Slashdot Mirror
NASA Rolls Out Mars Mission Plans
An Anonymous Coward writes: "MSNBC is reporting NASA's plan for the next Mars mission: either a single rover or a team of two rovers to be sent to the red planet in 2003. I'm glad to see that the government hasn't lost faith in NASA despite the recent setbacks with their Mars program."
Nothing more exciting than going back. The Pathfinder mission was certainly a PR success. Perhaps a couple more like that and we can look forward to some commercial ventures spurred on by the marketing people of the world. Get your Mars Happy Meals right here. Doesn't bother me as long as we go! I have been waiting for more exploration of the red planet for three years and now it seems like we may get our wish. I can't wait for the new findings on more water. More marketing...Evian Martian Blast!
----------
Twisted Little Gnome - The Podcasting Network http://www.twistedlittlegnome.com
Also see this BBC News article!
Isn't this the kind of thinking that got them in trouble before?
Pity, thought they might be sending people. Hopefully they won't lose contact with their vehicles before anything comes back from them
The agency reportedly was operating under a self-imposed deadline of Aug. 1 for determining the shape of the 2003 probe.
They current favourite within nasa is rumoured to be a 8 inch clear plastic cube with shiny bits inside. The metallicity of it gives it the edge over the previous revision which resembled a blue amorphous blob.
A nasa spokeswoman commented "We want to make the probe as ergonomic and easy to use as possible. It really will be as simple as plugging it in and pressing the launch button"
In an attempt to steal nasa's glory, microsoft today announced they would revive their own space program.. cancelled in the early nineties after their inability to run a craft for more than two hours without a catastrophic crash.
i don't see a family saloon car making it all the way to mars.
Still, I'm glad to see them doing something. It's depressing to think that after all this time, Mars is still such a pipe dream. As a child, I was expecting men to walk on Mars by now; I was hoping Gloria Steinem would get to bitch, "Mars needs women!"
2003. Airbags. Roll a half-mile. Sigh.
....
....
--Hey Doctor Jones! No time for love!
If it doesn't fit, use a bigger hammer...
(Assuming this is a real question, not a troll...)
Because man has a need for exploration, and because while we're not sure what we will find, it is certain to be interesting.
Besides, the two are not mutually exclusive. Surely in a country the size and with the economy of ours, we can afford both (and all those other things besides). The amount spent by NASA is a tiny fraction of the amount available. If you're so concerned about spending money, look at some of the bigger targets first - apply the 80-20 rule. You'd probably find the Defense Department loses more money in it's couch than NASA spends. Why not hammer on them?
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
I'm glad we're hurling more objects at Mars and all, but I'm amazed at the slowness with which we're exploring everyone's favourite big red bouncy ball. After all, it's been nearly a third of a century since we first put men on the moon, and yet that's as far as we've sent humans and, what's worse, we haven't even hurled very many probes out to our planetary neighbours. What's the total number? Not many...
It honestly makes me wish there were still a space race going on; at least then we'd still be actively involved in space exploration. Instead of space exploration NASA spends most of its time trying to convince pointy-headed bureaucrats and politicians to give it enough money to survive. Despite recent successes--and failures--it really seems like NASA is suffering a slow and excruciating death by underfunding; a sad state of affairs for a space exploration program which built up such momentum way back in the Kennedy administration.
Think of how many pivotal moments NASA has given us in the twentieth century. Nipping at the heels of the Soviets with our first man in space, and totally outdoing them with the moon landing (my grandparents shot a Polaroid of the television screen the moment Armstrong set foot on the moon); the gripping drama and ultimate redemption of Apollo 13; the public amazement when the Space Shuttles, like the spacefaring planes of science fiction, flew for the first time; the emotional Challenger disaster and the ensuing investigation; the colorful Pathfinder images that captivated the public for weeks. Just about every American can remember at least one of these things, and see it as an important event we'll always remember. Personally, I'll never forget my elementary school teacher hearing about it on her radio and taking the whole class to the school library to watch the live coverage following the Challenger disaster.
But instead of great moments like these, we can look forward to much smaller events and less publicly enthralling ones. Quite sad, when our government spends $3 *T*rillion a year, that we "don't have the money" to explore space as vigorously as we did in the first decades of the space program. I'm beginning to think that we'll never see a manned mission to Mars in my lifetime, at this rateand before anyone complains about high expenditures for small returns, remember that there's always been more to the space program (til recently) than just scientific data. There's been national pride for Americans, and more general pride in the accomplishments of mankind; there's been old-fashioned adventure, space really being the final frontier, the last place man hasn't set foot; space *travel*, actual exploration by humans, is what fascinated us, not data from a probe. The budget of the NSA alone would probably be enough to keep sending men further into space for some time, maybe even enough to start planning a lengthy manned Mars mission. But instead we spend it on Echelon and corporate espionage. It's disappointing to say the least. I don't think, short of provably finding extraterrestrial microbes with one of its landers, there's anything NASA can do to captivate the public interest and spark public excitement any more. Nothing that can be done with a mere probe can top the Pathfinder images, except for finding Martian or Ionian or Europan life. But, here's hoping...
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, *The Annals*
Well, this is exactly the problem. It's not whether or not the *government* has faith in NASA and the Mars program, as the story says, its whether the *general public* has faith in NASA and the Mars program.
:)
I see public support for space exploration waning. You, I and John Q. Geek might fully support NASA and the Mars program, but what about the average joe on the street? If public support isn't there, it's going to get hard to find money to keep throwing spacecraft at Mars at high-speeds...
My journal has hot
Land directly on the surface using a booster? Haven't you ever played XLander? It's damn near impossible unless you are a mathematical prodigy with unusual dexterity
I'm sure there should be one or two people like that in NASA.
Not so much in terms of economics (a space elevator would make space travel vastly more feasable from an economic viewpoint), but in terms of public perception. Sure, we've put men on the moon, but the moon is still pretty much part of the Earth from a perception point of view - after all you can see it in space every night with your very own eyes.
But Mars is definitely out there. Putting people on Mars would be an acheivement with some real impact on public perception of the space industry - people are in general bored with Shuttle launches, but look at the attention that has been paid to the Mars missions recently.
Given that the technology to colonise Mars (and indeed other places in the solar system) is there it is only the will to do so that is lacking. People on Mars would make manned space travel an issue to the public again, and once something becomes an issue, governments tend to want to look good about it. And if one country does it, you can bet they'll all want to do it.
Here's hoping for a manned Mars mission soon!
Although I have the utmost respect for NASA and it's accomplishments, maybe it's time for somthing new. Ever since the Apollo program funding for space exploration has steadily decreased. NASA's crowning achievement (the shuttle) is old technology. Maybe it's time for a new way of doing things? We are already seeing signs of privatization in the space industry, and i'm not just talking about Mir being used as a space hotel for tourists. Projects like the Xprize could lead to a new era in space travel. The first is bbeing prize is given for simply getting into space. But future prizes could be awarded for say the first team to return a sample from Mars. Just my 2cents but I definetly think space travel should move away from Government organizations...
i am not entirely sure about this figure, but last i remember nasa's yearly budget was around 5 billion. that is really pathetic. when the soviets were in this race the US people loved the fact that the US could keep up and that we hit the moon first. now it is pretty much the US ... no competition ... no funding. unless china steps up its space mission or the soviets get back in the race, nasa isn't going to have its funding. the american people have less of a problem spending 5 billion on a nuclear submarine than a year for nasa to operate. i can't count how many times i have heard people bitch about the fact that nasa even gets what little they do. i guess education would help as well, but most americans are too content with their limited knowledge. contention is the root of stupidity!
Uh, 6 billion years out is a little beyond the thinking of most people. Politicians, for example, generally don't consider beyond the next election cycle.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
the Challenger disaster (more of a government coverup than a real disaster--they don't want you to know that it was off it's flight path and on a collision course with Miami)
I'd love to see your evidence for this. The shuttle doesn't have any way to turn 180 degrees while under rocket thrust. If you have evidence for your claim, present it, or else we'll conclude you're just talking through your hat.
the Hubble Telescope which sat out there doing nothing for four years
Wrong. It didn't do nothing, it just didn't generate all the pretty pictures you'd like. There was quite a lot of science going on while the Hubble waited for it's corrective lenses. Look here.
the Mars probes that were suddenly lost
Granted, as a result of the 'faster cheaper' mode of operation. You got one.
and the two year behind schedule International Space Station
Have you checked the Russian economy recently? There are lots of reasons outside the control of NASA for that delay.
1 for 4. That's an accuracy rating of 25%, which means you scored 75 of 100 on the dork-o-meter scale. You can safely be ignored.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
Don't get me wrong, I would be totally pumped if we had a manned mission to Mars (or better yet, a Mars Station).
But I don't know if that would get the public all that excited. Back in 1969 the general public was pretty thrilled to see live pictures from the surface of the moon. But today most everybody has seen Star Wars, Star Trek, and a billion other SF shows and movies--they are going to need to see more than a man in a spacesuit jumping over some red rocks to get them excited.
What we really need is a Mission (with a capital M). In the 60's this was Beat The Reds To The Moon. "Do it for science" is never going to be capitalized for Joe Schmoe. We need something like Mars Has Gold or Mars Has Life or whatever.
The only (halfway valid) "cause" I can think of off the top of my head is The Asteroids Have Precious Metals And Mars Is Nearby. But that Mission requires more than a trip to Mars--it requires space-mining (a so-far fictional activity) and scheduled regular trips out to the asteroid belt (not cheap).
--
Give us our karma back! Punish Karma Whores through meta-mod!
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
"But instead we spend it on Echelon and corporate espionage."
2 .html
Nope, instead we spend it on:
(In order of size, largest to smallest)
Social Security
Defense
"Discretionary" - (I dunno, NSA, junkets, interns, cigars, etc...)
Medicare
Interest
Medicaid
Smaller entitlement programs
Other Mandatory costs
Not opinion, but fact. See below..
http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2001/guide0
There are actually breakdowns by spending types and whatnot.
Please remember, that the information presented there, is from the President's office. Most data is correct, with a little "fine tuning".
The news item notes that NASA wants to send two landers to reduce the risk of mission failure, but is facing resistance from the White House:
And it's not just the White House. Congress is taking a dim view of NASA's budgets as well:
This is obviously why NASA announced they are considering "one or two" landers.
So write your congress critters. Tell them what you think about their budget priorities in an age of government tax surpluses. Tell them you want to vacation on Mars, and you'll send them straight to Io if they don't help you get there!
"Even if you are on the right track, you'll
get run over if you just sit there." Will Rogers
"Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there" - Will Rogers
I was born in Cocoa Beach, my father worked on the Saturn V then. He left and is now reciently back working on the shuttle as a reliability and quality control engineer at the Cape. Listening to his accounts of NASA corporate culture and the decision-making process it is apparent little has changed since Feynman's account of the last shuttle tradegy.
It is my opinion that NASA retards our nation's space exploration needs more than it champions them.
I want to see us go to Mars. Colonizing other planets is necessary for our species long-term survival. But NASA is squandering resources and wasting time.
Please read this FAQ:
Mikes Space Settlement FAQ
Here is an excerpt:
How is space settlement different from any of the other space colonization proposals?
Most thinking regarding human expansion into space has focused on the settling of the surfaces of other planets, sometimes after modifying their environments to make them more Earth-like (called terraforming). The space settlement concept maintains that planets are not the most ideal location for human colonies beyond the Earth.
Who developed the space settlement concept?
Principally, Gerard K. O'Neill (1927-1992), who was a physicist with Princeton University's Institute for Advanced Study. Prior to popularizing space development, O'Neill was well known as a researcher in high-energy physics, and as the inventor of the colliding-beam storage ring, an innovation now standard on most particle accelerators.
What are the origins of the space settlement concept?
In 1969, O'Neill was teaching a physics course at Princeton. America was engaged in the Apollo effort, so O'Neill was working space travel into many of the physics problems assigned.
He was concerned about the persistent talk among academics regarding overpopulation and "limits to growth". He was also dismayed by many young people's resigned acceptance of two concepts he personally found repugnant. One was future totalitarian control over the use of resources, the other was that a decline in the standard of living was inevitable. One day he asked his students the following question: Is the surface of the Earth really the best place for an expanding, technological civilization? After some calculation, the answer seemed to be "no".
There is anti-rationalist Christianity and there is rational Christianity. Don't take the views of the anti-rationalists (like the guy above) for the rest of us.
Faith is orthogonal to reason. One can believe or not believe and be rational or non-rational completely independantly. Belief that Science and reason tell you all there is to know about what there is or belief that there is nothing outside of what Science can measure is as much a statement of Faith as is Christianity.
--
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
The problem with space exploration is that we value human life too much. How many thousands of sailors died on the trip from Europe to the new world? (please understand, I do value human life, I just think sacrifices for mankind should not be in vain. Exploration is not a vain purpose.)
To stay on topic over 36,000 people die of gunshot wounds in the U.S. every year. We CAN do something about that (but we don't). Yet one death for exploration purposes is a waste?
Joe Stalin (Russian Dictator WWII) said this once, "a million men deaths is a statistic, one mans death is a tragedy" While I'm not a fan of Stalin by any means, he was killed more people than Hitler , that quote (which may not be word for word) i think sums up our preception of one person dying. You think of all the media attention in the recent school shotings, yet 10 people under the age of 18 die every day from guns in america. We don't report them on national news. (this was posted on cnn in the last 2-3 weeks)
Governments didn't organize the exploration of the new world 500 years ago, it was business/entrapeneurs (sp?), with government help. If businesses begin to finance exporation again then we will make progress. If not, then by the time I'm 100 (78 years from now) we will probably only have landed enough probes on Mars to be counted on by my then frail two hands. Lets go private people.
--a mind is like a parachute, it only functions when open
Here's a list of all space news sites talking about this story. Compare and contrast the coverage.
Astronomy NowBBC News
CNN Space
MSNBC
Space Chronicle
Space Online
SpaceDaily
SpaceViews
And, of course, my own at Universe Today
Fraser CainPublisher, Universe Today - http://www.universetoday.com
Unfortunately, it has also been *proven* to work, courtesy of the Mars Pathfinder. An easier, simpler, less complicated method has not been found, yet, unfortunately. It does separate nicely the dual problems of landing and positioning; you can land anywhere, and let the rover take care of itself in trying to get where it needs to be.
It would be interesting to see if instead one could create an atmospheric entry craft that actually 'flew' through the atmosphere, and when it was flying in the right direction and the right velocity, drop the parachute, then the airbags. That may give us more control, at the expense of even more complexity.
Perhaps if we could build a helicopter into the craft; parachute to the proper velocity, then heli to the right spot?
Still, this is the best we have, currently
Bye!
GPL Deconstructed
faster, better, cheaper...
whether it's concorde maintenance or large aerospace projects, this mantra should be examined for it's validity before more lives or large projects are wasted.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
If you want to know Zubrin's ideas on going to Mars, read his "The Case for Mars". He lays out a plan that the US government could do in 10 years for $20 billion dollars. You don't need to refuel once you launch. It's more feasible currently to launch from Earth and go straight there. In the future it would be nice to build and launch from Luna, but you wouldn't want to go from Earth to Luna to refuel since it takes a dV of about 6 km/s to get to the moon and only a dV of 4 km/s to go to Mars directly! Mars is easier to launch to than the moon. We could have had a 500 day Mars mission for the cost of the scientifically marginal ISS.