I was pretty sure that the Prometheus program was an “Icy Moons of Jupiter” platform which I think is planned for 2010. Mainly a powerful electrical system and likely an ion drive.
I keep hoping someone will make a mistake on the invoice and buy a gas core nuclear rocket. 
Granted, it is not an IMPOSSIBILITY to do as you describe, but the idea behind my post remains…
Should the first field test of such technology be during the first manned Mars mission, with no hope of return or rescue should it fail, or should we do it somewhere closer first?
Actually, one of the current ideas is that first we colonize with robots instructed to provide a safe haven for later human astronauts.
The purpose of sitting on a flagpole for an extended period of time is to find out how long you can sit on a flagpole and what happens to you.
The purpose of sitting in microgravity for an extended period of time is to find out how long you can live in microgravity and what happens to you.
Kinda useful if you plan two six-month tours in space with a long stay in low gravity in between.
We do not know very much about how the human body reacts to long periods in microgravity, other than a certain loss of bone density, which we believe can be staved off by regular exercise. Until we know more (such as what sort of bone-rejuvenating exercises can be done in microgravity), speculations about a trip as far as Mars are pointless.
We can only manage seconds of microgravity on Earth, and the shuttle can only sustain itself in space for two weeks, max. How then, do you know what can or can not be done in a six-month time frame?
If you ask me, that was the point of the ISS in the first place, it’s just that eventual long-term missions in space were too far off to win government contracts, so they pushed through the “scientific experiments” nonsense.
Well you can’t test run the process on the moon as there’s no CO2. But your point is valid. I’d say that the moon could be used as LEO was used in the Apollo program, a testbed for insertion, landing, reactor testing and launch. The chemical reactions can be done here on Earth, you just need a big room with lots of CO2.
On a side note it looks like the Prometheus/Jupiter Icy Moons project is gaining some steam.
If $50 per person was going to fund a social welfare program, a whole lotta posters on this thread would be whining about being robbed at gunpoint and blah blah blah.
Wondering where those folks are…
Maybe working out how many welfare dollars over 40 years would get handed out?
I can’t deny that it’s an exciting idea. And if you’re one of those who feels we must first fix every problem here on Earth, then I probably am not going to be able to change your mind. But what I’m wondering is, how hard would it be? We’ve done the spacefaring design and engineering already. We have astronauts/cosmonauts cooling their heels in the ISS for six months on end; so why can’t we have them cool their heels in a moon base? Given that we have space shuttles that can ferry loads of fuel and supplies to near Earth orbit, why not come up with a plan to construct and fuel a Moon ship in orbit? Such a ship would not have to endure the G forces, or expend the fuel, to go from ground to orbit. I realize that it would take much new development to come up with a serviceable moon unit, but I’ve always been rather disappointed that all the potential of the space shuttle was never more fully exploited.
Well, that’s part of the point I want to make. Here’s the budget item for the Department of Health and Human Services, the biggest chunk of the federal budget.
Says there that 2003 spending for the department was $502 billion dollars (23.45% of total federal outlays this year), compared to NASA’s spending of $14.6 billion (0.68% of the federal budget). To use manageable numbers, the feds spent about $1793.00 on behalf of each American through HHS, and only about $52.00 on space (assuming a US population of 280 million;The Census Bureau actually has a higher current estimate, reducing the per citizen numbers, but I had already punched the number into my calculator before I looked up the cite).
Now I like the fact that the government contributes toward a basic standard of living for us, but I must ask (and usually don’t get a satisfying answer from) all of those who declare that NASA must go in the name of social welfare:
What exactly is almost $1800 not buying that the extra $50 will, especially since the elimination of NASA would mean a hefty reduction in employment in the aerospace sector? What will upping the expenditure to 24.13% of the budget provide that justifies the jettisoning of our toehold on the future?
I believe, and will continue to believe, that those who whine about the “vast” amount of money we spend on space either have not looked at the real numbers relative to each other, or are trying to draw attention away from something else.
You think we spend real money on NASA? Ha!
Look! I’m psychic!
At the very least I’m happy that actual work is starting on a fission powered planetary probe. A proof of concept able to flood us with information and truly exploit ion engines is always good in my book.
Nice post scotandrsn, but I think the apt comparison might be to other science programs (eg, the NSF), rather than to social welfare programs.
Nonetheless, comparisons between NASA and other social spending programs are often made, so (I repeat), it was a nice post.