Slashdot Mirror
Space Exploration Act of 2002
orn writes "Rep. Lampson introduced a bill (pdf) (H.R. 4742) to the House on May 16th for a human space exploration initiative. I haven't heard a peep about it from the popular press, just a few articles on various space sites: SpaceRef's, the Planetary Society's, the Mars Society's. If you're interested in the sort of thing (and you live in the U.S.), contact your representative and let them know! While you're at it, figure out how to get the popular press aware of this..." On a related note is a story dicussing the controversy over whether the Moon should be developed, which seems a little premature to me.
With its absence of atmosphere, temperature extremes and such, it would be prohibitively expensive to develop the moon. Furthermore, to transport building materials roughly 250,000 miles has to be difficult.
For that matter, why don't we develop Antartica as well? At least it has an atmosphere, and in parts, some wildlife.
I am the evil aardvark!
Here.
The Moon would make an excellent staging area for interplanetary trips.
1) The low gravity offers tons of advantages, including a way to simulate, say, the gravity on a moon of Jupiter.
2) The low gravity also allows boosters to be much smaller since they don't need to escape earth's atmosphere/gravity, and thus cheaper.
3) You can build much bigger things in 1/6 G since you've got 1/6th of the forces to deal with.
4) more volatile and thus more powerful fuels can be used because in the lack of an atmosphere, the threat of explosion is much, much lower.
Just some thoughts.
The International Space Station has two Sony FX1 DVD players in which region coding has been bypassed.
The DVD players in the ISS should have been Region 8 (in-flight aircraft entertainment and ships). Of course, it's very hard to find Region 8 disks; airlines have to enter into special licensing deals to have them made. But those are the rules. NASA may need a DMCA audit.
Everybody interested in this should read John Budzinski's article of a few years ago on this topic. His optimism in this article sprung from the surprising turnaround in annual federal budgets from deficits to surpluses. In the last years of the Clinton Administration the Government took in more than it spent for the first time since 1969 and actually looked like we would start paying off the Federal debt accumulated during the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s - a total of SIX TRILLION DOLLARS OF DEBT. But hey, Dubya won, tax cuts passed, and now the US is back in deficit spending. Now the GOP has got bills in Congress to raise the debt ceiling and it's back to business as usual... Not many people remember that the real thing that made Apollo possible was a net federal SURPLUS in the treasury from the boom in the 1950s - we had to spend the money on SOMETHING, and part of what we spent it on was going to the moon. We also spent it on Vietnam, touched the tarbaby, and BANG we haven't seen a net federal surplus in the Treasury since. Currently we have a net Federal deficit of SIX TRILLION DOLLARS and it is going UP. With Social Security threatening bankruptcy in the 2020s or 2030s, we probably won't ever get back to a surplus in the Trasury for a very long time... This basic structural difference in the US Treasury from the 1960s and the 2000s is why any talk now of getting to Mars is just a sham. I get very depressed on this subject. During the late 1960s and early 1970s as a teen, it seemed the sky was the limit and it was VERY exciting. Now, as a middle aged man, I truly believe I will go to my grave without ever seeing humans on another world again. I truly feel sorry for those alive today that never have seen humans walking on other worlds for real, not in the movies, and have NO IDEA of the uplift to the heart and soul it brings...
As far as I can tell, the argument goes like this: "Let's see...we can move our pollution problems to a lifeless rock in outer space, learn more about life in space than we've ever known before, and advance the human race....or we can keep that lifeless rock looking purty and avoid all of the former. Hmmm, what to do?"
I don't know about you, but I think the guy trying to preserve the "pristine environment" of space is completely off his rocker. Space is not pristine, and never has been. Space is dirty, cold, dead everywhere we've looked, and full of things that can destroy organic life.
Human life, in any area, almost always alters the way things were before. If we have to, let's do our dirty work in space rather than here.
There's no sig like this sig anywhere near this sig, so this must be the sig.
Following the link from the article verifies that humans have spent less than 96 hours on the Moon's surface. Lunar Missions? Yes! Colonization? Sadly, I think that's a bit premature. As long as we're realistic about our goals I believe we can sell the general public on them. It's so easy for naysayers to point out the problems from the past, why not set some realistic goals and then accomplish them?
Why do I never get a fortune in my fortune cookies?
When I was a youngster, I dreamed of zooming around in spaceships and meeting aliens.
Then I turned into an Angry Young Man and felt that we must tread lightly in the cosmos, and not pollute and exploit other planets the way we've plundered terra.
And then I started thinking about starting a family, and realised that as a human, my prime motivation is actually to make more humans. And then I thought about ice ages and planet-killer asteroid impacts (which are inevitable, not fantasy) and decided that we should say "Screw the fragile cosmos!", get our species' eggs out of our one fragile little basket and damn the cost in money and lives and ruined scientific study.
Who knows what I'll think as an old man. But right now, I reckon we should declare open season on other planets and start terraforming now. Because when the next ice age or asteroid hits, it'll be way, way too late to start, and as we've already plundered all of the easily available fossil resources, we can pretty much forget bootstrapping ourselves back out of the stone age.
Am I so very unusual in thinking that we should get real worried about these things now, while we've got the resources to do something about them?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Actually, IIRC it really isn't that long of a trip - I did a report on a Mars probe (since cancelled I think) 6-8 years ago ... as I recall they were saying that a manned trip would take between 6-9 months ... which is shorter time then they spend on the IIS, I think. Plus, they will have effective gravity - or they could, at least. Unlike the stationary IIS the craft will be accelerating / decelerating the entire trip, granting at least partial gravity. I doubt it's going to be more than 1/2 G at the most, but that should be more than necessary to prevent them from being hurt in Mar's 1/3 G.
they propose. Get a job and a life congress !!
The amount of money you have proposed for
mars research still has me laughing.
China and others more serious about spending
some money will see success.
Secondly, NASA needs to get their brain engaged
as I have never seen a bunch of comic physics
applications for propulsion !
As far as protecting the Moon or any other heavenly body away from Earth is unenforceable.
Whomever develops the propulsion of tomorrow will
be our master !!