1970.

Ion engines of various types is the only new thing used in the engine front, note that most new communication satellites used ion engines for station keeping.

That is another major change, not many commercial communication satellites in 1970, neither orbital telescopes, no gps. Think spy satelites still dropped film.

In short we uses space a lot more than 40 years ago.

[crazyewok]

They are not something that will happen in the next century at least

Looking through that magic Crystal ball of yours again?

Wish I could see what technological and political changes could happen next week let alone 100 years time like you!

Yes with CURRENT technology we will be be lucky to even get a manned mission to the moon again within the next 50 years.

But as we all know technology does not stay static and random things comes up.

I wont presume to guess what the next 10 years will bring let alone 100!

No one knows if we will achieve a technological break through in energy or propulsion or if the free world will get a great leader who wants to push technology to the brink or a 2nd cold war that forces a 2nd space race.

Who knows! I don't.

What I do know is that technological, economic and political situation in 100 years times will be vastly different to what it today.

The only question is do any of the those changes make space flight cheaper, safer and more desirable ? I don't honestly know. Nor do you.

Edited April 24, 2015 by crazyewok

[PakledHostage]

Imagine describing how moving the earth to extract a rare precious metal in massive quantities and getting it all to temperatures hotter than fire, in order to melt it so that you can shape it into thousands of flying machines, each heavier than an elephant to move people to the other side of the world could possibly bee "profitable" to a Sumerian farmer. It would bee crazy for the Sumerians to build a trans-continental jet and expect profit, even if they had the technical capacity.

I'm not sure I get your point? You are talking about a people who lived about 5000 years ago. The technology of a civilization 5000 years in the future was just as unimaginable for them as it is for us.

But people like AngelLestat aren't talking about a time 5000 years from now. Much like many of us here, guys like AngelLestat forsee a future where we live throughout and exploit the resources of the solar system. Unlike many of us here, however, they seem to think it has to be forced to happen imminently, before the economic drivers exist for it to happen more naturally.

I feel like a broken record saying it again, but Rome wasn't built in a day. We are building Rome. It may not seem like it to people who read too much sci-fi or play too much KSP, but we are building Rome.

[Bill Phil]

True, once you understood chemical rocket engines it was not much more improvements to do. Add that rockets are expensive to develop and you don't get many new

SpaceX or other don't do much new here, recover first stage is something different, it require good control systems and navigation and would probably not be practical in 1970.

Ion engines of various types is the only new thing used in the engine front, note that most new communication satellites used ion engines for station keeping.

That is another major change, not many commercial communication satellites in 1970, neither orbital telescopes, no gps. Think spy satelites still dropped film.

In short we uses space a lot more than 40 years ago.

Ions existed since the 1960s. And I think the first GPS like system did too...

There were some communications satellites, but not that many.

We do use space a lot more...

[Reddragon]

In my opinion optimally we shouldn't need to choose. I'd be the happiest if there was money for both (and there could be) but since that's not the case I'd go with ARM which is much cheaper and is completely new. Besides that having a smaller station in lunar orbit with a reusable robotic lander for sample return missions to the station and perhaps to bring some scientific equipment to the surface would be a good option. No need to restart Apollo just to see it end again. SLS and Orion came way too early. They shouldn't be working on an SHLV yet.

[FlyingPete]

Working with near-Earth asteroids is more useful IMO. Once you've got the technique of off-world mining sorted, not only do resources become cheaper, but you can start building things in space rather than shipping everything up from here. Ultimately, we need to find alternatives to mining from the Earth. There's a finite amount of everything, and no matter how good you are at recycling and conservation, sooner or later you'll run out.

[Nibb31]

Looking through that magic Crystal ball of yours again?

Wish I could see what technological and political changes could happen next week let alone 100 years time like you!

Yes with CURRENT technology we will be be lucky to even get a manned mission to the moon again within the next 50 years.

But as we all know technology does not stay static and random things comes up.

Technology doesn't evolve overnight either. Major technological breakthroughs (semiconductors, nuclear power, internal combustion, etc...) typically take decades of social and industrial change to reach widespread implementation. Even if somebody demonstrates a warp field or postive-balance fusion tomorrow, we won't be seeing actual warp-powered spacecraft or fusion power plants before 30 or 40 years, because that's the amount of time that is needed for technologies like that to reach a useful TRL.

And even then, there are very little chances that we actually get a sudden breakthrough. The law of diminishing returns applies to science too. 100 years ago, it was possible for single scientists like Marie Curie, Pasteur, or Einstein to make major discoveries pretty much on their own. Nowadays, research needs large teams, complex equipment, and huge resources, and the results are much less spectacular. A Zephram Cochrane inventing a warp drive in his garage isn't very likely.

We know a lot more about the universe than we did 50 years ago, so the probabilities of completely turning our understanding of physics upside down are slimmer. It's actually less likely to discover a game-changing new technology today than it was 50 or 100 years ago. No need for a crystal ball.

- - - Updated - - -

Working with near-Earth asteroids is more useful IMO. Once you've got the technique of off-world mining sorted, not only do resources become cheaper, but you can start building things in space rather than shipping everything up from here. Ultimately, we need to find alternatives to mining from the Earth. There's a finite amount of everything, and no matter how good you are at recycling and conservation, sooner or later you'll run out.

Why would asteroids be easier to mine than, for example, the Moon?

[AngelLestat]

Space exploration is better done by robots, period.

Then kids will said: --When I grow up I want to be like that robot, but the robot will answer --stay in home, do nothing with your life.. I handle it..

Yeah... that is not the way to inspire people or to live.

Also robots had problem with comunication delay, not so much for the ARM or Moon mission concepts.

They also had a problem sharing info.. they can only transmit few kbytes for second (in case are not close to home). A manned mission needs to return, so they can bring with them terabytes of data and SuperHD videos.

A human can do what 20 or 30 robots do in the same time.

Manned missions had the public and goverment support, they obtain huge budgets... good luck trying to get big funds for your R2D2.

Life is about take risks, is not life without that.. what is this new surrogates ideology as the Bruce Willis movie.. That way to face thing is pathetic.

Not much technology differences for rocket engines between the 70s and now.

Rockets are rockets. That's it.

Even aerospikes aren't new ideas. They had a proposal for converting the J-2 into one, in the 70s.

There was not so big breakthrough with rockets. But the breakthrough is comming more in the way of "not drop that 747 to the trash after you used it"

We are in the edge of big breackthoghts on light materials using graphene or carbon nanotube composites, just 7 years more, they are already using it to shield some sats from electromagnetic radiation.

The Us AirForce Research Laboratory already confirm (9 days ago) that the Sable engine is feasible. The first applications that it can have is for 2 stages to orbit vehicle, energy production and water desalination. Once the new skylon study show potential and the engine is tested with the first applications, going to 1 stage to orbit may be the next step.

http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/press_release/AFRL-REL_CRADA_Press_Release_15April2015.pdf

Maybe this will take 15 or 20 years if is possible.. but when it happens launch prices will be 1/100 the Ariane cost. Once you reach that point, the space is open to everybody.

Add solar sails and other propulsion methods to the equation and inter-planetary business is a sure thing that can be develope with the time.

But people like AngelLestat aren't talking about a time 5000 years from now. Much like many of us here, guys like AngelLestat forsee a future where we live throughout and exploit the resources of the solar system. Unlike many of us here, however, they seem to think it has to be forced to happen imminently, before the economic drivers exist for it to happen more naturally.

I feel like a broken record saying it again, but Rome wasn't built in a day

First technology growth exponential, it took us only 50 years to build many of the biggest cities of today. The population increase from 2.5 Billions to 8 billions in that time.

Second, not sure what time estimation that I made are you referring, search and quote me then we can discuss that. But dont try to distort my words.

Your estimation is 5000 years to start exploit resources from other planets? Just try to find anyone who think like this.. That is the worst time estimation that I hear in my life.

Ultimately, we need to find alternatives to mining from the Earth. There's a finite amount of everything, and no matter how good you are at recycling and conservation, sooner or later you'll run out.

Yeah but some people live in the Neverland, where things never change and remains the same for always.

Edited April 24, 2015 by AngelLestat

[Mechie_PhD]

It looks like KSP is misleading a lot of non-scientists on what "doing science" actually involves.

If you think "doing science" is picking up moon rocks, inserting them into a box with flashing lights and out comes iPhone 8 and flying robotic uber cars; you are very mistaken.

Science is not laying around on the surface of moon/mars/kepler186-f waiting to be picked up and transmitted back to earth. All of the science "happened" on earth while the Apollo missions were being planned/built, not after they landed on the moon.

There simply is no incentive to go anywhere else right now. Sending humans to other bodies is like the super-rich buying art they don't really appreciate at auctions, They do it just to show others how rich they are.

Planning a vast array of robotic missions would lead to giant leaps in hardware, electronics and AI which will directly lead to better quality of life for everyone on earth.

[crazyewok]

Shhhh your not allowed to mention SKYLON or the SABRE engine here according to the poster above you as its just vaporware, proven to be broken and unworkable HAHA

There no hope and no future in this evil British invention and and the USAF have it all wrong and we should just give up on it and forget it

The technology we have now will be the exact same technology we will have 100 years time and that is the final say! Everyone else are just either children or morons! /sarc

- - - Updated - - -

By the way I am not standing here promising mars missions, moon bases,colonization, fusion power ,SSTO's or even warp drives .

But I am not arrgnat or shortsighted enough to 100% say we wont have them either as I am humble to say we barely know what the next 10 years will hold let alone the next 100. Hell for all we know we may be back in the dark ages after a ELE or Nuclear war!

[PakledHostage]

First technology growth exponential, it took us only 50 years to build many of the biggest cities of today. The population increase from 2.5 Billions to 8 billions in that time.

Second, not sure what time estimation that I made are you referring, search and quote me then we can discuss that. But dont try to distort my words.

Your estimation is 5000 years to start exploit resources from other planets? Just try to find anyone who think like this.. That is the worst time estimation that I hear in my life.

I promise I won't distort your words if you do me the same courtesy. I know that English isn't your first language but I know you can read better than that. The 5000 years number comes from Kibble's thought experiment about what Sumerians (who lived ca. 3000 BC) would have regarded as a waste of time, yet we consider to be among the pinnacle of our technological achievements. I did not put it forward as an estimate of when we would start to exploit resources from other planets.

You clearly believe that it should be possible to begin to exploit resources extracted from asteroids and other celestial bodies in some admittedly unspecified short time frame (within a couple of decades?) and you are entitled to your opinion, but I am also entitled to disagree with you. I think your projections are overly optimistic, possibly because you over estimate near term technological progress or possibly because you under estimate the technical difficulty of what you're envisioning. Or maybe there's another reason? You also seem to be hand waving away the issue of who's going to pay for the development of the technologies that you envision and how they are going to see a return on their investment.

Edited April 24, 2015 by PakledHostage
attempted to clarify my point

[NeoMorph]

Once we master Nuke fusion we will need HE3 which we can get on the moon (yeah, Iron Sky was a huge joke but the HE3 bit was actually true... there seems to be an abundance in the upper regolith).

Soooooo... we use the moon to leapfrog us out to the rest of the solar system. How many others here used the Mun to mine for Kethane to turn into fuel for your system exploration?

[Bill Phil]

So...

500000 usd to 1 million usd is open to everybody?

[Nibb31]

The technology we have now will be the exact same technology we will have 100 years time and that is the final say! Everyone else are just either children or morons!

Can you even have a discussion without resorting to strawmen ?

By the way I am not standing here promising mars missions, moon bases,colonization, fusion power ,SSTO's or even warp drives .

But I am not arrgnat or shortsighted enough to 100% say we wont have them either as I am humble to say we barely know what the next 10 years will hold let alone the next 100. Hell for all we know we may be back in the dark ages after a ELE or Nuclear war!

You're right, we can't predict the future. That also means that we shouldn't be shaping our space program plans based on stuff that might or might not exist in the future. We should be doing stuff that we know we can achieve now, with technology that we have now. We could initiate a new round of lunar exploration now, or we can try the ARM mission now, because we have the technology now. Or we can sit around another 30 years until we have developed what we need to go to Mars.

- - - Updated - - -

Once we master Nuke fusion we will need HE3 which we can get on the moon (yeah, Iron Sky was a huge joke but the HE3 bit was actually true... there seems to be an abundance in the upper regolith).

It is very unlikely that it will ever make sense to mine He3 on the Moon because:

- He3 is not required for fusion. Helium3 fusion is only one among several potential processes for fusion, and it's actually a not very promising one.

- He3 is not "abundant" on the Moon. It's more abundant than on Earth, but you would still need to process 150000 tons of lunar regolith to get 1 ton of He3. And you would need many tons to run a reactor.

Edited April 24, 2015 by Nibb31

[jwenting]

IF we return to the moon it should be with the full intent to stay, in other words we should strive to build a permanent base there and plan to have it eventually self sufficient.

That's however a very tall order and won't be achieved within the 4 year maximum timeframe of any NASA plan (4 years because their budget cycles are driven by Washington politics, whether we like it or not, and those run on a 4 year cycle with funding going to more or less where it buys the most votes. Yes kids, space IS politics, especially if governments fund it).

ARM is a good start towards asteroid exploration and exploitation, but on its own does not bring us much. Unless it's part again of a larger plan to have permanent settlements in space to make use of those asteroids as a source of raw materials for industry, it's in itself pretty useless. Very interesting, but useless.

A manned Mars flyby is a total waste of money, puts people at high risk of radiation related health problems for no gain whatsoever. Again, it might be an idea as a first step in a bigger plan for permanent settlement of the red planet, as a test flight of a ship that would enable that dream and act as a transport/shuttle craft between earth and Mars. Again, like the moon, I don't see that happening.

What then? What can NASA come up with that can be funded, designed, built, launched, and yield results that make the politicians who approved that funding look good inside of 4 years?

Not much, certainly not much outside of low earth orbit.

Maybe a manned observatory in high earth orbit with semi-regular missions there, kinda like Spacelab but at a few thousand instead of a few hundred kilometers.

I don't see much more that NASA can do that will get funded for the duration of the program (and we certainly don't want a Mars program to lose funding for flight #3 that's to bring vital supplies and a return vehicle for the people we sent there on flight #2, which is a very real risk given the way NASA is funded...).

[Nibb31]

There was not so big breakthrough with rockets. But the breakthrough is comming more in the way of "not drop that 747 to the trash after you used it"

We are in the edge of big breackthoghts on light materials using graphene or carbon nanotube composites, just 7 years more, they are already using it to shield some sats from electromagnetic radiation.

A 747 is not designed to be expendable nor does it have the same flight rates as rockets. If airplanes were designed to fly for only 10 minutes, they would be much cheaper. Rockets that are designed to be expendable and mass produced are "relatively" cheap compared to rockets that are designed to be reused and built in smaller numbers.

I know that you're fond of analogies, so here's another one: If you are throwing a party once a year with 50 people, it makes sense to buy paper cups and disposable napkins. If you have a restaurant with 50 people every night, it probably makes sense to buy proper glasses, and depending on other factors, it might still be more economical to keep the paper napkins. My point here is that reusability is not automatically cheaper. The final operating cost depends on plenty of other economical factors.

The Us AirForce Research Laboratory already confirm (9 days ago) that the Sable engine is feasible. The first applications that it can have is for 2 stages to orbit vehicle, energy production and water desalination. Once the new skylon study show potential and the engine is tested with the first applications, going to 1 stage to orbit may be the next step.

http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/press_release/AFRL-REL_CRADA_Press_Release_15April2015.pdf

Thanks for that press release. I'm glad to see REL finally admit that an SSTO Skylon is not realistic at this point. A multi-stage vehicle makes much more sense technically. I'm still not sure if it makes sense industrially, but we'll see.

Edited April 24, 2015 by Nibb31

[crazyewok]

Can you even have a discussion without resorting to strawmen ?

You're right, we can't predict the future. That also means that we shouldn't be shaping our space program plans based on stuff that might or might not exist in the future. We should be doing stuff that we know we can achieve now, with technology that we have now. We could initiate a new round of lunar exploration now, or we can try the ARM mission now, because we have the technology now. Or we can sit around another 30 years until we have developed what we need to go to Mars.

Well you are right we can only do missions with the technology we have today. And it would be pointless to sit on our hands as the insights we gain today could be useful if/when we do get other technology.

But I do think we should be trying to look at replacements for rockets now even if we wont discover anything for 2 decades or 2 century's.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm glad to see REL finally admit that an SSTO Skylon is not realistic at this point. .

Glad?

Why are you glad at set back?

Plus what I got from that report is it still looks like a promising route to go down and the technology may just need maturing before anything is tried with SSTO's

Edited April 24, 2015 by crazyewok

[Nibb31]

Absolutely. It's more likely see them succeed with industrial heat exchange technology and a multi-stage launcher than with an over-ambitious SSTO that doesn't make any sort of economical sense. It's not a set back. It's a much better strategy. Which is why I'm glad.

[crazyewok]

Absolutely. It's more likely see them succeed with industrial heat exchange technology and a multi-stage launcher than with an over-ambitious SSTO that doesn't make any sort of economical sense. Which is why I'm glad.

You know what?

I cant argue with that logic I agree with and concede defeat to you on this point.

[StrandedonEarth]

I'd say they should focus more on asteroids, unless they can justify a continued presence on the Mun, er, Moon. As much as I'd like to see a Base on the Moon, and people going beyond LEO, I'm not sure how to justify it, especially to start with. These days, I just don't know what people can do that robots can't, with remote human guidance. The project I hear is best suited for the Moon is a Far Side radio telescope, shielded from Earth's noise by the bulk of the Moon. Again, I don't see why that can't be built by robots, from lunar or 'roid mined materials. Technically challenging, yes, and requiring a Dextre-ous robot, but that's what would be required to assist and support humans in the unforgiving environments of space, the Moon, and Mars.

It would make more sense to create stockpiles of materials (metals and water mined from asteroids) in orbit, whether it's around the Moon, L1, or even LEO. If it's visible from Earth, it would be more inspiring to the general population. It should be easier to mine 'roids (once we anchor the machinery) because there is no appreciable gravity well to lift products out of. Once we have materials, we can use them to create Moonbases and Mars vehicles, and it would require much less upmass to support a human presence. If we can find decent quantities of platinum and rare earths to ship down, it would give high-tech devices on Earth a boost in capability and affordability.

The only reason I see for people on the Moon is to perfect life-support and other technologies with an eye to establishing colonies farther out in the solar system. The purpose for colonies is so that all of humanity's eggs are not in one basket. Having people in harsh environments will drive innovation.

Sorry about the rambling, I tried to minimize that

[Vallius]

Both missions basically depend on the SLS, so I'd say there's no reason NASA couldn't do both.

Going to an asteroid really just depends on mission timing, while returning to the Moon is pretty much a prerequisite for prepping for Mars.

We may be able to learn a lot about what we'll be dealing with on Mars by having a Moon base first. We've got more than enough LEO experience.

[AngelLestat]

I promise I won't distort your words if you do me the same courtesy. I know that English isn't your first language but I know you can read better than that. The 5000 years number comes from Kibble's thought experiment about what Sumerians (who lived ca. 3000 BC) would have regarded as a waste of time, yet we consider to be among the pinnacle of our technological achievements. I did not put it forward as an estimate of when we would start to exploit resources from other planets.

Ok Sorry, I must knew that you could not said such thing.

In my defence the sentence seems to said that if we ignore the "period":

But people like AngelLestat aren't talking about a time 5000 years from now. Much like many of us here

You clearly believe that it should be possible to begin to exploit resources extracted from asteroids and other celestial bodies in some admittedly unspecified short time frame (within a couple of decades?) and you are entitled to your opinion, but I am also entitled to disagree with you. I think your projections are overly optimistic, possibly because you over estimate near term technological progress or possibly because you under estimate the technical difficulty of what you're envisioning. Or maybe there's another reason? You also seem to be hand waving away the issue of who's going to pay for the development of the technologies that you envision and how they are going to see a return on their investment.

The key factor why many of you make such long time predictions is because you trace a line from 1970 to 2010 and see how little we accomplish in that time (on space) and the few changes that was applied to vehicles or methods from that year.

But you cannot do that if you want an accurate prediction.. You need to understand the causes, the will and all technologies involves with their respective hatch times. I always follow how technologies grow up since 25 years back, and I keep doing it almost all days, I become pretty acurate to predict the time of hatch due the amount of funds and attention which they receive and also trying to understand how they works in conjunction with the world needs.

In fact applications as Cortana make great predictions just checking twitter trends.

Understand economics and business helps a lot, about politics is hard to make predictions because some times doesn´t depend on the country needs.

You can have 40 years of the same thing, but it reach a time where all pieces come together and a new technology arise bringing a new revolution.

Cellphones for example grow up slow, until they reach a place where they had enoght processing and utility to change the user life, that is the smartphone revolution.

The space revolution will come when the launch cost and the space needs reach certain level. Then it will grow up exponential as the smartphones.

And remember that when something is used more frequenty, it grows much more faster.

About your question.. what is my prediction on asteroid mining?

2040-2045 first attemps, it will not be profitable from the day 1 as everything new, but the first profits will help to reduce the investment and improve the methods.

The most hard about asteroid mining is the energy require it.

So...

500000 usd to 1 million usd is open to everybody?

My rough numbers based in my opinion:

If skylon happens, 5 years later you can launch 30 kg spacecraft with 10000 U$S to LEO.

With Falcon Heavy 5 years later you can launch 7 kg spacecraft with 10000 U$S to LEO.

A 747 is not designed to be expendable nor does it have the same flight rates as rockets. If airplanes were designed to fly for only 10 minutes, they would be much cheaper. Rockets that are designed to be expendable and mass produced are "relatively" cheap compared to rockets that are designed to be reused and built in smaller numbers.

Forget about mass produced, none rocket in the word can be applied to cost reduction due mass production.

The only one who approach to "mass production techniques" was the falcon9.

Also there is not such thing as cheap rockets that can be used one time.. because you need to be sure they work that first time.. due this, is almost sure that materials will work 20 times more.

This is not as plastic utensils vs metalic.

But another way to think in reusability more close to your view, is to think that you need a 30% bigger rocket if you want to make it reusable for a fixed payload. So the rocket will cost a 30% more aprox, but you can use it 15 or 20 times.

Which reduce the cost by a lot due production, but also due the test cost that each new rocket needs.

If you are throwing a party once a year with 50 people, it makes sense to buy paper cups and disposable napkins. If you have a restaurant with 50 people every night, it probably makes sense to buy proper glasses, and depending on other factors, it might still be more economical to keep the paper napkins. My point here is that reusability is not automatically cheaper. The final operating cost depends on plenty of other economical factors.

Yeah.. still in neverland with the assumption that demand will not increase, google already agree with spacex to launch 4000 sats for their internet project, it already invest 1 billion and gain a 10% of the company.

That is only the tip of iceberg for possible business in space. It can go from pharmaceutical ruble, to exploration or any other space exploit business.

Also even if spacex does not need to drop the prices due low demand.. they will do it anyway to encourage the industry to low the cost of spacecraft components. Is not crazy to think that they self will fund a company to provide cheap and generic spacecraft components even at manufacture cost.

They will do this because at that time they will be the only cheap choice, and they need to increase their launch rate to increase even more its launch technology, so other companies would not be able to reach them.

Airbus and Safran, are joining forces to create a new family of price-competitive launch vehicles to fight SpaceX, then you already know The United Launch Alliance new plans to face spacex, Arianespace, Lockheed, Khrunichev and Energia plus the japanese and chinese.

There are huge companies who increased its activity a lot lately, with new designs and fusions, all to fight for a piece of a non existing pie (in your opinion). Because... what can you do in space??

Absolutely. It's more likely see them succeed with industrial heat exchange technology and a multi-stage launcher than with an over-ambitious SSTO that doesn't make any sort of economical sense. It's not a set back. It's a much better strategy. Which is why I'm glad.

Of course it will start with the basic steps, but if skylon study confirms feasibility.. They will not wait much time, they can not allow spacex to control the space business.

Edited April 25, 2015 by AngelLestat

[Kibble]

Why would asteroids be easier to mine than, for example, the Moon?

Minor planets are more varied in composition, their entire mass is accessible, you don't have to haul stuff up and down a 1.6 km/s gravity well, they can bee parked on favorable orbits, and the heavy elements haven't sunk into a molten core.