Slashdot Mirror
NASA Wants Astronauts on Mars by 2010
FeloniousPunk writes "According to
this article
in the UK Guardian, NASA intends to send a manned mission to Mars by 2010, using nuclear propulsion. President Bush may announce this project, called Project Prometheus, at the State of the Union address." Here's
good background and context;
for technical background, I recommend
Zubrin
or
Stern.
The JPL will be involved in developing the nuclear propulsion tech, intended to cut the interplanetary trip from six months to two. Apparently the theory is that this proposal won't get shot down like the last Mars proposal because the shorter mission will save money. Here's hoping public response has progressed beyond "oh no! did he say nuclear?!"
In related news,
jkcity writes:
"according to this article by the BBC, the Chinese plan to have a man in space by October 2003."
Hey, in 2015 we can start In Soviet Mars jokes instead. We'll be ascending to the next level.
Live life to the fullest. It's not that life is short, but that you are dead for so long.
I wouldn't worry too much about that. It'll be more like:
"Oh no! Did he say nukuler?!"
whether or not we will send men to mars by 2010, it will be whether or not President Bush can pronounce Project Prometheus at the state of the union address.
:)
Karma this down if you must, but this is a serious question:
Why do we want to spend that much money on going to another planet? Is there that much more we can learn by sending people there? There is probably more useful information to be learned by studing physics and space here from earth, don't you think?
Yeah perhaps, but space is very dark and having the astronaughts glow in the dark will help track them.
eventually we're going to have to leave this planet for one reason or another. it would be nice to be able to do it at our convenience, rather than being forced off.
I'm confused on how the use of nuclear power will help us get to mars quicker. I understand the benefits of using nuclear power to generate electricity, or create steam to drive an engine, and such. But these type of engines only work on earth. Once you're in outer space, the only way to move is by conservation of momentum. That it to move forward, you have to throw something out the back (e.g. rocket engines). So to get to mars or anywhere else, you need to have enough fuel that can be thown out the back. I don't see nuclear power helping here. Does anyone know how nuclear power will help us get to mars faster. I can see how nuclear power will help generate electricity on the shuttle to help sustain human life, but I don't see how it helps propulsion?
Space exploration and colonization is the next logical step for any technology based society. Its like asking why someone decided to explore the north pole, because no one had been there before.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Fat Chance.
Not that i don't think we should be going there, I just don't think it will happen by then. America lost its interest in Space Travel long ago and they will have no interest in funding this. It's going to take another country doing it first to provoke America to get on the ball. Even then we'll only be doing it out of spite. Of course if this proposal is based on one of Bush's magical projected revenue formulas they won't have enough money to even buy spacesuits by then.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
I read a book in which a guy from NASA was being quizzed on the benefits of manned space exploration. He said you cannot make a rational case for sending people rather than robots on scientific or economic grounds. But that's not the point. As long as it is possible to go, people will want to go. There's no scientific or economic reason to climb Everest, travel to the poles, or circumnavigate the globe in a hot-air balloon either, but that's not stopping people.
You also can't beat the inspirational value of the Apollo program. There's something about spaceflight that galvanizes people like nothing else on Earth.
Within the next few decades, launch costs will decline by an order of magnitude. Within our lifetimes, I believe we will see the wealthiest tycoons finance (and possibly participate in) private space exploration, in much the same way that they financed earthly exploration in the past.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
You're missing out on the long term. Mars may one day be colonized by humanity, or useful for some other purpose. It has materials on it that could possibly be terraformed creating an earthlike state. Now while these projects are far off in comming, probably far out enough that i'll be dead once they happen, it doesn't mean it's all for nought.
And lastly, "because it's there". I would entertainment in man reaching mars, it's extremely exciting don't you think? (i wonder how many extremely practical people are going to shoot me down for that)
Photos.
"I don't think I'm alone when I say I'd like to see more and more planets fall under the ruthless domination of our solar system."
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
We won't know what we will learn until we get there -- much as we didn't know what we'd learn on the moon until we got there.
Yes, we did learn *a whole bunch* by going to the moon, even if most of it wasn't evident until recently (technological gains).
By going to Mars, I'll be looking a few decades later for another kevlar, microchip, or similar coming out of it.
Really, what we learn from mars won't be so big. What we learn from the trip itself could be huge.
Rod Taylor
"We've been restricted to the same speed for 40 years," Mr O'Keefe said. "With the new technology, where we go next will be limited only by our imagination."
I think what he meant was, where we go will be limited only by our imagination, and the speed of light.
This is a ploy on GW's part ... it's 3-fold:
... it increases their coffers AND their public relations. Plus, one of the 2 largest space centers is in Texas ... good for the local economy for years after he's out of office.
... it always reaps rewards in the private sector long after the completion of the trip and for much more than the cost of the program. It's just too bad I really can't see this as anything other than a political machination.
... while I believe that Kennedy -also- used it as a political device, at least Kennedy was trying to boost our national pride and point out to the world that we have the best defense technology. I don't see Bush as doing this for anything other than personal reasons and pork barrel politics.
1) The people who are most decisively against GW's politics are also those who are most for space exploration. It gives those folks something positive to see about the president. Think of it as a distraction from the pending war, which is a distraction from the fact that he has no idea how to run foreign policy.
2) Some of GW's closest friends and allies are going to reap billions from the program. Defense companies love space projects
3) There's no way that the program can be finished before 2010 (we'll be VERY lucky to get it by then). That means it gives the voters, if they are pro-space, incentive to re-elect him (this is corrollary to #1 I suppose) since anyone running against him is going to be likely to point out the budget pratfalls in such a program.
Unfortunately, I really like the idea of exploration
Worse
Here's hoping NASA at least finds a way to do it the right way, rather than turning this into a further mess like the ISS turned out to be.
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
As far as the US is concerned, if it doesn't pay for itself or get someone reelected, then it doesn't happen. A manned Mars flight does neither, therefore they are not going.
Those in charge of China have a different agenda and a different set of values. They have the basic makeup to succeed in this.
Yes, Mars will be red.
True. Some author (Arthur C Clark?) wrote about the 3 stages of a race.
I'm recalling them from memory from a long time ago - appologies if they are wrong.
Class 1 - Uses the energy of it's sun. Has expanded throughout it's solar system.
Class 2 - Uses the energy of many suns/black holes. Has expanded throughout it's galaxy.
Class 3 - I forget the energy source. Has expanded throughout the universe.
It's humbling to think even reaching class 1 won't happen for a long time yet.
Mars by 2010?? Why not go to the moon first, considering we've "never been there?" Or maybe they'll fake the Mars landing too, you know, just to beat the...umm...*mumble*...
It isn't a matter of "fast" acceleration. The bonus behind using a nuclear or even an ion drive is IMPULSE. The ability to accelerate over a longer period of time. You might not accelerate as quickly (you definately won't) but you can reach higher velocities. Plus you lighten your mass somewhat by not carrying about and insanely large amount of chemical reactive mass.
Assuming they are using a pellet-bed plutonium reactor, the only fuel they will need for it will be hydrogen, not only will it act as a moderator (heh), but also as the propellant as it is super-heated and vented out the back of the craft.
I assume they will still carry chemical based thrusters to maneuver and for the initial boost once leaving mars.
Plus the design that I got to work with in college uses weapons grade plutonium! What better way to get the nuclear weapon stock down than to transform it into interplanetary engines?
I don't think it's possible to overestimate the inspirational value this would have on young minds. All the ability in the world is worthless without motivation.
Seeing dreams come true is highly motivational, and as such, well worth the expense.
Talisman
"Study your math, kids. Key to the universe." -The Archangel Gabriel
I watched a Discovery Channel special on this.
They proposed that a nuke could be detonated in front of the craft, and a giant sail would capture the energy from the blast and rapidly accelerate the craft. Do that a few times, using nukes with small enough yields to not break the astronauts necks, and it should accelerate them nicely without having to lug around shitloads of fuel.
Talisman
"Study your math, kids. Key to the universe." -The Archangel Gabriel
NASA spokesman Glenn Mahone acknowledged that O'Keefe did talk generally about the upcoming State of the Union but did not make a prediction that Bush would use it to make any NASA-related announcements."
So don't start packing your bags, yet. There is also the question of how to keep the people making the journey alive and healthy. Even on relatively short space missions, there is a significant (~20%) muscle loss, and measurable bone loss.
I hope it works.
Man Gets 70mpg in Homemade Car-Made from a Mainframe Computer
NASA should use Asymetric Capacitors instead of nuclear pulsed power. It would be cheaper, provide nice constant acceleration, and of course hush those anti-nuclear foe who are afraid of what they don't understand. NASA patented a version of this propulsion system about one year ago this January. Here are the links:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lifters.htm
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0211001 [PDF file attempting to explain how it works]
This was the "Kardashev scale" proposed by
Russian astronomer Nikolai Kardashev.
>;k
aren't there easier/faster ways of propulsion already in existance than even nuclear?
Right now, nothing even comes close to uranium/plutonium for energy density. There are really two issues: power and reaction mass. A rocket combines the two, but a nuclear propulsion system doesn't. If ice is the reaction mass, then you can "refuel" on a comet. The more energy per unit of reaction mass you can get, the less of it you need.
There are already ion engines in existance, solar powered, but they are very low powered, incapable of moving significant mass through space at a useful speed.
1. There has been no indication of this project anywhere I've seen. It would stick out! The NERVA/Zeus project was thirty years ago. The engineers are long gone, and there are no new ones.
2. The U.S. has no nuclear (nook-you-ler, if you're a C-grade fratboy from Texas) rocket program.
3. Nook-you-ler rockets are illegal under current treaties -- I think. Not that that would stop Bush -- treaties are for the evil, not the good.
4. 8 years is not enough time. The U.S. doesn't have the infrastructure to mount a mission.
5. The U.S. is going into debt at the rate of 1.3 billion dollars a day. We're spending ourselves utterly broke while cutting taxes. I don't think even the current regime is stupid enough to go to Mars when schools are setting up two daily shifts to save money. Or are they?
6. Politically impossible -- tho I qualify this in saying that this is the first marketing-driven administration in U.S. history. They've sold us on the idea that Saddam mounted the 9-11 attacks. I may be underestimating their maniuplative abilities.
7. This story is based on the world of one, count 'em, ONE "NASA administrator". The threshold used to be at least two believeable sources. The collapse of standards in the '90's set us up for any clown to float a story now -- bubonic plague vials on the loose! News at 11!
8. As an old space junkie, I wish the story was true -- sort of. I'd have preferred an ion drive, which is easier to maintain, ulimately faster, and doesn't carry the nuke label for marketing reasons.
9. If the story is true, why do I sense that the speculative capitalists that are now in charge of the guvmint (as opposed to businessmen -- the difference between Enronomics and the local Chamber of Commerce) would be trying to wring even more tax money out of us all? That would be on top of the 100-200 billion that the current contracts to attack/rebuild Iraq are going to cost the U.S. We are getting robbed here. NASA did the moon landings on the cheap -- I don't think the prvate equity managers will be as motivated to keep costs down.
LOL. You better watch out. If Armstrong is reading this he might be trying to hunt you down as we speak. We all know what happened the last time someone questioned him about actually being on the moon. =) And personally, good for him, I'd beat that reporteres ass too!
Rousseau once said, "Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains." Mars is the opportunity to break these chains, and regain what freedom we may.
:) free software. :) Than has ever existed before.
Mars is our destiny. That is, outward. The possibilities for new expressions of freedom and humanity, and economic systems, lie in building new civilizations. On earth there is a gigantic infrastructure of economic powers that RESIST change. The best ideas are not readily implemented, or are practically impossible to implement.
America became, in some sense, what it was BECAUSE we had a frontier early in its career. That frontier, and the spirit it developed among its settlers gave America its sense of independence, innovation and a GREAT sense of self-empowerment.
To the point, a paucity of western infrastructure westward of this expanding America better empowered the formation of a culture radically different than its predecessors. Not wholly, of course, as old money still existed.
But now, America has few or no frontiers within its borders. America's infrastructure has become stiff in every corner. The people at Slashdot.org know this. Microsoft's infrastructure is outstanding. Oil industries pull our strings. We cannot fundamentally change what America is, how it conducts its economics, without a fight. The root is dug in and will not give up its space as long as it lives.
Mars has no infrastructure and therefore new social, economic, and political ideas implemented by colonists there are more apt to emerge into their natural designs undistorted by the effects of competing institutions.
Like the original colonists of America, cultural artifacts, physical and ideational, brought over to the frontier will be freely reinterpreted without undue outside influence. However, the opportunity of social self-determination on Mars is unparalleled by any in history, for none has had at its disposal the vast library of knowledge and technology available today. The coupling of knowledge and self-reliance will allow the best ideas to flourish. The culture of the second and third Martian generations has the potential of being truer to the ideals of social justice, equality, and
A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.
NASA managers found a way to convince the goverment to fund this mission: they told Bush that the martians are developing weapons of mass destruction. They have reliable intelligence: a complete report from secret agent Herbert G. Wells.
RMN
~~~
I agree though that missile interception is a worthy project (with nifty spinoffs), but it's too much of a fuck'n wasteful porkbarrel as it is!
I think they'd have better luck selling a missile "shield" to the public if the shield also included funding for more and better radiation-detection at ports & in cities around the country, AND they sent more of that pork towards alternative energy projects that reduce the cause of the conflict, rather than defending against the symptoms.
--
Power to the Peaceful
The only other reasonable thing you could do in space would be to mine asteroids and start building things in orbit and on the moon. But going to Mars at this point doesn't make sense. It's going to cost too much. I am all behind nuclear rockets but I think going to mars is premature. Let's put a city on the moon, and start sending politicians there.
I'll start voting republican if republicans start putting money into space research. I shit you not.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"