Near Earth Object Program, Orbital Diagrams http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/orbits/
A permanent station on the Moon will ultimately require a low Earth orbit transit station. The ISS (International Space Station) represents an experimental first step towards such a transit station in low Earth orbit. Unfortunately, however, the low Earth orbit space station is too far into the Earth's gravity well for certain types of activities required for permanent operations on the Moon.
Another space station is needed at Earth's Lagrangian point to take advantage of using railguns and similar transportation systems for the transport of certain cargoes and passengers to and from the Moon. A space station at the Lagrangian point will be outside the Earth's gravity well and outside the Earth's protective Van Allen belts. Using an asteroid for the space station at the Lagrangian point would be an ideal solution for a transit station with shielding from radiation and micrometeorites. It would also have the benefit of serving as an ideal transit station for all travel to destinations in the outer and inner Solar System. It would also serve as an outstanding launch site for unmanned missions, using resources delivered from the Moon transported by rail gun.
_________________________________________________________
But you can't play golf on an asteroid, so what's the point in going?
The ISS has been a pretty big disappointment and we cannot even get to the ISS anymore because we lack a functional space program.
The reason we currently lack a meaningful and functional Space Program is because NASA has squandered it's assets over the last 25 years or so pursuing pointless, asinine missions like this ridiculous Obama inspired Asteroid Hunt. I bet he got the idea from Sheila Jackson Lee, or perhaps the real goal is to rendezvous with Screwy Louie Farrakhan's Mother Ship so we can get on with the eradication of the white devils
We are at the point where our space programs are so deteriorated we would have a hard time putting the 30+ year old Space Shuttle, much less doing anything novel or hard.
Heck, I was there when Boeing liquidated the assets of the Shuttle production facility in the 90’s as part of the Clinton Administration's Jihad against the Aerospace Military-Industrial Complex that created the Shuttle and many other technological advancements that we now take for granted but can't even recreate. We need a space program and flight vehicle that actually does something of practical value, which the shuttle did very well at an astronomical cost per flight.
First priority would be practical reusable single stage to orbit and reentry flight vehicle. Rutan and Company seem to have made remarkable progress on towards this goal with minimal private funding levels which are small fraction of the cost NASA's Muslim Outreach Program (seriously).
If you can't get up there and get back, then you can't do jack. Even if you can get up there and back but can't afford to take the trip then you can't do jack either.
We don't need another pointless pie in the sky mission for NASA to turn into a money pit and squander our progress in space for another generation.
You can still play electronic golf inside the small asteroid. Inside Ceres, however, you could play on a full size golf course with trees, sand traps, and lake hazards under what appears to be a limitless blue sky with perfect weather. The game would become more interesting with the need to account for a mean hook resulting from Coriolis forces. It would be more fun, however, flying with or without wings on your arms in the central weightless chamber filled with an Earthlike atmosphere. Think aerial rugby and other games.
The ISS has been a pretty big disappointment and we cannot even get to the ISS anymore because we lack a functional space program.
The SST program was compromised before it even came off of the drawing board. There were three concepts under consideration when we lobbied for funding of the SST. The third and supposedly least expensive and least risk concept was the one adopted, with one expendable main booster stage, two recoverable SRB boosters, and the manned orbiter spacecraft. The second concept under sonsideration was a manned orbiter spacecraft and an unmanned main tank to be remotely piloted to a recovery landing at a spaceport. The first and most expensive concept was to have the the manned orbiter spacecraft and a manned main tank or booster to be flown and recovered at a spaceport.
The Air Force was supposed to have its own space shuttle fleet and launch some of its missions from a Space Shuttle launch pad at Vandenberg AFB, California. Like so many other aspects of the program and the military budgets, the Carter Administration killed it.
The whole program was compromised by refusals to deal with design issues like the problems with the O-rings and the heat tiles. There were others not so well known, which was the topic of conversation among the contractors in 1978-1981. One of the engineers responsible for the Vandenberg launches remarked to me about his concern for a disaster at Vandenberg if some design flaws were not rectified. The shutdown of the Air Force Shuttle program ended those specific concerns.
Alternatives to the Space Shuttle and follow-on RLV (Reusable Launch Vehicles) concepts and prototypes have been around since before the end of the Apollo program, the landing on the Moon on 20 July 1969, and the appropriation's for the STS Space Shuttle. There are a number of current designs which can be flying as soon as 2014 given funding and operational success. What was and is lacking is the will, money, and the freedom to act.
The reason we currently lack a meaningful and functional Space Program is because NASA has squandered it's assets over the last 25 years or so pursuing pointless, asinine missions like this ridiculous Obama inspired Asteroid Hunt. I bet he got the idea from Sheila Jackson Lee, or perhaps the real goal is to rendezvous with Screwy Louie Farrakhan's Mother Ship so we can get on with the eradication of the white devils
The reason "we currently lack a meaningful and functional Space Program" is because the Democrat controlled Congress and/or Presidents keep obstructing and defunding development of RLV and other manned spacecraft programs.
We are at the point where our space programs are so deteriorated we would have a hard time putting the 30+ year old Space Shuttle, much less doing anything novel or hard.
Although NASA is certainly not what it used to be and is challenged in many ways from budget to competency in certain respects, the commercial space programs are absolutely blossoming. If they had received sufficient funding and attention decades earlier, they would already be in a position to replace the Space Shuttle. Now, they can still do it in the next few years to decade, if the government doesn't do something to obstruct them.
Heck, I was there when Boeing liquidated the assets of the Shuttle production facility in the 90’s as part of the Clinton Administration's Jihad against the Aerospace Military-Industrial Complex that created the Shuttle and many other technological advancements that we now take for granted but can't even recreate. We need a space program and flight vehicle that actually does something of practical value, which the shuttle did very well at an astronomical cost per flight.
The good news is the way in which the commercial RLV systems will soon be in a position to outperform the STS, Soyuz, and other current conventional launch and spacecraft systems for a fraction of the cost with their revolutionary new engine and airframe designs.
First priority would be practical reusable single stage to orbit and reentry flight vehicle. Rutan and Company seem to have made remarkable progress on towards this goal with minimal private funding levels which are small fraction of the cost NASA's Muslim Outreach Program (seriously).
If you can't get up there and get back, then you can't do jack. Even if you can get up there and back but can't afford to take the trip then you can't do jack either.
We don't need another pointless pie in the sky mission for NASA to turn into a money pit and squander our progress in space for another generation.
That would be true if a mission going to an asteroid really was pointless, but it is not necessarily pointless at all. A manned mission to an asteroid is absolutely necessary for anyone looking to establish a permanent presence beyond the Earth. A presence on the Moon is also necessary and a very important piece of the whole human presence in the Solar System. However, a presence on the Moon by itself is insufficient to maintain a human habitation beyond the Earth's environment. The asteroids are the least costly and most productive sources of resources for human needs. They can provide everything from air, water, and shelter to interplanetary and interstellar transportation. Inhabitants of the Moon are ultimately destined to extinction, while inhabitants of the asteroids can conceivably escape extinction so long as they can avoid self-destruction, disease, and supernovae. In the short term, manned missions can evaluate the technologies needed to exploit them and use sampling to learn more from their chemistry and radiotides about the earliest origins of the Solar System and the Earth.