They suspect Helium 3 is in the moon.
Artemis Project: Lunar Helium-3 as an Energy Source, <br>in a nutshell
Don't have to go to Mars for it. Nor is there a need for it now since such a reactor has not be successfully built.
We can do "suppose ifs" forever. Suppose if we alter the course of an asteroid that causes a gravitational shift leading another massive asteroid to destroy all life on earth?
Suppose as such massive funds are shifting to "wouldn't it be cool if..." stagnates other research of more likely results.
To claim science is stagnate is absurd. Rather, I am reading Star Trekkie kindergarten science proposed to replace real scientific research that is just that, real.
I already posted a link to it once. Even if we found an asteroid of pure gold and platinum, it is not economically viable for mining.
Are you one of those people who has a contract that when you die they will quickly cut off your head and freeze it, with the prospect that in the future it could be defrosted, restarted and given a genetically lab created new body? "Nothing ventured, nothing gained." If not, just think if all of medical practice had instead taken your negative views?
Just like I asks on military threads, you can NOT just say want you WANT. You also have to say what you GIVE UP to pay for it. Tell us in detail what Trillion+ dollars you want to take away from science for this, or is your's the ObamaCare plan of "BUT IT COSTS LESS IN THE LONG RUN" logic - the free money theory?
We hear this "it saves in the long run!" crap all the time. Nuclear power for here - would save money in the long run, so they raised rates 25%, then another 25% for a few years to fix the busted old nuke and build 2 more - then announced it wasn't economically viable - so now that money is gone and it will take 60 YEARS to shutdown the old one at $1.2 BILLION - which of course will be $10 BILLION by the time we're done - and we're paying for that.
SO... tell us the trillions plus dollars in scientific and technological development you would shut down for your plan. Be specific.
BTW, there is fantastic amounts of mineral wealth at the bottom of the oceans. MUCH cheaper to get that. Why do you oppose doing that instead?
Nor have you told any way to get massive amounts of material from space to earth economically or without potential massive environmental damage. With current and even realistic theory it can't be done. Fortunately for us, the atmosphere and earth's gravity is very "negative" towards stuff in space reaching land. If it didn't we'd all be dead.