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."
Isn't this the kind of thinking that got them in trouble before?
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'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*
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!
"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
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".