To be honest, I see the Russian space program taking the spotlight in the next decade and possibly becoming the global leaders of most major spaceflight missions. With the US out of commission during the major restructuring within NASA and the transition to the new HLV, Russia will likely receive funding that would have otherwise gone to the US. I may be mistaken, but won’t any new trips to the ISS need to be undertaken by Russia? To me, this seems to mean that they could use this opportunity to take the lead, not only on the short term while we’re out of commission but also on the long term.

That doesn’t really bother me, though. I actually sort of hope that’s what happens, for a number of reasons. Obviously in the grand scheme of things, it doesn’t make a difference who’s leading humanity in space exploration; the fact that we are making progress at all is a good thing. Another beneficial aspect of another country taking the spotlight could mean a greater public demand of the US government to allow the private sector to take a crack at exploratory missions. If that’s the case, then it’s the first step we’ll have had toward significant progress in a long time. I still think the most logical step forward for us would be to set up a base on the moon for use as a launching station of sorts for other major missions, but that’s another matter entirely.

My hopes are high, but my rationality tells me that we’ve got a long way to go before we see a man on Mars. Of course, a hundred years from now, we may be saying the same thing about putting a man on the nearest Earth-like planet.

Private enterprise, when competing, the very nature of business, can vastly out perform any committee endeavor. If you want to get a robotic explorer on the moon, make it some form of lightly funded X Prize, with the pot of gold for the winners.

I tend, with an exception, to also think/ know that robotic exploration has produced tremendous results. If it is a choice between sending two pilots on a mission or one robot, send the robot certainly. The alternative is not often enough discussed. In the case of Mars exploration, the first explorers, whether now or at anytime in the future, the first explorers should be immigrants. It is a matter of science.

Put two men on Mars and intend a return? Both must be pilots, not scientists, time on the surface must be limited to Solar System orbital mechanics, science and research will horribly suffer. And the return is the expensive portion of the trip and ten times the risk.

Send four men or women, supply so they may live and work for years, possibly decades. It is STILL less expensive than landing two pilots on Mars for two weeks and returning them. Ten thousand times the science for half the cost.

When we go to Mars, it must be for science. So stay. I would.

Send old not young, send stone masons and scientists, not pilots.

Dean Unick

Private enterprise, when competing, the very nature of business, can vastly out perform any committee endeavor. I you want to get a robotic explorer on the moon, make it some form of lightly funded X Prize, with the pot of gold for the winners.

I tend, with an exception, to also think/ know that robotic exploration has produced tremendous results. If it is a choice between sending two pilots on a mission or one robot, send the robot certainly. The alternative is not often enough discussed. In the case of Mars exploration, the first explorers, whether now or at anytime in the future, the first explorers should be immigrants. It is a matter of science.

Put two men on Mars and intend a return? Both must be pilots, not scientists, time on the surface must be limited to Solar System orbital mechanics, science and research will horribly suffer. And the return is the expensive portion of the trip and ten times the risk.

Send four men or women, supply so they may live and work for years, possibly decades. It is STILL less expensive than landing two pilots on Mars for two weeks and returning them. Ten thousand times the science for half the cost.

When we go to Mars, it must be for science. So stay. I would.

Send old not young, send stone masons and scientists, not pilots.

Dean Unick

Private space firms are lagging not because of insufficient inspiration, talent or technology, but for the following three reasons:
1. Lack of money
2. Lack of money
3. Lack of money

Any of the larger private space firms could achieve any practical mission within the solar system, if properly funded. And the great thing is they can do it much faster, much cheaper, and with much less politics than NASA ever could.

What is $1 billion to any department of the U.S. government, including NASA? Lunch money, at best.
What is that same amount of money to a private space firm? An unprecedented, miraculous bonanza, beyond their wildest hopes or dreams.

The problem is that NASA is dominated by fighter jocks raised on Star Wars and robotic flights are given short-shift. There are few of these flights in the future. New Europa and Titan/Enceldaus probes are needed along with many other destinations.