there are a lot of unknowns but nothing to suggest getting them will be possible. In fact, with a little practice I'd bet it will be quite predicable (and eventually simple)

NASA has flaked on developing useful skills in space. The ability to assemble pre-fabbed parts and grow algae in orbit is not what we need. We need engineers learning how to work with metals, like how to smelt ore into metal in free-fall/orbit. How to manufacture parts, extrude/duct/mill parts.

No one is excited over space anymore because they linked space to science and science has become a money pit where most of it fails to generates any return (how does astronomy pay the bills?) There isn't any real progress in pure science. You need to attach it to something tangible and actually have a plan to get there soon.

Engineering by it's nature is profitable, make space for engineers and you'll see business get excited and that makes people excited.

A solar coronal mass ejection (CME) that hits the space craft will fry the astronauts. We need serious shielding. Asking astronauts to do a one way trip isn't good enough. They need to make it there.

Long term zero gravity it hard on the body. But they have to be in good shape when they get there. AFAIK, there's no artificial gravity (like spinning spacecraft ala 2001).

Agriculture has not been demonstrated in space. This is needed to reduce the mass needed.

In situ resource utilization has not been demonstrated on Mars, the Moon, or even in simulants, on Earth. This is hard.

Efficient propulsion, to make trips shorter, or to include more stuff… at least ion drives have been demonstrated. It's not much thrust.

Some of these things ought to be tried on the ISS. Is it happening? No. It's hard to imagine going to an asteroid, much less Mars.

Source: http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/2000sg344.html

Well, you're right. Many verbs and concepts of doing things are no longer useful in certain space environments. One tends to forget that.

Walking, landing, mining (probably just scraping or hammering off some dust off that thing), etc… sometimes get completely different meanings.

Gravity's insignifigant? So what? This is what EVA thruster packs are for. No you don't 'walk' on it in any meaningful sense. Yes, you *do* use pitons (fired forcefully from a distance, if necessary) and other mountaneering technology to secure the explorers and their gear, with the advantange that you can't 'fall off,' just float away. In that case, you jet back and try again.

Changing the movement of a megaton object is still not trivial. Inertia is the same, even in free fall. And as long as it continues to be on a non Earth-intercept path, who cares?

Had there been no political reasons to beat the USSR to the moon, we probably would have never gone at all.

There is nothing like competition to get things moving.

Al Hall, I'm afraid you are right about it being politics that will take us to other worlds instead of higher callings. I also suspect it was the Chinese stating their goals that prompted Bush to give NASA it's new plan to go to the Moon and on to Mars. Frustrating! But I guess we should be thankful that at least something motivated them!

In General: I am intrigued by a human mission to a NEO though. These bodies will have many of the resources required for us to actually live in space for extended periods of time. (maybe not all on the same body) They are also much easier to reach in terms of delta-V than more massive bodies. (Check out Gerard O'Neill's thoughts on a space faring civilization actually moving to a planetary surface as opposed to living in 'free space' in his book 'The High Frontier' (somewhat dated now, but I think with still valid points).) I hope NASA actually follows through on this one!

Ron

Perhaps Ian can clarify this for me, but I recall hearing something about the technology used back in the man mooned missions of the 60's is actually better than what we have today?

Valid points, but economics won't be the drive. Politics will be…. Nationalism… It is my opinion that we are finally going back to the moon because the Chinese announced they will go there. 'We' feel that we must have a foothold, just in case.. Same will go for Mars.. The Russians are also thinking of Mars… For now, it is nationalism.. Later will come commercialism… Just my opinion..
It really is too bad that our leaders don't seem to feel as we do (they probably do, but there is more at stake.. so no chances..).. The progress of our species.. I guess it is going to be in our blood for a long time… Try to outdo the other guy…. no matter the cost…
We will go to Mars soon…. Why?….. Because somebody else said they will do it..

@ Al Hall: I doubt we will see Mars before 2050, the main reason being the pace of governmental programs (NASA plans on landing on the Moon by 2020, China is looking at 2030, etc.).

Mars is going to be expensive and a lot more complicated due to the fact that we have yet to figure out how to land anything over one ton on the planet without dying.

It also lacks major resources that would make it attractive (aside from the weather and ice).

Asteroids may be smaller, but the metal/minerals would give governments a double take regarding these space rocks.

I must admit that a lot of your stories 'perk' me… I like that… I would think that the goal of this site is to promote interest and feedback and you guys (along with your contribution) are doing a good job…
Oops.. Did I already give my pat on the back?.. It is true, though.
Long story short (I know, too late): I have no scientific data to support it but I think we will have humans on Mars before landing on an asteroid.. Seems to risky to the average [insert noun here]….. Just my sneaky suspicion.