Slashdot Mirror
Bush To Announce Manned Trip To Moon, Mars
edmunz writes "Foxnews just placed an article on their website saying that Bush is expected to make an announcement towards the middle of next week, proposing a manned mission to Mars as well as a return to the moon. Bush hopes to spark a renewed public interest in space exploration. No mission would happen any time soon, rather a preparation of over a decade would take place before the first men/women set out to explore Mars."
It's too bad there isn't a "Survivor" series in the works: "Who Will You Vote off the Planet?"
"Survivor Planet Wide Edition"
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
There are a number of common arguments against sending humans to Mars. I thought I would address them up front before too many people put forth incorrect claims.
- Mars exploration is expensive
Not so. The best estimate I've heard is a 20 billion startup cost spread over 10 years with a 2 billion cost per mission. Sure that's a lot but it's well within the current NASA budget if you take away ISS and the Shuttle program. Neither of those are of much use anyway.
Also, If you take a look at the federal budget, you'll see that the NASA budget of around 17 billion is an order of magnitude cheaper than either the defense budget, or health and human services (wellfare). Even Veterans affairs gets about 3 times that money. It's a small part of the national budget if done right with large rewards down the line.
- Mars exploration is dangerous
True to an extent but nothing work getting is without risk. NASA will run out of hardware long before it runs out of volunteers. That's not to say that we'll be killing most people we send up, but rather than there is no shortage of people willing to take the risks. Oh, and if you're going to bring up the old "too much radiation" argument, see this. There are lots of things more dangerous on Earth than going to Mars. My morning comute is probably more risky.
- There's nothing to gain from going to Mars
Where do I even start? New home for humanity. Unprecedented Scientific discovery. Easy access to the asteroids ($trillion apiece in ore!). Tech jobs at home. Youngsters inspired to go into science and engineering. Plentiful fusion fuel (this will be important in the next 10-20 years). I could go on.
Going to Mars and taming space is the only way forward for humanity as a whole. For a better description of this and more please check out Entering Space and The Case for Mars.
Lastly, I would urge everyone who is enthused about this to take action and write your representatives. I cannot stress that enough. Papa Bush made a call for this but backed out when it looked too hard because of a falsely inflated sticker price. We have to make sure that he sticks to his guns. We have to make sure he does it write and we have to make sure that he has the backing in Congress to make it work. Check out this for a primer.
Blaze a trail to the New World
the same president who wants to cut funding to NASA? So we'll be sending people to Mars on a shoestring budget? Yay for making it there alive!
What?
While we can practice (as this version of the story at Yahoo! suggests) a possible Mars mission by going to the moon, we have already done that! We did it in the 60s... that was almost 35 years ago!! What's on the moon? While a nice place for an observatory, we should go straight to Mars.
Everyone today wants to be "safe". And while there is certainly no justification for recklnessness, this country didn't get to where it is today by being overly cautious. I hope that President Bush has the courage and conviction to challenge America to take our space program to the next level and plan a mission direct to Mars.
For those of you that don't know, Dr. Robert Zubrin, in his book "The Case for Mars" has shown that a mission to Mars is not only feasible, but that it is feasible with much of the technology that existed in the 60s! For more information, see here. With the technology we have today, and the ingenuity, fortitude, and bravery that America has demonstrated for almost 230 years, we should go straight to Mars!
libertarianswag.com
Cue flood of "Bush Invades Mars" and WMD jokes in 3...2...1...
In other news... the International Monetary Fund released a report yesterday that said U.S. deficits are threatening the world economy. They are worried that the unprecedented massive deficits and trade imbalances may cause the dollar to undergo a "disorderly plunge". Which makes this talk of space trips seem a little surreal.
A rat done bit my sister Nell with Dubya on the moon.
Her face and arms began to swell and Dubya's on the moon.
I can't pay no doctor bills but Dubya's on the moon.
Ten years from now I'll be paying still while Dubya's on the moon.
So did we find oil on the moon and on Mars or something?
For a second I thought I was looking at Fox's new fall line-up.
My bad.
The P.O.W.s... The best band to never hit the recording studio.
"Hate bush so much but want to find hot alien babes someday..."*head explodes*
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
This is Fox News, people, they aren't exactly the most accurate source in the country.
Remember when conservatives were all about limiting government spending? Wow. what the hell ever happened to that party?
I suppose Bush may be looking for a 'legacy' here. JFK is always thought of when people mention Apollo and other programs from that era. I'd personally hate to lay the credit for a return to space on Dubya.
I recall speaking to pal whose father worked for Nasa (USAF now)... He was on a project for a spacecraft which was to replace the current fleet. Bush cut funding and the project was canned. NOW he wants to promote space interest? According to the scheduled completion of the spacecraft it would have been in service BEFORE Columbia was lost.
_________ Help me get a PSP!
If it's a serious proposal I think that'd be great. Let's get the funding approved and be off then.
I fear though that this may be a stunt to gain some more traction in the polls. It'll be interesting to see how it pans out.
Damon,
http://actionPlant.com
now bush plans to invade the moon and mars... tsk tsk tsk...
We can just print more money!
Wheee!
He likes killing people in imaginative ways. Not only did he send thousands to die in Afghanistan and Iraq, but now he wants them to suffer slow painful deaths millions of miles from home, with no hope of relief.
Hey. I didn't vote for him
entitled "Martian Park" or perhaps "The Martian Strain??"
Has the possible life on Mars already been sued for owning WMD's? If not, why not sell them some nukes?
Sure it's getting closer to elections. Might want to be a "scientific" president for a minute. I cant wait to get this joker voted out of office. What an embarassment. This quicktime video pretty much says it all.
Last time around, under Bush, Sr., the cost estimate for a manned mission to mars was between $500 and $800 billion. Unless things have radically changed, $1 trillion would be a reasonable estimate today.
That's a lot of money. I'd rather see my taxes going to other things...like back into my pocket, for example.
If this is going to happen at a reasonable price, it cannot go through NASA, which may be the most inefficient federal agency (and that's really saying something!). If recent history is any indicator, a NASA-led mission will cost lots of money and probably not even get off the ground.
Private industry and competition (lots of it) are the way to get to Mars at a price we can afford.
I'm sure he's got the cash laying around, right?
Seriously though, I actually think this is very cool and I would not mind if it cost me some money personally. Even if there's no scientific value to it.
One, somebody needs to pony up some serious dough for this. Moon mission would be, in my humble estimation, about $10B. The price tag is going to be much, much harder to swallow when the Big Bad Soviet Union isn't around to defeat.
Two, what about fixing the Space Shuttle? Project Prometheus? Making the ISS financially stable and properly crewed? There aren't the resources for this.
Don't get me wrong. I really, really want to see manned space flight get the heck out of lower earth orbit. But it's difficult to believe in an election year. It didn't work for his dad.....
"Diplomacy is something you do until you find a rock." --Richard Pound
Bush hopes to spark a renewed public interest in space exploration.
Bush hopes to spark renewed public interest in his re-election campaign....
It's campaign season, folks. I'd love to see it happen, but let's save the Huzzahs! until it actually does, hmm?
Funding and realistic goals. Reusable craft and cheaper delivery methods to space and blah blah blah. You know the drill.
Or, we could just throw money at the problem and pretend it will go away that way. Actually, I'll chip in to a fund for an X-Ray machine for the NASA managers' and directors' skulls in case someone's actually looking for the source of the "setbacks".
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
On the back of this announcement - it is an ideal time for a concerted campaign by all fair and reasonable people to push to send Bush to the moon, and Cheney to Mars (mars would be very fitting, being the angry red planet, god of war, and all that)
How will we be able to pay for this? The current budget is, in a word, BAD.
Where will the money come from?
Dick
Colin
Cunny
Now 'moon'
They just keep adding those words on there, don't they
I have been pwned because my
Looks like recent news from China may finally help the return to the moon...
Iraq: war to save the U
Maybe the Pentagon saw a turban poking up behind a boulder in one of the Sprit MER pictures?
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
Well, everything is bigger in Texas.
But even Texas isn't big enough for Bush.
--
Pat Robertson says that Bush will win by a landslide. His predictions have been right before.
Who really cares about sending a man to the moon when our economy is going in the shithole. We have bigger problems right now then f***ing MARS.
We could have made a little commado raid to Iraq, grabbed Sadam and spend the remaining $B179.99 sending him to Mars.
Every dollar they tax is another dollar out of your pocket. The only other option is creating more debt, which reduces the value of every other dollar.
Every dollar they spend on this ($400-$500 BILLION dollar project???!?) comes out of your pocket no matter what.
I certainly hope every single family in America is willing to kick in $6,000 towards this project.
I'm all for space exploration, but you have to wonder whether this is just an "inspirational" idea that isn't REALLY meant to get implemented.
The reality is that there is a ballooning deficit that already threatens the health of the ecomony, I don't see how the average joe will think it's such a great idea to go to mars or the moon when suddenly the mortgage payments have doubled because interest rates have gone up because the govt has a money shortage!
"Is this just useless, or is it expensive as well?"
using conventional rockets, a mars trip would take at least 2 years. During that time, NASA has estimated the crew would be irradiated at such a high level that every cell in the body would have received some damage. There are few solutions to this: 1) Go faster. Requires nuclear propulsion. Not going to happen in my lifetime. 2) Use lots of sheilding with high density materials (e.g. Tungsten). 10x more weight than we can currently send to mars and back. 3) Some new thing nobody has thought of yet. It's nice to think it's just a matter of money, but it really isn't.
If it's to be manned, stick Dubya on it. If it's to be unmanned, the same applies!
What this really means is that NASA might see a 1% budget increase instead of a budget cut next year, and after that (after Bush is re-elected or someone else is elected), it'll go back down.
I think that in the near future we will see many such ideas originate from the White House. People need to be interested in what the government can do. They need to be informed, and right now, that is not really happening. As soon as someone mentions "Bush", everyone is thinking about the situation in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Bush needs to introduce many new ideas if he wishes to get himself re-elected, because the problems in the Middle East will not be solved any time soon... And in my opinion he can't win unless they are solved, or unless the country focuses on a grand new goal.
Veni, vidi, vici.
I'm more than all for manned missions in space, and even more expansion of our space program, but this strikes me as horrible posturing. Being an election year, this smacks of lack of real dedication. Anyone willing to donate the kind of time needed to travel to Mars, maybe even back, deserves better than this.
"a preparation of over a decade would take place before the first men/women set out to explore Mars."
It's one thing for Bush to announce this, but it leaves plenty of time for the next president to cut funding and throw the whole program out the window.....
I was reading this link http://boingboing.net/2004_01_01_archive.html#1073 57767583280159 over at boingboing.net and think it's pretty relevant. basically it's a comment towards why bother going to mars when we avoid the mars like climates on earth.
I don't totally agree with the article, especially since it doesn't consider our need to eventually figure out how to live off this planet, but it is interesting.
Bush Sr. also called for a MArs mission. No one cared then, no one really cares now. Its obvious we do not have the money to fund anything remotely resembling a Mars mission - Bush is just trolling for votes. With the illegal immigrant amnesty and now this appeal to geeks, he'll be two-for-two in reeling in the lemmings for November 04.
The idea of further space travel may inspire americans to innovate more. Plus a lot of inventions and discoveries come out of the space program. Computers would not be where they are today without the space program. I see a great potential for new recycling and power consumption technologies to come out of this, which could help reverse the damage we've been causing to the planet. Etc.
When Kennedy did this, he announced it in 1962 and put us on the moon in 7 years and that was without an infrastructure. Bush is now giving us 9 years with years of experience and in-place infrastructure.
I wish every would quit trying to send ppl to mars and back. Intially it should be one-way trips. Not only would it be cheaper, but safer. It is the travel there that is dangerous. In fact, I would love to put ppl on the moon permantantly, but bringing them back is not a big deal.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
here. They have links to other news sites. In particular, the UPI article has a mention about a presidential commission to review Nasa's plans. Interesting...
I am not particularly happy with the statement that all other Nasa programs that do not support the new effort are to be scrapped. Indeed. Perhaps this whole proposal can be amended to include a peer review of top scientists in reign in some of this...
Soon to be announced from the white house and George bush in the comming months
- Going for forgive 3rd world debt
- Pollution is blocking the radiation from the sun spots
- no more taxes.. FOR ANYONE
- logging of all the trees in alaska to print money
- Free Beer
and finally just before november George W. Bush will announce to the world
FIRST POST
The More Knowledge you have the Luckier you Get- J.R. Ewing
because we aren't able to do it here on earth.
Gollum W. Bush needs to get his priorities straight and follow through on some of his pledges and commitments first.
And we need to balance the budget.
There would have been some sense in using this project as a way to stimulate the economy through targeted spending on R&D, education, training and employment, but we've put all of our eggs in the tax-breaks-and-prayer basket and it might be too late to turn back without a little domestic regime change
Of course, Mars is more exciting. But practicly, exploring Antarctica is many orders of magnitude easier. The barren continent (a few penguins may be) may hold plenty of promise within a much easier reach...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Halliburton has just started a new manned-space-exploration division.
> While a nice place for an observatory, we should go
> straight to Mars.
Considering how quick it is to get to the moon (a few days travel) and how quick it is to launch off the moon (not much in the way of gravity) a moon base could very well be part of that "straight to mars". Launching everything at once is risky, if we throw things up in pieces it could build up a far better base to start with, on the lunar surface. Use the moon as a tool to get to mars, not sit around exploring it. We've been there done that
swimsuit 2003
It cost them more than 3x the original estimate on ISS, and this is after the project was watered down. Your $20 billion number is laughable and I defy you to cite the source as being remotely legit or realistic. Even if a valid scientific method can be attached to the $20 billion number you haven't factored in the absurd cost overruns this project will most obviously experience.
Regarding the forthcoming Bush announcement on space policy: From the various sources reporting on the subject, here's what the Presidents plan will look like. 1. Manned space flight will be NASAs only priority. Almost all non-manned projects will done away with or rolled into the manned program if appropriate. 2. The space shuttle fleet will be retired. Done. Finished. They will stay in service long enough to finish construction of the space station in the next few years. 3. A new space vehicle, the CEV (Crew Exploration Vehicle) will be built and rolled into production in place of the shuttle. The era of winged spacecraft is over for nasa, the CEV is akin to a large Apollo capsule, only able to carry up to 6-8 crew. The CEV is usable in earth orbit AND lunar orbit. The shuttle was only capable of reaching earth orbit, the CEV will be able to leave earth orbit and fly to the moon! 4. Europe's Ariane rockets and Russia's Soyuz capsules will be used to access the space station until the CEV in finished and ready for use. 5. The hierarchy of NASA will be changed so that the Defense Department is now included in the planning and future use of future technology. Expect big stuff from this. Having the military involved is a GOOD thing. 6. The first return trip to the moon is planned for 2013 and the following missions will begin the process of building a permanent, manned presence there. 7. Also starting in 2013, NASA will end almost all involvement with the ISS. Expect this to possibly become a private venture. 8. The CEV and moon base construction will be a test-bed for the Mars missions that will follow. 9. MARS 10. After mars, there will be manned missions to the asteroids. NASA will become one of only 3 federal agencies to get a spending increase (5%) in its budget over the next 5 years. The other two being the Department of Defense and Homeland Security. In 2005 a lump sum of $800 Million will be awarded to NASA. If this is indeed the Presidents plan, it is nothing short of remaking NASA in the image of what it once was in the days of Apollo. Manned space flight with a purpose, the days of space truckers in orbit is *over*.
*Fortitudo, aequitas, fidelitas.*
Nothing of course, it's just a way to get your Bush-hating rocks off.
That's great! When is he leaving?
The moon is a giant rock that happens to be covered in a consistent layer of Helium 3. Harvesting that could, combined with the advent of Fusion power, provide us enough power to light the entire planet for thousands of years. Oh, and we'd make a tidy profit from it. The Moon is also a really fine source of raw material for building other things in orbit alot cheaper than lofting them from earth. It's also likely we can find sufficient raw materials to seperate out vital components for rocket fuel, also a lot cheaper per pound than trying to bring it up from Earth.
:D
Mars is a spooky prospect for me, too. I'm not thrilled with the idea of bringing back samples, let alone sending people there. Bringing samples back to a well isolated lab on the Moon (or in some other spot, like a lagrange point) is another matter.
I'd a lot rather have us go from the Moon to the asteroids anyway -- now there's some profit potential! Plus, what we don't find a direct commmercial use for we can always drop down the gravity well on terrorists at really nice velocities. Kinetic energy is our friend.
Let's do it! it's time to move somewhere else!
1 Trillion dollars? let's turn on the dollar machine
baby!
Bottom line is that 04 will see a record budget deficit - there is not room for a $50-$200 billion Mars mission.
I think this is the beginning of the signs we're going to see for his re-election strategy..
With all the soft PAC money restrictions annulled, Bush will play "good cop" trying to get Americans excited about the future and his leadership, with goofball pie-in-the-sky claims he has no intention of fulfilling, but after all the fear and awe his administration has laid on the people, they'll buy into the crap, while his corporate cronies unleash all the fear and mud-slinging at his opponents. The American people will be stunned like deer in the headlights of the GOP media-blitz.
The moon IS the road to Mars. If we can't inhabit the moon for 18 months at a time, we sure can't go to Mars.
I think sending manned missions to Mars directly is a tad bit over-ambitious. For starters, isn't it true that the 60's technology that got us to the moon is largely lost? I remember reading somewhere that the plans for the Apollo missions were lost in a sea of red tape somewhere. Look at the failures of unmanned Mars spacecraft. Even if we had the technology, you would expect a few human-less dry runs first, much like the Apollo missions. Even then you would want to send astronauts to Mars orbit without landing (like Apollo 10). With Mars being months away, and with essentially untested technology, establishing a moonbase seems a more realistic and attainable goal.
NO CARRIER
Its refreshing to see a science geek on /. who actually has a rudimentary understanding of high-school level science.
Funny how China goes up into space, and the US govt announces a plan to one-up their closest rival within a few weeks...
I wonder if Wipro, EDS, CSC, and IBM GS are going to sponsor the mission?
Why should it be so long before we can have people on mars? We got people on the moon with 60's technology, they should be able to have people on mars within a couple of years tops.
Bush want to send (presumed) terrorists to... Martianamo!!
I got first dibs on the cryo-unit next to Sigourney Weaver!
"HAL." :)!
"Yes Dave."
"Tell Houston we're a little behind."
Stuff that matters.
In all seriousness, though, does anyone else smell an election looming? Why else would he make a commitment to scientific exploration when this is something his government is clearly not interested in? He realizes that his support from the American people is borderline at best, so he needs something to give him that extra bit of support right before the election. I only hope that people can see through this.
I am really curious to see how many people will fall for that blatent election whoring.
This sounds very much like some "let's do like we did in those old good days, where we were so happy and we sent people to the moon". Never mind that those days were not so sweet, memory blurs the bad stuff.
I am not american, but should I be one, I would prefer a future candidate to speak about the big balance problem rather than some funky imaginary mission to mars. Specially since it's not the first time a US president smokes some crack, tells people "we go to mars", then do squat. Who did that first, Reagan, Bush Sr ?
I would like to believe that this sort of stupid blatant election whoring only happens in a corrupt democracy like the USA has become, but hey, democracies in Europe are as corrupts. And even if they don't speak about Mars, Europe's policians are very good too with election whoring.
Damn it, I'm ashamed that democracies have come this low. Chirac declaring war on unemployment, Bush talking about Mars, Blair struggling with public opinion about his lies, is there still a country where candidates are serious and not stupid whores ? They look like fools trying to get the Lie Of The Day that will make them more popular with some uninformed and unintereted elector.
Are we so dumb that we let our democracies become that ?
I really feel insulted when they try tricks like the three mentionned do.
...begins humanities search for intelligible life.
Nothing is on the Moon--absolutely nothing. That's what is so great about it. Cost effective space exploration depends on developing propulsion systems which developing on Earth is very risky to the environment.
"Bush is expected to make an announcement towards the middle of next week, proposing a manned mission to Mars as well as a return to the moon.
When is he going? It sounds like a nice trip, and I hope he takes lots of pictures. Too bad the American tax-payer is picking up the tab, tho. In the long run, it makes good economic sense to blast him into outer space.
Any math guys here who can break down roughly how many lawyers we can fit on each craft? Also take into account thier comfort is of no concern infact I propose bodys do-not need to neccessarly be in tact.
Note: Its possible they will eat eachother too, not sure how we'd calculate that..
-- "of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
Anyone have even the faintest clue what the odds are of making it back from mars alive? They can't be good. Think about how long it would take just to get there and back. Plus you're gonna want to spend a little time there after such a long trip. Imagine the amount of supplied needed for that long of a trip. You'd need an oil tanker sized vehicle to make it there and back.
This might be a case of NASA unintentionally catching lightning in a bottle. First you have China sending a man into orbit, and also announcing aggressive plans for space and possibly the moon. Then you have the success of the Spirit landing, especially so soon after what's looking like a big setback for the ESA on a similar mission.
We really can't afford to be passed up by China in the space programs. The implications on many fronts, from technological, military, and national stature are too important. As the wars of the 20th century were swung by air superiority, a future war bewtween the US and China could easily be swung by space superiority. (Imagine how blind our forces would be if our satellites were disabled or destroyed.)
And we've proven we can get craft to Mars and land them safely. Granted, there have been some spectacular failures, but the US is the only nation to put functioning equipment on the Martian surface. With humans at the controls we would dramatically lessen the risk of a crash on the surface. There wouldn't be anxiety over whether the airbags were deploying or what petal the ship was landing on. The biggest issue would be getting supplies there ahead of time and being sure they landed. We'd have to send supplies and a means of getting off the surface ahead of time. Astronauts would be spending several months on the surface, and there is no emergency return, so we'd need to be sure that everything is in place.
I think those two factors - a space race with China and our ability to get craft to Mars - came together at the right time. A successful manned Mars mission would be a stunning success for mankind, and if we're going to do it, now is a good time to start the planning process.
Someone told him that the Martians have WMDs and oil, right?
// file: mice.h
#include "frickin_lasers.h"
Bush is just promoting the idea, because it's popular. So he's glomming on to it so he'll be popular too.
Just like the No Child Left Behind Act. It's a name on paper, and that's as far as it goes. Unless you count the "educators" cooking the books, as it were, in cities like Houston. It'll be more popular soon enough. Now teachers are going to be adding like Enron, and NASA is next.
Any failures, can't possibly be the fault of his administration, he had a press conference. It's really the PERFECT administration for the world we live in. All image no content. In it's own way, it actually is an impressive achievement.
Ultimately, there's only one way such a fiasco can go. Bullshit isn't exactly the bedrock which never fails. It'll all end in catastrophe with fingers pointing in every direction, long after he's left the building and hired a ghost writer to pen his memoirs. And really it's only partly his fault. Because too few of us could be bothered to read past the executive summary, or demand follow up. Look at what little we demand of journalists, no expense can be spared to see Britney's quicky wedding video, or watch Pam and Tommy have sex, but it's enough that they just show up at the White House schedueled press conferences. How little we pay attention. Can any of us blame someone for trying to fool us? Or be surprised when they succeed?
Amoung other things they are saying that they plan to scrap the shuttle fleet after ISS is finished.
It also says that NASA will be the only department other than homeland security and the military to get a budget increase. Personally, I'm not sure this will really happen, since they are planning through 2013, which is (including the current) four presidential terms away. The US goverment isn't very good at sticking with one plan that long.
plus-good, double-plus-good
would'nt it be better to leave them there rather than bringing them back, I'm not advocating killing anyone, I'm thinking more that if they take oxygen/water extractors they could set up a colony, it would make it far easier to resend other people in the future, plus then you don't have to worry about getting people back off mars.
Yes. Let's colonize mars.
Hmm... this sounds awfuly similar to an awful mistake made in the past. Spain reluctantly sends Columbus to America. Before you know it, they've colonized much of central/south America. This leads to a series of wars which has yet to end.
Seriously. If you look back, every war to this date can be traced back to some form of colonization or another.
Even the war in Iraq can be traced back to colonization. As the European empires are beginning to implode on top of each other, WWI breaaks out. Once it's over, the empires are desparate to keep what little land they have left, and hastily write the Versailles Treaty which causes WWII, sets borders in the arab states (creating political instability in Iraq and Iran), and prompts for the creation of Israel.
It seems that now we've learned our lesson, and that the countries of the world are not willing to expand or colonize. They know the consequenses all too well. Sure, war will always happen, but I just can't see the US, china, or India becoming expansionist nations.
Now we bring another planet into the equation. Mars will soon become the next fronteir. Bush wants it to belong to America.
Just as it was Europe's destiny to colonize America, it seems like it will become our destiny to colonize Mars. If the Earth's population continues to explode at the current rate, the survival of our race may depend on an interplanetary colony in the future.
Do you see the dilema we have? If America colonizes Mars, we will create a conflict which may never be ended. If we don't, another country will. Either way, the world will fight over the control of Mars.
It's sad to think that our future seems destined to hold both great discovery and great war.
A new epoch is about to begin.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
http://mwhodges.home.att.net/piechart.htm
He said it, so it's done! I can't wait to see Bush on Mars running a surprise 4th of July barbecue for the troops!
Whatever it takes to bring democracy to the oppressed microbes there...
Feh. The moon is useful in the short term. Mars would just be a "woohoo we did it" trip.
While exceedingly cool and awe inspriring, the moon is a necessary base for human space exploration.
"Open the pod by doors, Hal" > "I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave" sudo "Open the pod bay doors, Hal" > alright
I recommend this guy.
What do Mars mission supporters think about dying children on earth, specifically deaths due to massive poverty and lack of resources?
Read The case For Mars by Robert Zubrin. You only need to pack along enough stuff to make all your supplies there.
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
...WEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
The original aim for space exploration was really a space arms race. I'd wager that this is what this is about you probably just wont hear about that part of it.
As I understand it, the most cost-effective way to get humans to Mars is the Mars Direct program which relies heavily on a mostly self-reliant model. This means that the equipment needed to operate a base and return trip from Mars depends on the specific characteristics of Mars itself - specifically the elements available in the atmosphere that are usable for return-flight fuel and on-base life support.
The moon-base would be of minimal use, therefore, for testing this equipment since it does not share the same characteristics as Mars - namely, the atmosphere.
While I agree that some things can be tested on a Lunar base/expedition, I think the most critical hardware is too Mars-specific to be meaningfully tested on the Moon.
True believers seek redemption from the sin of death.
Why should anyone be trusted to go to Mars? So they can just go fsck up another planet? Oh perfect
As a great nation, the USA can look forward 50, 100 years.
Mars will have bases, settlements; next will be moons of Jupiter, Saturn, etc.
Steps taken today will lay the path to this future.
Face it, we have one perfect home and it is better suited for us than practically anything we can imagine. Why we would want to polllute it or leave it is the question.
Tax cuts -- the Bush panacea.
With the ISS serving practically no purpose, and the shuttle fleet's reevaluation after Columbia was destroyed, there is no better time than now to redirect NASA and give them a real goal. This gives NASA an excuse to stop funding the ISS money pit and mothball the shuttles.
If the resources spent on those two projects could be diverted to a singular goal, such as sending people to Mars, then we should have the ability to accomplish it.
Oh, and this leads me to another thought. One way trips to mars. One way as in a volunteer(s) that go to Mars, explore, and when resources run out they die. Step back and take a look at our planet. It is covered with several BILLION creatures with the capability to do amazing things. MILLIONS of us die a year under the most trivial and wasteful circumstances. Sending a few of our kind to explore a whole new world (literally) at the cost of their "premature" deaths is an extremely trivial thing in that light - if the rest of us could stomach it as individuals.
Dan East
Better known as 318230.
but if this turns out like the "no child left behind" act, the funding will be cut drastically once GW realizes how much it would actually cost. Besides, didnt we go through this hoopla a few months ago, Bush was supposed to announce a big space project and it never happened.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
Let me guess: W thinks that the world is running out of cheese and is launching a preemptive strike to make sure that the US controls the lunar motherload.
China wants the helium-3.
0 06 30.html
America says "not bloody likely".
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/helium3_0
Remember, it takes 42 muscles to frown and only 4 to pull the trigger of a sniper rifle.
Even if this is simply a shameless ploy for votes, given the choice of pushing for a new space program, or attacking another country to save the world, I'm all for the space program.
Good things done for an evil cause are still good things.
Politas
See this link for other sites caring the story:
n =u s&q=cluster:www%2ewane%2ecom%2fGlobal%2fstory%2eas p%3fS%3d1589380
http://news.google.com/news?num=30&hl=en&editio
With a deficit approaching 500 BILLION dollars and a downed spacefleet I think the administration is jumping the gun to get the 'tech' vote. Let's not fall for this.
Sadly, the money wasted in Iraq could have funded these missions, stopped cutting needed services, and helped pave the way to some form of universal heathcare. Also note, Bush is reaching to immigrants this week with other sky-in-the-pie promises. Methinks people aren't so easily fooled anymore by Karl Rove's playbook.
Being it's an election year if they find some life on Mars he will declare them instant citizens and eligible to vote.
No one said we were pulling out of the Middle East in order to go to Mars.
First, it's about fu*king time we went back to the moon and Mars. We need to get to the Asteroid Belt and secure access to the resources out there. New technologies will surely result, perhaps even fusion with the help of He-3, and the ultra-pure manufacturing possible in zero-g are only immediately obvious commercial benefits.
Seriously, the people we send to the moon and especially Mars need to work as a unit and either get along or be married couples. People who are cramped in a pressurized metal tube for days on end will start having problems, especially if the didn't like each other in the first place. Assuming it will take at least 7 days to get to the moon, do research, and get back, the strain is tremendous when it's all done in 1000 cubic feet or less. If Mars is involved, the travel time could be just over 6 months (ideally with a plasma drive system and only 2 weeks at Mars, 3 months there and back) to just over a year (advanced chemical drive system). The wrong combination of people could cause unprofessional attitudes among other things. Also, how big is the proposed Mars craft? And will it have artifical gravity?
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
I tend to suspect that this "leak" is a way to test the water. Some people will say it just what the country needs, others will whine about the cost. If they flag wavers seem to predominate, he'll make the actual announcement. If the whining is louder, he'll say that it was just a tentative plan that the media blew out of proportion.
Either way, this just isn't going to happen. I mean, where's the money supposed to come from? And Dubya knows this, of course. He hopes to commit a few billion on "plans" that will come to nothing. But by the time this is obvious, somebody else will be President.
Except this might all backfire. This kind of blatant manipulation tends to feed people's cynicism. It's certainly feeding mine.
In fact, China owns a vast amount of US debt. So they basically own the US the same way the bank really owns the house until the mortgage is paid off.
...You may recognize me from such election years as 1960, 1968, 1980, 1992, and 1996. I'd like to take this time to tell you about a plan that most everyone will think sounds innovative and impressive and throw their support behind, even though no one will know whether the plan has worked until well after people have forgotten it was ever suggested.
paintball
Bush has no interest in men on Mars, this is a political statement designed to make him look "presidential" in the JFK way, a la Apollo. What he hopes is people will rally around and say "this guy Bush, he has VISION! We need VISONARIES like George Bush!" It's all fluff and spin, no substance.
What would really impress people is if he came out and said "I am nationalizing the pharmaceutical industry, and the world will no longer need or want for the meds that will stem world suffering."
Or, he could say "I have decided to walk the walk, and get rid of all the Weapons of Mass Destruction that the United States has both developed and proliferated to mankind."
Or, he could say "I have decided to fund new technologies that will free us from the chains of fossil fuels, and bring about a new era in sustainable energy."
But no, instead he will wax wildly about Man's need to discover new frontiers, to extend Man's reach into the universe. Look for wild ideas about multinational corporations mining minerals on the surface of Mars, polluting it just as we have done here on our own planet.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
They mis-spelled Faux News
Re:Skip the moon! Go straight to Mars!
At the time that our solar system is greatly developed and colonized, you will find that the Luna (our moon) has become a major transport hub, and that the Earth is a very lush residential garden planet.
Luna's lack of gravity makes it easier to land, refuel, refill, maintain, take off. It is an excellent storage post for mined resources and medium-scale manufacturing.
We will get to Mars, and we will live on Mars, but I can guarantee that there will be a grungy little spaceport dive bar on Luna before the first permanent residence is even attempted on Mars.
You are spotted man, karma whoring motherfucker. Bad luck, you should try to find something less blatant as a sig... :)
Weren't you Steve 'Rim' Jobs, by any chance ?
As it is said : Every Dog Has Its Day.
I hope that President Bush has the courage and conviction to challenge America to take our space program to the next level and plan a mission direct to Mars.
I hope that anyone other than President Bush is elected next year. If they also happen to authorize and encourage someone with a clue to plan a trip to Mars, that'd be nice.
paintball
Before we can go to Mars, however, there are some issues we need to figure out. A Mars mission (round trip) is expected to be somehwere in the neighborhood of 2 years. Thats 2 years without the possibility resupply from Earth, or the ability to quickly return to Earth should a serious problem arise, not to mention you simply can't land on Mars and expect to live off the land.
What I'd like to see is a Moon base be built and have some volunteers provide the proof of concept that a 2 year mission without Earth's help (except for remote control where needed) is doable. Its easy to send up a few barrels of water to the ISS every few months. Its quite another problem when your talking about sending it to Mars. We didn't go land on the moon wit the first Apollo launch. At least one (I can't remember how many) Apollo missions circled but didn't land on the moon prior to Apollo 11, taking the incremental approach to what would turn out to be a very successfull project.
Sure you can send stuff on ahead of the humans (which is what some proposals I've seen suggest), including habitation modules and equipment that can manufacture the needed fuel to return home, before the humans even leave Earth, but none of this has been proven to be practical for a Mars mission yet. We have a hard enough time sending unmanned missions to Mars to help understand what is and isn't on Mars.
Personally, I see a human Mars mission being an international effort. After all, the USA isn't in a space race against any other country humans to Mars first (okay, maybe China is thinking about it, but Russia definatly isn't).
The ISS and Shuttle were great concepts when designed and planned, but frankly, both of them keep us chained to LEO with no place to go. And the ISS isn't even close to living up to what it was supposed to be.
...Bush will announce plans for two moonbases: Moonbase Alpha and Moonbase Zappa.
(with apologies to Mike Myers)
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
Let's just hope President Bush really means what he is saying and isn't just doing this for a publicity stunt to boost his approval rating for the election.
I would love to see humans on Mars! Going to the Moon is one thing, but humans on a entirely different planet is really something special.
If we ever get there, we should start building bases and start to terraform the planet.
The answer to funding such a species furthering endevor is an immediate merger of NASA and VIVD Video.
The mass opening of NASA Approved brothels across America with 100% of the profits going to furthering space exploration would provide a wealth of funding nearly overnight!
Men will be truly from Mars! Next - are women truly Venutian?
'A lie if repeated often enough, becomes the truth.' - Goebbels
here.
I'll believe in people settling Mars at about the same time I see people setting the Gobi Desert.
No, catching Osama in outer space will help protect the International Space Station from Wahabi-piloted space capsule bombers who will stop at nothing to keep the infidels out of space, not even death...
In the end, it will prove to be a smart move, because SAddam put all his WMD's up there on the dark side of the moon, and its only a matter of time before they fall into unfriendly hands
It's obvious that Bush is grandstanding for the election. Everyone in his administration knows that announcing an intention to explore the Moon and Mars will not make much happen before a possible second term as President is over.
Nearly simultaneous grandstanding, throwing Hispanics a bone by proposing to semi-legalize some illegal immigrant workers.
All in all, the beginnings of a great election package of hot air, lies, false hopes, and marketing which will mostly go out the window if Bush is elected. Just like in 2000.
Lets start harvesting resources in orbit. How about dipping into the atmosphere to capture oxygen (and nitrogen if needed) then regenerate the momentum with Solar Energy pumped into a Electromagnetic Tether boosting system. Then all we need to haul up for space probe fuel is light weight hydrogen.
Lets build a super telescopes (optical and radio) on the far side of moon, but do it with robots. I think this could be done on cheap, buy making the primary spherical (like Arecibo or the proposed OWL), so you ferry out hundreds of paper thin identical spherical portions, with tiny adjustable stilts. A robot plants them around a suitable crater, Adjusting the stilts until each section is properly positioned to focus on a central boom. Some portions of the crater may be too irregular to properly position a mirror section or to high or too low for the stills to compensate for. Doesn't matter, you just need to get enough aggregate surface covered, it doesn't have to be uniform. Does require a halo orbit moon probe to stay in contact with earth.
Then there's that water that might exist on the poles of the moon that could be cracked for fuel, or just used for sustenance and radiation shielding.
Autonomous robots could do a lot of work Earth, and space would be a good proving ground and science driver for autonomous robot development.
Lets exhaust the search for life on Mars with probes before we contaminate the biosphere with human exploration.
That's enough rants for one post.
Letter To Iran
Will President Bush be the monkey we send up first?
The only ISP would be -Earthlink-
Frink: Nice try floyd, but you were designed for scrubbing, and scrubbing is what you shall do.
..... for what?
NASA can't even keep their shuttles from falling apart!
Let's send Bush to the moon.
Information points to Osama hiding out on Mars. Martians believed to be unwilling accomplices. Operation Martian Freedom is in the works.
Now let's get down to it:
Let's take these one at a time.Dude, I hate to be the first to tell you this, but humans breathe air. This means that, from a pure economic standpoint, Mars won't be settled until Antarctica is full. Since I think the planet Trantor is more fun to imagine than to actually live on, I think we'd better find a solution to the population problem that takes effect before Antarctica is full.
They're called "robots". You may have heard of them, since one is on Mars right now. NASA designed and launched two of them for $860M, less than the estimated cost of three shuttle flights. We could and should build a lot more of them, at very reasonable cost. They're fun, they're cheap, they work pretty well, and even if they occasionally blow up... nobody dies.
I'll bite. Which ore is this, exactly? Dilithium? Here's a homework assignment: after you realistically estimate the cost of mining an asteroid and shipping it back here, tell us which asteroidal element could be mined profitably. And please don't try and pretend that humanity hasn't invented recycling.
I can't argue with this, I guess. Pass the pork! All I can say, though, is that you can generate gratuitous tech jobs with useful projects (zero-pollution cars?) as well as you can with useless projects.
There are already plenty of inspired youngsters. They become postdocs. For every scientist with funding, there are 10 scientists working as postdocs, or accountants, or cabdrivers. Instead of spending billions of dollars trying to put spam-in-a-can where no spam has gone before, how about if we give that money to actual scientists? So we can cure diseases, or reverse-engineer the brain? Or even... build robots?
Please, do go on. I can already hear the violins, warming up to play the Star Trek theme.
He's correct. I'm pretty strongly anti-Bush, but he's been better for NASA than Clinton was. Clinton really did chop away at NASA's budget for many years.
I am in no way claiming that this is the case, but just hear me out regardless. I do love a conspiracy theory.
Fact: Bush wants to build a missile defence system
Fact: Missile defence system is very expensive.
Fact: Missile defence system is very controversial (at least internationally)
Fact: You need pretty high-tech rockets to reach the Moon/Mars.
Could it be that this is Bush's way of getting this technology in a more palatable form and maybe even hiding some of the "cost" of the Star Wars system at the same time?
I have said this before, I still stand on it.
.5 billion prize for cheap access to earth space, then to have the next space craft killed due to politics.
Hopefully, W will offer up a y-prize for spacecraft that will lift into leo. Far cheaper to offer up
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
While many of us think manned missions to the Moon and Mars mars are a great idea, it's also election year, and Bush's motives in setting this goal are clear. So what if he isn't re-elected? Which other candidates are in favor of these missions?
Litigious bastards
Bush wants to make a little city -- "Plan B" -- on the Moon -- an exclusive space bunker for the billionaires.
It has been well known for many years that sending rockets into space destroys the ozone layer.
So a revitalized space program is perfectly aligned with Bush's other anti-environment programs.
I don't think we would send astronauts to Mars and then not have them land. The journey to Mars is too long and too dangerous to just turn around and come home. A better approach would be to have some of the human-less dry runs actually land and take off again under computer control.
According to the scheduled completion of the spacecraft it would have been in service BEFORE Columbia was lost.
That spacecraft would easily have been in service by 2007!
Seriously, Columbia disaster was in 2003 and Bush took office in 2001? Developing something like a space vehicle takes well over a decade. I find it hard to believe that a spacecraft not even partially under constrution in 2001 would have been in service by the middle of 2003.
paintball
As a non-american I can only sit and watch from the sidelines as the yanks get yanked again.
Please for the love of the rest of the world do not re-elect GWB.
'nuff said, flame away the AC.
We have proof that the Martians have extensive Weapons of Mass Distruction programs that pose an IMMEDIATE threat to the US, therefore we must go there and disarm them before they can harm us.
Windows is not the answer.
Windows is the question.
The answer is "NO."
I suppose going to mars is important in that it will hopefully make long distance manned space travel a reality.
Do we really want another flags & footprints Mars mission? If so, go there first, get it over with and then we can all forget about interplanetary travel for 50 years like we have with the Moon.
:v)
I suggest a more thorough approach, which incidentally gets around the problems associated with a quick and dirty Mars mission.
Establish a lunar manufacturing base, and build what is essentailly a moveable space habitat, say, 400 metres in diameter. Shield it with a fixed shield of several metres of lunar-derrived material. Fill large storage tanks with more lunar material. Establish a known working, self-sufficient, rotating habitat inside the shielding. Build a solar-powered mass driver pointing out the back. Fire lunar material out the back, taking large numbers of colonists and thousands of tonnes of materiel for colonisation to Mars nice and slowly.
It won't run out of food as the habitat is self-sufficient. Psychological stress is minimised because of the habitat's large size. Gravity is sustained, and a full medical team can go out to maintain health. Shielding removes the radiation issue totally. Journey time becomes irrelevant.
What's more, the vessel is completely reusable so rinse and repeat. Refuel from Phobos/Diemos and go back to the Earth/Moon system or head on out as far as the asteroids. Any further and the solar panels will have difficulty powering the mass driver.
There's an old joke related to this:
An old bull and a young bull are at the top of a hill, looking at a herd of young, healthy, and dare I say attractive cows in the fields below.
"Let's run down and do a few," suggests the young bull.
"Let's walk down and do the lot," replied his elder.
There's an immoral moral there.
Vik
-We don't know how to build permanent self-
-sustaining habitats yet
Shhh, not so loud.
People who are raised on sound bytes never usually follow up on such things.
That bio bubble experiment was a success, capish?
That's all the reason Bush needs.
Why yes, that is the sound of my eyes rolling.
_nfotxn
Why the sudden interest in space travel, and why specifically Mars? We already know much about our Universe; we should explore others. What can a man--an expensive man--learn about Mars that telescopes and machines can't? Why are we dedicating a forecasted $20 billion to a space project when domestic woes abound?
Mars being a well-known planet, is this simply an attempt to appeal to the public?
We all know that the original space race was one of the most spectacular examples of corporate welfare in American history. Millions of *public* tax dollars were appropriated to put a man on the moon. What did this give the public? Very little, save for some diluted scientific knowledge and a boost in patriotism. What did this give private companies? Well, for starters, corporations have reaped billions from the spin-off products. (The same can be said for the Internet, another publically-funded establishment.) You could say this about aviation, medicine or any field that the U.S. is competitive in. Public funds have routinely been appropriated to aid private companies.
Is Bush attempting to recapture American technical dominance for private American industries? That would coincide with this article stating that CEOs Of Intel, HP Call Overseas Rivals Threat To U.S. IT Leadership.
Likewise, could this be in anticipation of resource accumulation, space-mining, etc.?
Imperialism on Earth can only go so far, but space, as they say, is the final frontier.
Counterweight (12/26/64)
Writer: Milton Krims
Director: Paul Stanley
Guest Cast: Michael Constantine, Jacqueline Graham Denton, Shary Marshall
A group of people participate in an experiment to test their reactions to simulated deep space flight. Unknown to them, an alien creature is also on the "trip", who has a vested interest in their reactions.
Imagine what the environmentalists would say about that!
He can't find Bin Laden, so he's going to save us from the evil martians and pay for it with our kids' taxes. I'm all for the space program, but this guy's priorities are clearly out of whack.
--Nick
Seriously, you guys bend over backwards to justify your king's decisions on what to spend monetarily. Would you let a democrat who made the same decisions get away with it?
OK, I'll bite on the off chance that this *is* an honest question.
NASA's annual budget is something like $15B.
There are about 2 billion individuals who survive on less than $2 per day equivalent purchasing power (this may not consider non-wage agricultural production such as gardens, but $2 is obviously very little money).
Give $15B to 2B people -- it's $7.50 per capita. In other words, if direct subsidies are the answer to poverty then NASA's budget would be inconsequential.
That isn't to say that $15B could not be employed to raise the standard of living of many individuals. A "Manhattan Project" to end Malaria would be a boon to hundreds of millions of people. There are other, similar sorts of investments one could make.
Instead of aiming your ire / consternation / disapproval at NASA for 'wasting' money (needless to say they're wasting American taxpayers' money), why not examine the kleptocratic warlords, juntas and strongmen who use food, water and education as weapons against their ethnic, cultural and political foes?
Bush is going to Mars and the moon to look for WMD.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Get it out of your system.
Oh, and insert your oil joke also.
Posted 30 minutes earlier!
CNN has some more info like dates etc...
Fair and Balanced... the mission will miss. They're obviously too far to the left. :)
Finally, a use for the huge budget surplus! yay!
Personally, I think the money would be best spent on fusion research first. There are several reasons:
1. The urgent need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, the middle east, reduce global warming and pollution in general
2. We obviously have to get fusion working before even thinking about mining the moon for fuel. And once on the moon (or Mars) fusion would be an excellent power source
3. Fusion powered rockets will get us to Mars and elsewhere in the solar system much faster than chemical rockets
Another thing we've gotta get right first is closed ecosystems or biospheres. eg. Growing food, recycling air and water etc. They had a pretty good crack at it a few years ago with Biosphere 2, but IIRC there were problems with oxygen being absorbed into the concrete foundations. So again, they've got to get that right before sending anyone out to the moon or Mars to live on a base. You could do a nice simulation by putting a biosphere underwater, far enough down to reduce the sunlight to the same intensity as Mars. Then check which plants are best able to grow and produce oxygen.
One of these days I'm moving to Theory - everything works there
Maybe Dubya will find some presently illegal immigrants, offer them the princely sum of $6,000 per year as part of his new guest worker visa program, and use them for a moon mission? I mean, as long as he offered the job to Americans first*, it will all be nice and legal.
* That is to say, Americans who were willing to have their gonads removed with a rusty scalpel as part of a Fox TV special.
The truth about Scientology, Xenu, and you: Operation Clambake
Moderate this as flamebait if you will. But I think we all know that in the history of the USA (and USSR for that matter) space programs have only really served as jingoistic propaganda. The scientific research is only a by-product. During a time of apparently great terrorist threat and huge federal spending I don't see how it is at all practical.
_nfotxn
See above posters for why this post is wrong.
If you want to check on the poster's history, just look at his/her journal. It is then obvious that this is nonsense.
I had but a simple dream, to destroy all humans.
Can't find WMD or Osama here on Earth, might as well try the Moon or Mars. Mmm, shiny...
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
I read a very interesting editorial by Anne Applebaum in the Washington Post the other day (here, registration required). Basically, she says that putting a robot on mars is a good idea because a robot is well suited for this kind of scientific work. Humans on the other hand are supposed to stay on earth - inhospitable climat, muscular deterioration during space flight and extreme radiation make a trip to mars less than pleasent.
Quoting: Mars, as a certain pop star once put it, isn't the kind of place where you'd want to raise your kids. Nor is it the kind of place anybody is ever going to visit, as some of the NASA scientists know perfectly well. Even leaving aside the cold, the lack of atmosphere and the absence of water, there's the deadly radiation. If the average person on Earth absorbs about 350 millirems of radiation every year, an astronaut traveling to Mars would absorb about 130,000 millirems of a particularly virulent form of radiation that would probably destroy every cell in his body. "Space is not 'Star Trek,' " said one NASA scientist, "but the public certainly doesn't understand that."
So....do we really need a man on mars? Not for scientific reasons, that's for sure. And what other reasons are there? Anyone who thinks we can just teraform mars into a habitable planet in the next 300 years when we can't even keep the ISS leak-free is seriously deluded...
I guess the question of "Why does Bush want it" doesn't even deserve an answer because it's so obvious...
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
Folks, take a step back and absorb this:
Manned exploration of Mars.
Permanent human presence on the Moon.
This is probably the most exciting news I've ever seen posted here at Slashdot. When do we leave?
The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
...then WHO? If not now then WHEN? Ben Bova's book about Mars (interestingly enough called, 'Mars'), makes it clear that he felt this should be an international concern - if only for the high cost.
OTOH, look at the problems that occurred with ISS. Shit, they still haven't even been able to agree what to CALL IT (Alpha, ISS, etc.) If some country's funding gets cut due to a bad economy it all falls down.
So if the U.S. doesn't at least lead in a project like this, how long will it be until it DOES happen? I should say that we've had enough experience landing there in one piece by now.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
Why are we spending money on things like this when so many Americans lack health care. I'm not against basic science, but manned space missions are really poor value when you consider what you've learned versus how much you've spent. Why doesn't he invest money in building better space telescopes? The Hubble has been a real success. I guess that doesn't fit with Bush's comic book view of the world though.
Alien immigration/Alien emigration.
... by the Bush Administration then this idea has my full and wholehearted support.
What's the point? PR is NASA's main product and
only sometimes it is good. Why spend BILLIONS
and BILLIONS on a manned presence on the moon?
Finding life on other planets. Understanding the
universe. These are useful things for NASA to
do. Putting more golfers on the moon doesn't
accomplish anything.
of a new era in space flight/technology.
First the moon, why we didn't put a moon base on there before I'll never know. Start mining missions to actually make some money off of it.
Build the Mars starship on the moon so it won't have to use as much fuel to reach escape velocity.
Cut down on the time to travel to Mars by inventing a better propellent system. Maybe Fusion Drives powered by Hydrogen? Provide a constant 1G acceloration and you can simulate gravity on the back end of the ship. Perhaps this will prevent the bone loss that happens in extended periods in weightlessness.
Create a base on Mars, launch ships to mine the asteroids for materials in short supply on Earth.
Maybe try to find oil on the moon or Mars?
To cut down on costs, NASA can have corporations commercialize space and use the corporations to launch ships to the moon and Mars. There would have to be a profit invovled, like bringing something back that can be sold.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
It appears that GWB now spends money like a Democrat! (Its just that no money gets set aside to social programs.)
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
Might this soil crust on Mars be same/similar to the biological soil crust found at Arches National Park (Moab, Utah)?
Additional details regarding biological soil crusts maybe are to found here:
intermediate details
advanced details
I believe Juanita
The moon has half the space station problem licked. Physical containment and radiation-shielding? Just dig down into rock. Supplies? Mine for them. Storage space? Plenty going begging, on the surface or dug down into rock, and no atmophere to blow stuff around or rain on it.
Its low gravity and lack of atmosphere make cheap slow-acceleration launch tech like linear motors perfectly sensible. It's ideal as a place to build spacecraft or spacecraft parts, to launch things into earth orbit, to park and refuel spacecraft, and to land, warehouse and refine things mined in bulk from elsewhere in the solar system.
Seeing the moon as a planetary colony is IMO the wrong model. Seeing it as the ultimate ready-made orbital space station makes much more sense.
"the ultra-pure manufacturing possible in zero-g are only immediately obvious commercial benefits.
"
One problem with that: transportation costs. Right now it costs over $10,000/kg to send anything into orbit, not to mention the moon. I would assume a moon cargo mission would be about 5 times more expensive. Here's a good question: What is a) worth >$50k/kg and b) only manufacturable on the moon? (NOT microgravity!)
The BBC is also running the story, but they say that Bush will also announce plans for a permenant base on the moon as a sort of testing ground for flights to Mars. CNN is running the same story, but where the BBC says "The manned mission to Mars.. is not expected for at least 10 years," CNN is reporting that we will not get to the moon until 2018. We can therefore safely say that although all this sounds great... I'm sure there will be some sort of mineral on either the moon or Mars or both which is commercially viable for extraction to earth, and this will mean "more exchanges of technology between Nasa and the Pentagon"... it is pretty much just a campaigning stunt, and even if things do go through we probably won't be on Mars for 20 years at the earliest.
Just another two cents from the Norm...
So, in spite, it would be better to not try at all until we get someone else in office?
You Bush-haters amaze me. Every day you find yet another way to cut your own noses off. Whatever happened to caring about good policy or ideas REGARDLESS of where it came from? Alright, you don't like the man. Fine. But that doesn't mean you have to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Last I checked, the news isn't all bad. I personally think the idea of going to Mars should certainly be explored.
Until bitter Democrats can see past their hate (tinged by fear) and lust for revenge they are doomed to continue to lose. They'd be better off sticking to the issues and SOLVING problems (not just bitching about them or what personality they think is responsible).
America and the world watch more than your press releases about what Bush did this week. They also watch what you've done (or haven't). Think about it.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
Oh, man. I feel like someone just shoved a stake through my heart. What to do, what to do.
Vote for Bush and maybe, maybe... see human beings actually pry themselves off this planet? See human beings establish a permanent outpost on another celestial body? I can't think of anything that would make me more ecstatic.
But I can't vote for Bush! Can I?
I hate the way he runs the country. I hate how arrogant and snide he always seems to be. And I can't forget how he didn't play straight with the American people about going to Iraq. What's worse, I don't put it past him to do it again. He squandered the goodwill we had after 9/11, and he's involved us in an extremely costly, deadly foreign adventure that has maimed too many soldiers and that I don't think will work.
But what if that revolting arrogance is the only way to actually get a space program funded? I've watched most of the Dem debates, I've looked at all the candidates' websites... and none of them ever talks about going to the Moon or going to Mars. Ever. I can't even imagine one of them coming forward and making a strong commitment to space exploration like this. So many of their constituencies would be offended.
But Bush is a domestic disaster. He loves the flag but not the rights it represents. The whole idea of having a parallel legal system for terrorists is grotesque. The idea that someone, somewhere can with the stroke of a pen declare any American citizen an "enemy combatant" and remove their Constitutional rights can only be described as obscene. There's no accountability in any of Bush's plans to fight terror. Just secret lists and secret tribunals and secret detainments.
But isn't colonizing the Moon and Mars, well, bigger than mere social issues? I mean, doesn't survival of the species trump your right not to have your phone conversations listened to? Some terrorist superplague could come along and wipe out humanity. It's not unthinkable. We've got all our eggs in one basket here. It could be now or never.
But.. ugh. Could I commit myself to Bush just because I think we need to go to space? Could I campaign for him, tell my friends to vote for him, give his campaign my all?
I'd feel awful. Like I was betraying my principles.
But if it's true, if Bush really does commit us to establishing a permanent colony on the Moon and a mission to Mars the same way Kennedy did...
Wouldn't it be worth it?
Christ, Bush, you're hitting me where I live.
Why do we need to spend billions and trillions of dollars, just so that people can dream the "dream" and be inspired? This goes WAY beyond science or investment - this is ridiculous. Science much better served by deciding what we want, sending probes, deciding if anything useful can be gained by sending live human bodies to a hostile world, then deciding the best way to spend resources. This plan is like saying we should build open-air condos on the Mars without even thinking of terraforming it yet. Mars holds far more mysteries than what's going to happen when a size-9 space boot displaces some dust.
Yes - we should develop technologies that will eventually allow us to have longer-term access to extra-atmosphere environments, etc. But that's just a small part of the research we should be doing... instead, we're going to end up spending almost all our research expenses on doing exactly what is needed for this trip (which other have mentioned is almost all old technology), and even further ignoring almost all other research avenues.
If you want an adventure of the imagination - try imagining bigger! This is a prime example of how a mild imagination will make a trip to Mars seem like the pinacle of human possibility.
Ryan Fenton
P.S. Can you imagine the backlash from those opposed to science-related philosophies if this mission ends up as dissapointing, much less a large failure. "Man on the moon" was a spectacular achievement, what happens when "Man on Mars" ends up a joke? Not intending doom and gloom - just an issue of priorities with our explorations and asperations.
...if he just condensed all his recent "victories" into one large slogan, ie
Saddam Hussein to pilot specially-crafted WMD to Mars, thanks to tax cuts and a reduced deficit! Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!
The neutrality of this sig is disputed.
Does "best estimate" just perhaps maybe mean "most favorable estimate for your advocacy purposes"? What qualifies you to judge such an estimate? I don't believe for one second that anybody's going to Mars for 20 billion dollars.
Even if you could do it for 20 billion dollars, that's 20 billion dollars you could just put in the bank. Sure, the ISS and the Shuttle are complete wastes of money, but that doesn't mean the right answer is to waste the money in a different way.
Another specious argument. The fact that larger Federal expenditures exist doesn't mean Mars would be anything but a waste of money.
I agree that danger isn't an issue when you're dealing with sane, informed volunteers... but it's just fucking delusional to claim that a Mars expedition is going to be safer than your morning commute. You're talking about a very long trip on an untested spacecraft, in an environment that is known to wreck people.
What's the death rate per passenger hour on the Shuttle, compared to the death rate per passenger hour on the freeways? What leads you to believe that a Mars craft would be any safer than the Shuttle?
Preferably somewhere better than where you've been so far.
You're not going to be moving a large number of people to Mars (and if you did want to set up a large off-Earth colony, you'd be better off to do it in free space anyway). What exactly is the value of this "new home for humanity"?
Oh, really? What exactly do you expect to discover with a manned Mars mission that couldn't be discovered faster and cheaper with robots? Be specific, please.
Great, you can get to the asteroids (well, OK, you can get to the asteroids for another N billion dollars). You still can't get the material back to Earth where you need it. Where the hell are you going to get the delta-V to bring a huge asteroid home? Much cheaper for the foreseeable future to mine or recycle the stuff at home, especially since newer technologies seem to be trending toward less metal use.
Makework; no contribution to the real economy. Another way to say this is "the work of thousands of creative people poured down a useless rathole".
Maybe. Not worth the money, and not the government's job, by the way. Could also be done with an actually useful project rather than a boondoggle. Put directly into basic technologies (materials science, nanotech), and you could probably even advance the state of the world enough to bring the actual cost of a Mars mission, as opposed to the advocacy cost, down to say 20 billion dollars.
Put the price of a Mars mission into biotech and nanotech, and you could probably cure aging.
So, mars / moon is in the menu, since catching Laden and fixing the economy is not the first priority ...
Well ... whatever works! Personally I believe it would been better for economy ( not eco friendly ) to say take a "Super Highway" project where hundreds of people will get job thru Cheny's company and we can drive on those highway at 200 miles / hour.
Yes, car design will have to be re-thought and so is the whole thing associated with it, like we will see "super gas", "super oil" etc. etc. and "super highwaay capable" cars ... man that will be a dream.
Look, I know speed kills but I would rather die at driving 200 miles/hr than driving at 40 miles/hour. You die anyway ... just go with a better bang!
I guess I am crazy geek in here with no life posting at slashdot at midnight! Sure there are people in the right places are doing the right thing to make my life better...
or, they just don't give a $@##@!
- People who believe other people have no right to live, got no right to live ...
If the President who sends Army personel to Iraq without flack jackets, is in charge of the NASA budget.
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
Looks like Bush Jr. is fixated on finishing up what his Dad couldn't: He announced this 15 years ago and it was ultimately scrapped because it was too expensive...even without the record deficits we face now.
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
"The administration examined a wide range of ideas, including new, reusable space shuttles and even exotic concepts such as space elevators" (my emphasis).
A space elevator, now there's a project worth pursuing. If we could only master the technology needed (superstrong materials, read Arthur C. Clarke's Fountains of Paradise or see this site for details) a space elevator would pay for itself in a matter of years and open up space for humanity like no other initiave we can even imagine today.
That aside, I wonder if we will read about this period in 30 years time like we do today about Nixon's deliberations about what to do with the Apollo program, not to mention how special interests got the Space Shuttle funding even though there was little science to gain from the program which basically tied us to LEO for decades? I wonder how much frenzied scrambling has been going on inside NASA these past few months to come up with realistic programs while the Prez is in a benign mood (all part of the re-election strategies, no doubt).
Whatever comes from this, if anything at all, let's try to make it an international effort. First of all that would be good for international cooperation in general, it wouldn't look like one country was doing this for strategic purposes and it would ease the burden somewhat for the US taxpayer. Fair is fair, the entire human race will (hopefully) benefit from this, so we should all chip in.
And remember kids: Never trust a computer you can actually lift.
I don't think this is a good idea. Look at what happened with the ISS, the last time we tried something like that. A big chunk of the countries dropped out, the U.S. wound up picking up the tab for a bunch of them, Russia committed to pay for a huge portion of it and then actually paid for very little forcing the U.S. to cover the gap. The entire thing wound up being far less ambitious and far more expensive than planned and at least part of why seemed to be that large portions of the project wound up being replaced with minimal stopgap measures NASA found themselves having to unexpectedly come up with themselves at the last minute.
Multilateralism's a good thing in foreign policy, and an international space exploration effort is a beautiful idea. But at the moment, I'm not sure it's feasible. After seeing what happened with ISS, I'd say that at the stage technology's at right now, it's hard enough for *one* state beauracracy to stay focused all the way through a project that it doesn't seem like a good idea to bring others in. (The people in power may want it now, but different people may be in power in four years!) If you're going to work on something like this I think you want to make sure that all the pieces are being done where you can keep an eye on them, and not wind up in a situation where vital pieces of the project are subject to the whims of the politics of a country you have no control over...
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Dubya is sure trying to put some zap into his reelection campaign with this nonsense.
... oh ... 80% over the next 10 years.
Now, back to earth and things that matter: How about a plan to reduce our dependence on non-renewable sources of energy? What I'd like to see is a commitment from our government to reduce our dependence on fossil fuel by
Like the proposed space program, such an effort would produce profound advances in science and technology and create thousands of jobs. In fact, the technological and financial impact of fossil fuel reduction would be far in excess of anything a space program could possibly hope to accomplish.
But, unlike the space program, our efforts would be spent working on several very earthly problems: climate change and dependence on imported fuel.
'Impossible' you say? That's what they said when JFK proposed putting men on the moon within the decade. Technologically it's well within our grasp. All we need is the political will.
We can and should go to space when the time is right. But right now there are pressing matters to deal with here on earth: War, Nukes, Climate Change, War, etc.
Dubya and his posse are crooks. They could give a flying fuck about Mars or the Moon. They just want to get reelected. Ignore them.
I find it somewhat ironic that on the very day scientists announce a likely 15% to 37% reduction on plant and animal species due to climate change that Dubya spews forth something like this.
Space travel with chemical propulsion is never going to get any better. Chemical fuels are as good as they're going to get. There's been essentially zero progress in thirty years.
Building more chemically-fueled spacecraft is a dead end. The weight reduction required for them to work at all makes them so fragile that they'll never be reliable. If you could build a spacecraft with the weight budget of an airliner, (40% or so of the gross takeoff weight is fuel) spacecraft would be affordable and reliable. But when you have to build something that's 90+% fuel, (SSTO machines are something like 97%+ fuel, which is why nobody has built one), it has to be a fragile balloon full of fuel.
Nuclear power, maybe. But chemical fuels? Been there, done that.
An unmanned lunar orbiter would be worth doing. Last time, in the early 1960s, the US sent five orbiters, which used 70mm film, a chemical film processor, and a scanner to transmit the images back. So they only took 1654 images, and the imagery is only 60 meters per pixel. Putting a modern survellance camera in lunar orbit would get us 1m imagery of the whole moon, if not better. Maybe we'll find something worth checking out.
This may very well be the only good thing he has done while in office. I have a visceral hatred for the guy, but if he honestly believes in this initiative, than I have to applaud him for it.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
He's run out of places in Iraq to search for all those weapon's of mass destruction.
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
As the alternative to more GWB is one of the Democratic candidates slugging it out, a quick survey of their attitudes to space exploration in general and Mars in particular seems appropriate.
Howard Dean is the only one I know of that has explicitly stated his support for a manned Mars program. He stated in a press conference that "we should agressively begin a program to have manned flights to Mars.", though he did hedge on the potential cost (a reasonable point, given how far down the toilet the US government's finances will be in a few years without radical spending cuts or tax rises).
As far as I can google, Wesley Clark hasn't expressed an opinion on the future of manned space exploration, but he did issue a press release heartily congratulating NASA on the Spirit rover. He seems to still be formulating his policy on NASA.
Dunno about the others..
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Schools are crappy, teachers are underpaid, old people have to pay tons of money for pills, homeless people fill out city streets, AIDs is destroying Africa, people are starving in North Korea ....
and... we're going to SEND PEOPLE TO THE MOON AND MARS ??!!
I can think of at least ONE THOUSAND better things to do with that money.
Then again, this is probably just election year hoopla. Even if Bush were to get a second term, we wouldn't be ready to send anyone to a planet until his term was over. I doubt our next administration will be willing to spend this money on such a lame cause.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
Space exploration is a good idea, but it's very expensive and the longer we wait, the cheaper it will become. In the meantime there are more efferent (but less dramatic) ways to spend $500 billion dollars.
Stem cell research comes to mind. Imagine curing stupidity at the genetic level. The risks would be high but the pay off could be astronomical.
The first time we went to the moon it was a proof of concept. The second time was a redundant waste of resources. Until someone invents warpdrive, explore space with telescopes!
Good old para^H^H^H^Hcompetitive spirit kicking in...?
Nah.
And remember kids: Never trust a computer you can actually lift.
You know, they are not the most most accurate news program. Hell, the Daily show is more accurate that Fox and they are a fake news show. Damn fine tho
The projects that have delivered the most bang for the buck will be the first ones to go. Compton's gone because Nasa didn't want to continue funding it. They took a lot of heat for that. Now NASA can blame bush when Hubble and Chandra come flaming out of the sky.
What a bloody waste.
he's not planning for manned flights to the moon or mars. he HAS no vision.
he's just trying to blow every demographic there is to stir up votes.
he has many enemies.
the real ace in his sleeve is gonna be when he pulls the capture of bin laden out of a rabbit's hat before the election.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/cixel
Rename "Europa" to "Hoth" - an ice planet people HAVE heard of !! It would fit in nicely with Bush' pressure on Australia to join the Star Wars program.
z3ngine.
PS: yes, I realise Europa is a moon and Hoth is a (ficticious) planet.
I therefore think I am.
Massdrivers capable of targeting earth with multi- megaton equivalent loads are an ultimately destabilizing weapon. You get the damage of a nuke, with no fallout to affect neutral or allied parties, and put that in the hands of politicians who will never understand until they use a few that it's not just a big rock moving fast, it's a BIG rock moving FAST.
If the US controls the moon, and starts building one, expect some of our more hostile neighbor powers to preempt with nukes or worse, before we get a nuke equivalent that we will claim doesn't count as a weapon of mass distruction so long as we have the only one.
Who is John Cabal?
Do a google search for the first line of the parent's post... they come from either freerepublic or newsmax, both sources of untrustable right-wing propaganda. Anyone have stats from a real source?
at the same time bush is proposing a multi trillion dollar taxpayer funded program for space exploration...
congress is already passing laws to make profits from any space operations tax exempt... great idea, mr. bush. gotta love that guy.
... And Haliburton will get a No-Bid contract!
Donald Rumsfeld will inist that we will only need 2 astronauts to complete the mission, while NASA will strongly recommend 4.
Dick Cheney will have a closed session with Haliburton, Enron, and WorldCom about how to transport Oil to Mars from Kuwait, charge Martians 2x the going price for electricity, and offer Mars telecom stock.
Powel & Rice will only on landing on South Mars, as North Mars won't negotiate with them.
And Ken Lay will advise Bush on how best to finance the manned Mars & Moon missions so that people will overlook how much more debt & shakey financial condition the U.S. is getting into with all these expeditions.
And once some Americans land and die on Mars, people will forget that the reason they came was that President Bush said that there were Weapons of Mass Destruction there.
While at the same time, the Bush administration forgot to build a return rocket for the astronauts. -- Since they forgot an exit strategy.
The current position wrt earth means nothing.
There's no rocketship sitting fully-fueled Dubya's going to pull the curtain back on. This would take *at least* ten years. Barring any more embarrassing metric/imperial(ugh) mixups, the vehicle will begin its journey at the optimum time.
(bonus points to those of you who realise that the vehicle is not launched when the planets are closest, either)
I'm serious. All you hardcore space exploration people have one country above all others to thank for this, and it's the one who just recently put their first man into orbit and has been spouting off about a moon base for the better half of last year. And from paranoia's point of view, I can see why. Space is the ultimate high ground and danged if I'd want a nation with China's human rights record dominating it. But regardless of how or why...
Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a space race!
You need a FREE iPod Nano
either way Bush will be known as the biggest tax and spend president in a generation.
He spends money like a drunken sailor in a whore house.
War is necrophilia.
Seems to me that he's just trying to get on the bandwagon of 'ex-presidents that will be remembered for the great things they did', as opposed to the 'ex-presidents that will not be mentioned in polite company'.
Give me Jed Bartlett any day.
Bush has no interest in men on Mars, this is a political statement designed to make him look "presidential" in the JFK way
:)
Well, JFK didn't really mean it either. He had no interest in the moon, and it never would have happened except for one thing: he got assassinated.
So here's the deal. Those of us that actually want to see a Mars mission, let's wait. If Bush makes his announcement, we ice him a few months later. The nation can then spend the next few years trying to "honour the vision of a slain president".
And hopefully, it'll give you something to smile about, instead of whining about every possible thing you can think of
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Look, going to mars is nice and all, but not if it means i have to look at all these ugly bitches without any makeup!
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Making space launches cheaper and having a permanent presense in space will in enable the creation of power satellites that can in time totally replace all polluting power sources.
It looks to me like spending more on space infrastructure actually does lead to a solution to dependence on fossil fuel!
Look at how far they go in Russia with such a limited budget. It's like the old urban legend. People discovered that you can't write in space with a standard ball point pen. The United States would spend thousands of dollars to engineer a pressurized pen. The Russians just use pencils.
I vote thate Dubya goes on the first mission !
I'm no expert but from what I've seen its NOT realistic anytime soon.
On the NASA channel, I've seen interviews about this, and while some say yes, other experts say its not possible. For example, the expert on human biology, said its not possible because peoples bone mass goes down so much that they would be very weak by the time they got there even with doing everything we do now. It takes too long to get there.
Also was a ton of stuff about the protection the earth provides in its proximity which even goes as far out as the moon. It would be worse and longer term outside the protective field.
Don't forget the space elevator, something that could be done in 15 years with only 1 billion and would signifcanly lower the cost of the mars mission. (perhaps they could finally afford a large spinning torus)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
According to this PDF document, there might be natural gas and oil on Mars (ok, so in Mars). That's assuming there was life on Mars too. Check it out here. www.jmcgowan.com/oilmars.pdf
Life is not for the lazy.
Not a bad idea, but I think it'll have to wait for the Schwarzenegger administration.
Bush is really scaring me in many ways. With the drastic lowering of taxes and drastic increase in both military and other spending, the US is heading into the biggest budget deficits in history.
And this is the time he proposes to spend a few dozen more billions of borrowed money? Someone cut this guy's credit card!! As much as I hate taxes, I have to say I prefer "tax and spend" to borrow and spend".
This obviously can't go on. Don't believe for a second that this won't start crashing, hard, soon after the election!
....but it would be too expensive to fight on Mars. Unless NASA has been doing something they haven't been telling anyone about in the area of really fast propulsion, it is going to be at the best times a long trip, and when Mars is in an unfavorable position it would take years. Plus it would be expensive if you just consider how much money it would take to move the mass of the soldiers, the mass of the weapons, and all the food and life support and rocket that it takes to get to Mars. Any fighting that breaks out up there would probably just incite war back on Earth where it is cheaper to kill people.
"I am nationalizing the pharmaceutical industry, and the world will no longer need or want for the meds that will stem world suffering."
Most drug research happens in the United States, because drug companies are still able to profit from the deal. Socialization has killed drug research in Europe. So if you don't want any new drugs, go ahead and push your plan.
"I have decided to walk the walk, and get rid of all the Weapons of Mass Destruction that the United States has both developed and proliferated to mankind." The genie is out of the bottle, kid, and there's no stuffing it back in. The best we can do is make sure our enemies respect our power. We are not in a post-modern peaceful era, though many in Europe have become deluded that this is the case, by being under our protection for two generations.
"I have decided to fund new technologies that will free us from the chains of fossil fuels, and bring about a new era in sustainable energy."
Fossil fuels are a cheap and easily transportable &usable source of energy. As long is this is the case, they will dominate. When this is no longer the case, the market will offer new solutions, or society will adapt. The government can do all the research it wants, but it will never be used unless it can beat gas in terms of price and transportability.
I'm not neccesarily a fan of Bush, but you're living in a fantasy world if you think that government can solve the worlds problems best.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
They've orbited a man.
On the time-line of Getting to the Moon that means, if all thier Soviet designed gear works, they'll make it there...never.
But if they get lucky and can recreate the American success, they'll land around 2011-12.
Not trying to rag on ya but I used to think like a fanboy about space and technology until I learned firsthand a bit about how desparate so many people's lives are in this country outside of my little insular techie circles.
It's important to approach this objectively because budgets are a give-and-take sorta deal and blowing our dollars into space means we'll just make our deficits here worse and the coming baby-boom crunch will crush us economically just a little bit harder for it. Just another windfall for defense contractors. And no, "trillion dollar ore asteriods" will not pay for the program, but i can see how you might think so given how many Americans believed these guys.
We spent all our money on Iraq. Drat. Maybe we'll just borrow it from our kids - after all, they might live to see it, if we don't just rip off the program to build a missile shield. Or maybe we'll just claim that Mars can produce enough mineable material to pay for its own colonization, then lose interest when we blow through its atmosphere. On the other hand, maybe these Houston-directed NASA missions have discovered oil up there...
--
make install -not war
Anti-Bush/Cheney is not antiamerican. You'll be able to tell the difference better in November.
--
make install -not war
You're not a little behind. Far from it- you're a big ass.
Ha ha ha!
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
Every politician wants to be JFK, but none of them wants to do the most essential thing. Which is to get killed before your fuckups become common knowledge.
We must use nanotechnology to construct the spaceships, the supply vehicles, the lander sites (colonies etc.). otherwise, we will repeat the $very expensive$ trips we had to the moon in the early 70's. Advanced nanotechnology will let us basicly take our whole culture (lib of congress and the whole internet there and build (grow) evrything from scratch wehn we get there. Something that would have cost hundreds of billions to do now probablly will cost hundreds of millions and we can then have the programmable nanoech computer code to grow any other space colonies we want or orbiting space colonies/hotels. We should also by then have working neural networks that run on advanced nanoprocessors to get real evolutionary-induced neural nets that are cheap and powerfull
Is anyone else terrified by the phrase "Bush will direct NASA"? That moron can't even pronounce "nuclear", the shuttles have been grounded his entire term, and even Dan Quayle, Bush Senior's "science advisor" was a brighter bulb. What will he say, "just make the fuse longer, you'll get there, bubba"?
--
make install -not war
Bush's recommendation has almost as much ability to add negative baggage to ANY idea as Hitler's recommendation would, to some groups. It's sad to see him sink this by grabbing onto it on his inevitable way down.
Spain reluctantly sends Columbus to America.
No, they sent him to India. He just mistook America for it..
Perhaps the Mars explorers will bump into some other, currently unknown object, and colonize that with much resulting merriment.
I guess Bush hasn't heard of this "budget" thing, because last I heard we were running a deficit of $400 billion a year. The last thing we need is more spending. I'm really disappointed by the Slashdotters that think "That's cool!!" without any idea of the money involved. I hope you don't run your personal lives that way. If there are people that are excited about this they should raise their own money to do so. Bake sales for Mars are fine with me, but don't ask for my money. "Adventure" is not a sufficient reason put the country into even worse debt than we are already in.
To get away from all these illegal aliens Dubya is letting into the country.
Space wars?
China, like other countries, already has the capability to destroy (over time) the U.S. and allied satellites. All you need is to denotate the ICBM in orbit, the radiation will kill the satellites in less than 6 months.
Read more in thebulletin.org
God you all are a bunch of conspiricy theorists. Just come out and say it. Whatever Bush does you hate, reguardless of if it's good or not. I'm ready for a civil war.
How about a plan to reduce our dependence on non-renewable sources of energy?
But, unlike the space program, our efforts would be spent working on several very earthly problems: climate change and dependence on imported fuel.
Great, as soon as there is an actual need to do that, we can talk. In the mean time, coal will satisfy our energy needs for the next fifty years and fuel cells will reduce our dependence on oil. We are already spending billions on research into creating more efficient power plants and fuel cells and storing the CO2 produced by coal burning. Throwing more money at the problem will just provide more supporting evidence for the law of diminishing returns.
We can and should go to space when the time is right. But right now there are pressing matters to deal with here on earth: War, Nukes, Climate Change, War, etc
And those social, economic and political problems will NEVER be solved by simple technological development. If we had better solar panels today, will there be less terrorists, less nukes and less pollution in the world tomorrow? Will better solar panels or more money to the State Department change the fundamental security calculations that lead countries to retain nuclear weapons, or end the conflicts, oppression, and squalor that lead to war? All the money that we have would not be enough to do that. Taking money out of space to spend on renewable energy in order to stop war and climate change is like trying to put out a barn fire by taking money out of feeding the cows in order to make more cheese.
On the other hand, money invested in getting to the space will stimulate technological development, increase our national competitiveness, and expand the knowledge of the human race. I think realistic thinking dictates that we need to do the latter.
Nobody gives a shit about government spending unless it's for the space program. We spend half a TRILLION dollars a year just on budget increases and debt financing, and nobody says a word. $20 billion for a moon mission and everyone starts carping about money.
What a load of crap.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
Remember when conservatives were all about limiting government spending? Wow. what the hell ever happened to that party?
What happpened was they got into power. Government always expands. It's inherent in the system, and the personal convictions of the people currently manning the controls doesn't matter all that much.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism
by those who have not got it." -- George Bernard Shaw
They don't have to die prematurely. It's possible to send them enough supplies and resources to build a greenhouse to let them die at old age. By the time they're 60 it'll be possible to pick them up and take back to Earth. It's not impossible nor very expensive.
Any chance that the man who goes could be him? Please?
I honestly don't know what to think of Bush after this. Is Bush getting better? I mean, sure, he is doing this for re-election purposes, but I've always evaluated on effects, not motivation.
i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
what a jackass.
he knows there is no way to pay for this, so it's totally meaningless. besides, his constituency thinks the moon is made of green cheese. what a joke.
So this self-sacrafice bush is doing is not looting?
You know the nobel prize winning economist described bush's policies as "looting". He is not the only one either.
ok. ok. say you are right.
its still stupid; no its worse its bush stupid.
This is not comedy, a parody thru exaggeration is not going to work. period.
Say people get pissed, and spending is cut; how do you know it will get cut at RECORD levels and not just get cut back to where it was before he screwed everyone?
If you want to talk in specifics, sure, he is doing this with schools, the gop is doing it on a broad scale. They want to kill public schools, and they are actively doing stuff to take them down including helping waste money.
But this is 1 situation, and one where its fairly clear as to their plan. But you are being broad and vauge so much so its just stupid.
Under your thinking, then military spending should then be cut in record levels. And homeland defence, since both are getting most the bloat. His spending is not so big outside the PORK and homeland security. (military is included in the PORK)
The greatest human endeavor in a five hundred years is about to be announced, and almost every message is griping about cost and how "impractical" it is.
If a man were to step on another planet, it would be one of the most meaningful and inspiring moments in thousands of years. It would change humanity forever.
The amount of scientific knowledge that could be gained by the research effort to complete this mission is incalculable.
But to stand around and cynically bitch about trivia before such magnificent sagacity is truly depressing. I thought knowledge, science and engineering were values, not budget categories.
This idea should be supported.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
Would you rather die of Cancer, Heart disease or while attempting a Manned Mission to Mars?
Consider this:
Wise up. This announcement has nothing to do with space exploration. It has to do with November, nothing more.
There is much pleasure to be gained in useless knowledge.
What would really impress people is if he came out and said I am nationalizing the pharmaceutical industry, and the world will no longer need or want for the meds that will stem world suffering.
...Thereby making drug research a much more bureaucratic and much less economically lucrative endeavor, ensuring that advances in pharmacology is set back by decades.
Or, he could say I have decided to walk the walk, and get rid of all the Weapons of Mass Destruction that the United States has both developed and proliferated to mankind.
...Thereby altering the nuclear security balance and making the world an unfathomably more dangerous place.
Or, he could say I have decided to fund new technologies that will free us from the chains of fossil fuels, and bring about a new era in sustainable energy.
...Thereby incurring economic cost that would make the budgetary deficit look like chump change.
But no, instead he will wax wildly about Man's need to discover new frontiers, to extend Man's reach into the universe. Look for wild ideas about multinational corporations mining minerals on the surface of Mars, polluting it just as we have done here on our own planet.
Umm, I'll take option 4.
We aren't going to Mars or the moon. This is election year politics. He's trying to look like a visionary leader, by boldly setting forth to conquer the universe (or is that liberate?).
This will all get killed in budget negotiations after the election. He'll be able to look like he's fighting for it, but ultimately his own people in congress will cut the budget. Kinda like no child left behind. Yeah, real leadership there, except that the budget isn't there to run it properly.
So, for now, just whip out your 3D glasses and check out the photos coming back because that's as close as we are getting for a very long time.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Arnold being born a non-native makes this impossible. Go read the constitution sometime ( or at least the GPL ;) )
You can't have my moon base! Where else could I hatch my diabolical schemes in peace?
If you try and take my moon base, I'll shoot you down with my "laser".
Does my bum look big in this?
Another poster further down made the points, gathered from various sources covering the story, that basically Bush's plan is to drastically cut back unmanned space exploration, finish the ISS with the present shuttle, build a new larger Apollo module type craft capable of reaching the moon, thereafter cease support of the ISS, include the military in NASA decision making and then step by step build a permanent moon base as a testing ground for a mars trip.
/. on how many still believe that WMD was the main reason for Iraq). Americans (and the west in general) are, in principle involved in new type of cold (and hot) war, this time with Islam (One can say it isn't, that it's only against Moslem fanatics, but this is basically what it boils down to). At the same time China, the main competitor to the US left after the USSR collapsed, has been making huge strides in almost every direction over the past one and a half decades. While they are basically still an authoritarian police state, they are no longer communist in any sense of the word, have a huge and strongly growing economy, a military that is improving in quality and technology constantly, which has expressed interest in developing weapons for use against satellites, and a space programme that launched its first manned mission last year. This is the same year that the space shuttle experienced yet another disaster, breaking up on re-entry.
Firstly, one could quite easily see this as an election year joke made by the son of a president who stated similar goals back in 1989, and there is good evidence for that as well: Bush has not been remotely interested in space apart from military projects, and cut funding on a number of science projects. Also, Bush has a track record of trying to accomplish what his father did not.
Secondly, America has done huge projects in the past in order to rally national pride and out do foreign competitors. The whole Apollo programme was announced at the height of the cold war when Russia was breaking space records and third world countries were warming to communism. By the early 70's, after the initial landings had been done, national pride had already been dented by a huge and costly lossful foreign war that had sapped morale and by a revolution of the young not interested in high tech, but in sex 'n drugs 'n rock 'n roll. (That has only changed in that the young are now interested in tech again).
Thirdly, in 1989, although the warsaw pact (eastern europe) was falling apart, the Soviets had by then again achieved a number of space successes by way of a practical manned launch programme with the soyuz vehicles, a long term manned space station with mir (it put spacelab to shame in terms of mission length) and had already launched their own version of the shuttle with the buran, whose launcher , energia, could carry far larger tonnage into space than anything else at the time (or now for that matter - 120 tonnes without the buran). My personal view is that Bush Sr's vision was mainly made to counteract the flagging morale of american space ventures.
Fourthly, now, in 2004, we have just had a number of years , since 9/11, that have been turbulent to say the very least. America is involved in military conflicts with two nations, one of which (Iraq) is an outright mess to say the least, involving the nations' involveds' politicians in distrust from their own and foreign nations. (Don't believ me? Take a snap poll here on
Fifthly, this leads me to believe that the goals stated at the top of this post have been made in earnest, but not for the stated reasons. I would think that there is a large interest in the current administration, to develop improved and newer types of space weaponry, in order to deny the Chinese future superiority in that theater. Thus the idea of directly involving the military in NASA. I also think that the moon goal is one of of national pride on the one hand, to get there before the Chinese and Indians do, and partly because the moon would make an ideal place for
Count me as one of the cynics who thinks that this announcement is motivated by politics rather than interest in science. However, the moonbase idea is at least interesting for the THEORETICAL potential of Helium-3. But there are still a lot of hurdles to overcome before we can even use it as a partial justification for building a moonbase.
"The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well."
History tends to repeat itself...
Should humanity establish a Mars colony, a Martian independence revolution is certain to come some centuries from now, preceded of course by fighting between nations for early control which may take the form of economic sanctions, electronic communication/infrastructure disruption which can be just as bad direct miltary conflict.
And the Constitution being amendable makes it someday possible even if it looks currently to be unlikely.
Or haven't you seen Demolition Man?
fuck you.
Even without such factors, the way I read it, the election looks a lot closer than you think.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Oh, and don't forget the "public private partnerships" which The New NASA(TM) will insist is "space commercialization".
Seastead this.
The obvious supply they'd want to mine for, is water. That gives you air, drinking water, hydroponic substrate for plants, and hydrodgen gas to use as rocket reaction-mass. Nobody's yet sure how much there is available, but I'd guess getting it probably won't involve digging, so much as distilling it out of the dust.
I'd say we send him!
Now!
Please?
Repeat after me: We are all individuals
Why? There is nothing there, and it is not useful to stop there for refeuling on the way to Mars because the delta-v required to go to Mars is actually _less_ than that require to go to the Moon. It is probably a good place to launch a ship from, but you would have to build the ship on the moon.
We can always add more steps to the process: space stations, Moon bases, on-orbit assembly, nuclear propulsion, space elevators. And I'm not sayig that any of these are bad ideas, but none are necessary in order to perform a manned mission to Mars. As Bob Zubrin is always pointing out, we are more ready to go to Mars now than we were ready to go to the Moon when it was announced by Kennedy.
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
In "No Escape: Male Rape in US Prisons" Human Rights Watch has shown that not only is America #1 in incarcerating its citizens, and #1 in sexually punishing its citizens via its prisons, but this sexual abuse targets whites more than other ethnic/racial groups. This makes sense if one seeks to increase government power over the majority-white, non-criminal population through sexually sadistic intimidation. This neglect of the 6th Amendment's guarantee against cruel and unusual punishments is, therefore, malign neglect. It so corrodes the foundation of a multi-ethnic society that it is arguably the greatest crime against humanity currently being committed on the planet.
Seastead this.
And besides, I agree with him here, there are probably not many science reasons to put people on Mars.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
The first part of your argument (Hawking) is a commonly heard one, but I'm glad you also mention the second part.
You see, we've decided to cut short natural selection. In a way, we've created a filter for which people are going to survive. And as always when you filter, you'll have false positives and false negatives; that's inherent to filtering, selecting or detecting.
To be more exact, if we call a survivor a positive:
Now consider the following: given that the minority of people would be "negavites" if natural selection was to have its was (say 1%), our decision to cut short natural selection doesn't yield that many false positives, because the negative rate was small to start with. On the other hand, this only goes for one generation, because after a few generations the intrinsic negative rate will rise because of us cutting short natural selection.
To conclude: helping "unfits" to survive doesn't matter much for one generation, but does matter over many generations. I think we should not cut short natural selection, even if that means we loose a few good false positives like Hawking; it's better for humanity on the long run.
(Basically that means: we should increase the false negative rate to prevent pollution of the gene-pool by false positives)
Support a Europe-related section on Slashdot!
If you recall, he promised a renewed emphasis on space after the shuttle crash. This is probably a gentle way of telling NASA that this will not happen, that any new programs will be deferred to another president.
may i have a cup please :)
*hands you the cup*
what's your pal?
As a matter of fact...
We already have a base on Mars:
What about Mars?" came another quick question.
"We have a base on Mars also," Cooper calmly replied.
"When did that happen?"
"I don't know the exact date but I know the project's name, it was `Adam and Eve'."
"How long have you known about this?"
"Well, I revealed it publicly for the first time on July the 2nd, 1989, and within 3-weeks of the time I revealed it publicly, the government, to get the American people not to listen to me, came out and said that they planned to build a base on the moon and a colony on Mars. Now, 3-days previous to my speech, representatives from NASA said, `We can never have a colony on Mars, it's impossible that there's a colony on Mars because Mars is a dead planet.' And it's NOT a dead planet, they've lied to you about Mars."
America: In latest news from the departement of homeland security, weve heard, that there are weapons of mass destruction on mars, we are preparing immediate action to invade mars and bring democracy to the green people there.
Ah, btw. our budget deficit is getting out of hand seriously and my good buddys are outsourcing jobs left and right, but the economy is doing fine, I said so and the rest is not important.
1. The moon is only 3 days away. Mars is months away. Logistically, it's easier.
Untrue. Most of the energy to get to the moon (which is proportional to the size of the rocket you need) goes into getting out of Earth's gravity well. Getting to Mars is a bit more expensive than the Moon in terms of propulsion. However, once you get to the moon, you need a big rocket to slow you down to land, and a big rocket to send you back to Earth. For Mars, you could use the atmosphere to slow down (parachute), and then produce fuel for the return trip in situ using atmospheric consituents and power from a nuclear reactor.
Bottom line is that Mars, if done right, is EASIER to get to than the Moon.
Will the space missions still be on after the wars for oil eventually lead to World War III? Hmm. How about we use some of the technology that's been around for over three decades to solve our energy problems before we play spaceman again.
I do have to point out that his name is Zubrin, not Zurbin, but otherwise, you have covered it quite nicely.
I mean, when a mere 350 million could cure world starvation, bring basic medical vaccinations to the third world *and* bring basic education to the same... well, let's spend that $700 billion on space instead.
Good for you.
"Bread and circuses." A tried and tested method of keeping the population in line.
Do you mind, your karma has just run over my dogma.
As for passengers, lots of interesting things going on in pursuit of the X-Prize. What if the Feds guaranteed that they'd buy a certain number of trips from any company with a demonstrated capability to get people into orbit? Or worked up an insurance deal like the one the nuclear industry gets that limits total liability per disaster (and there WILL be some) and organized a government-backed insurance pool to cover making insurance affordable for private space ventures?
IMHO, the first thing we can do with this is to build a space infrastructure capable of supporting space industrialization and designed for indefinite expansion, not pure research.
To build space factories, we need space stations capable of providing life support to hundreds, then thousands of people, and we need space industrial parks to build the factories to make cheap zero-G semiconductors and industrial materials. We need a moon base capable of mining and supplying materials for the new space industrial base.
However, the first industrial project that needs doing is a powersat project to eliminate dependence on an oil supply all responsible people agree will run out in 50 years with luck and a lot sooner if we aren't lucky.
To have solar cells by the square mile collecting power to be beamed back to earth by the time we HAVE to have them to preserve technological civilization means we're going to have to start somewhere around NOW with a lot more than just research bases on the moon and a trip to Mars someday.
The question isn't whether this needs to be done or not. New middle classes in India and China and locations which will be a surprise to us are going to want their own home computers and SUVs, too, and anyone who thinks that conservation and renewable energy will make this possible is insanely optimistic. Plus, of course, anyone projecting we've got 50 years worth of oil based on current energy usage also has to be counted as insanely optimistic.
We can do this, or we can spend the time until the energy runs out fighting wars about who gets to run the last few billion barrels. Personally, I'd rather force the pace of R&D while the cost of getting this working is only higher taxes. It's worth paying for a world that our grandchildren will find worth living in. Though electricity at a fraction of current costs in 20-30 years doesn't sound so bad.
If we do this, the research will get done anyway. Some of the answers will be life-and-death for anyone living up there, and the people calling for robotic exploration only while Earth's civilization falls apart around them will be pleasantly surprised when given availabiliy of space housing and lab space, it gets cost-effective to send graduate students up on fellowhips as routine parts of campus science budgets disbursed by the NSF and major corporations who want to pay somebody to research solutions into problems they've got.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Offer pie in the sky moonbases and a trip to Mars after canning every other NASA project. Then in 2005 after restarting the Draft after invading Syria and Iran, slashing the budget for NASA.
Okay, where do I start: First of all, the current NASA reference mission (which I believe has a price tag in the $80-$100 range, but I am not sure) is not cheaper because they have cut corners, it is cheaper because it is, quite frankly, a much more clever solution than the one they came up with for Bush I. Second, Polar Lander had nothing to do with unit confusion. It was Mars Climate Orbiter that you are thinking of, which the media has tagged as being lost due to the confusion of units (that was the most appealing of the cases due to the fact that it makes NASA really stupid -- the real reason the orbiter was lost was that it was built by Lockheed based on designes for satellites in Low Earth Orbit, and never went through the testing necessary to uncover flaws that came up on an interplanetary journey). Polar Lander was lost due to a software bug, which read the shockloads of the lander legs opening as confirmation that the lander had landed, and shut off the descent engine. There is no evidence that it landed intact. This bug could've been easily avoided if proper testing procedures had been followed, but the budget and time constraints didn't allow that. Your comments about a rover lag bring up an interesting point. For rather little money (say under $10 billion), we could toss some large boosters into space and send a few ISS modules (which already include radiation protection) into orbit around mars. From there, we could have astronauts control rovers on the surface in real-time, and do almost as much as real astronauts on the surface could do. Of couse, politicians would never go for this plan ("what's the point of going if we don't land?"), but realistically, it makes the most sense.
Be sure to mention the dollar devaluation during the Bush rule. It is now about 40% cheaper on the currency markets than two years before.
Lisp is the Tengwar of programming languages.
That's "Zubrin", as in "Robert Zubrin", not "Zurbin". Thanl you for your inattention.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
The reason that estimate was so high was because it was based on large orbit-assembled ships and the surrounding infrastructure. It was a variant of a plan dating back to the 1950s.
There are much cheaper ways to go to Mars. Read 'The Case for Mars' by Bob Zubrin.
And I don't agree that big, expensive long range programmes like this are best done by the private sector. There's a model that we know works, it was Apollo and it was a govt programme.
Yes,
We should spend tax dollars not on unimportant things like welfare, the environment, and medical research but instead on shooting a couple billion dollars into space. After all, look at all the great moon rocks we got! People still love to think of space exploration as the true American pastime. Despite the fact that would we would have never made it to the moon had the American goverment not "hired" a slew of German rocket scientists who where previously designing arms for the Nazis.
you can bet yOUR .asp on that won.
y'all are much too valuable to have your lives sacrificed buy fauxking greed/fear/ego based felonious execrable?
I wonder if this is just a guise for a government handout for Boeing. Chances are that they need it...
As Douglas Adams once observed, a growing and confident civilization looks upwards at the stars while a depressed declining one just looks down at it's shoes.
Since 9/11 America has done far to much shoe-watching. Nothing could be more inspiring than the country pulling itself up and seriously expanding outwards again. This may be at one level bread and circuses, but if it gives Americans (and the West generally) confidence back in themselves, their civilization and it's values then it's a thoroughly good thing.
As a European there's many, many things I dislike about the USA and particularly it's recent behaviour on the international stage - from Iraq to Koyoto. Nevertheless, the values that America (and western civilization generally), are based upon do represent some of the best that humanity has achieved, and when the chips are down I know where we should stand.
So, if the USA is about to shake itself out of it's introspective, somewhat paranoid, behaviour and regain it's confidence and enterprise there's only one thing to say...
God Bless America.
Luna's lack of gravity makes it easier to land, refuel, refill, maintain, take off. It is an excellent storage post for mined resources and medium-scale manufacturing.
Too bad the Moon is stationed near that huge gravity well known as "the Earth". To get from the Moon to Mars you have to spend nearly as much energy than the same trip from the Earth, and if you add in the energy needed for the initial Earth-Moon trip that's even worse. A Lagrange Point space station or no space hub at all make more sense.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
This is a typical Bush maneuver... propose something that the public will "ooh" and "ahh" about, which is there is no budget for. Pick up some election points in the process.
In this case, the fact that he can't afford this doesn't matter, because it's at least 10 years in the future. So Bush will just forward any bills to the next administration and they will have to worry about it.
Karl Rove is brilliant!
Instead of ramming unmanned probes into Mars at high velocities, we can ram manned probes into Mars at high velocities.
Allah Akbar!
This rumour seem to surface about once a month or something. I really hope this is true, but I've read the same thing on /. about one month ago, and half a year before that; all said that Bush would announce a Mars trip within a week and clearly this hasn't happened yet.
"Civis Europaeus sum!"
The US is going to spend 75 billion on Iraq's reconstruction.
That could have been avoided (or the burden shared) if the US was serious about international law and cooperation.
And what is the US defense budget again? Don't know, but is more than what the next 10 more dispendious countries put all together.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Do you believe him? With what kind of money will they do this?
... if the US was not blocking free fair trade.
You mock international solidarity as communism and then hint that people in other places don't want to better themselves, nevertheless you are ready to whine if you experience the unbalances of capitalism.
Cm'on, better yourself, embrace capitalism fully. Or are you a closet socialist when the tide is against you?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
When I heard on the radio this morning that Bush was planning on sending people to Mars, I assumed that he was talking about shipping everyone out from Guantanamo Bay.
I thought that was why your government dollars were paying so much to Diebold.
It is an election year and all - and true - this administration has kept only promise I can think of (the 2nd debate - if we have *any* evidence that Saddam is buidling up WMD we will "take him out" - ...evidence need not be factual) - but we really might make it to the moon or Mars faster than the people in Africa receive all that promised AIDS money.
The moon IS the road to Mars. If we can't inhabit the moon for 18 months at a time, we sure can't go to Mars.
Sorry, but you are wrong, and Dr Zubrin explains why at great length in his books. Summary: it is far easier to get to Mars and make use of locally available resources (primarily the atmosphere which is easy to convert to fuel, oxygen, etc, using a catalytic process, this has been demonstrated on Earth) than it is to ship everything you need to the Moon from Earth, because on the Moon there are almost no resources in a usable form.
Man, I so badly want to make some sort of comment about Demolition Man, but all I can say is, I've seen hot cops before, but never as hot as, well, that one chick that stopped me for having tail lights out. I saw her again later when she came to my friend's house when his roommates (also my friends) were fighting. Damn, she was cute.
Like what I said? You might like my music
Luna's lack of gravity makes it easier to land, refuel, refill, maintain, take off.
How do you plan to get the fuel to there in the first place? Ship it all the way from Earth?
It can be manufactured on Mars. And there are the raw materials for alloys and ceramics too, so you can even fabricate components there too, which you can't on Luna. The moon will never be more than an outpost because it can never be self-sufficient. But once the infrastructure (made from locally-sourced materials) is in place, Mars could be.
Except that they make all their own O2; they actually generate their entire atmospherics (i.e. they do not breathe pure 02). All they need is food.
We have to get there before the Chinese so that we can put the evidence in place....footprints,flags old rovers and the like. It will be too horrid otherwise.
Wouldn't it be better to pursue development or optimization of a renewable energy source?
- Wave power
- Tidal power
- Solar power
- Wind power
- Growing plants/trees and burning cellulose cleanly
- Geothermal power
- Lightning power
- Fusion power
These are all potential power sources we can harness. Right here on earth. No space exploration program required.
We would also need to continue the development of fuel cells, but that's something we'll need to concentrate on anyhow.
Stop the brainwash
Martian Canals Part Of Oil Distribution Network, says Scientist!!
Seriously though, I'm getting quite excited- roll on next week, the suspense is too much!
...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
What are the advantages of a Moon base over L5? One side that won't leak? Political ignorance?
...until we complete the space elevator. Shots to the moon and mars will do little to provide a foundation toward building a permanent interplanetary civilization of scale. A space elevator, though, is a gateway to the future.
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
As I've posted elsewhere in these comments, Dean has explicitly support manned Mars exploration, and its reasonable to suppose Wesley Clark will too though he hasn't explicitly commented one way or the other. I'm not sure about the others, but judging by the way things are going in the Democratic primaries that's not likely to be an issue...
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
TBD:
1. Plant flag
2. Setup embarkation office and make sure any Chinese or European visitors leave fingerprints and photo
3. Ensure that there will be no queing in front of the toilet by foreign passengers while flying over American territory (Moon, Mars, Universe)
4. ?
5. Profit!
605413? Yes, it's a prime.
There isn't anything fundementaly wrong with putting some wings on a space capsule. The problem is putting wings onto a truck and calling the thing a space vehicle. Shorter wings for manouvering and a steeper rentry profile (as preferred by the NASA shuttle proposal) would have been workable.
Landing small capsules without much cargo by a reentry and parachute is ok but more people and larger loads not so simple.
Would you rather die of Cancer, Heart disease or while attempting a Manned Mission to Mars?
No.
Maybe Bush found the constitutional authority for such a program in the little known space exploration clause of the Constitution.
Sheesh. I voted for Republicans because I wanted less spending, not more.
Guess I'm voting Libertarian.
We're going to get a lot of fluff like this. It's election year.
Let NASA bask in Spirit's limelight, that's the real story here.
No facts, just baseless accusations and conjecture. Take your political hack crap over to New Republic or K5 where your lies will be appreciated.
May I be among the many who will wish Mr. Bush all the best for his trip, and offer him a free seat on Beagle 3 ?
There could be a new category for desparate moderators: "+1: lame pot shot." Seriously, this post isn't insanely funny or clever You can see from the reply posts above that no good discussion can start from it. Moderators should do their job -- mark it -1: flamebait, whether you like or dislike Bush. This is coming from a person who's determined to vote against him.
WHo wants to go to Mars? I've seen the pictures and there's nothing there.
Right now, the rocket is over there and you have a ticket to sit in the same aisle as Pauly Shore and Rosie O'Donnell...
I'm pretty sure Dean suggested a return to space first, back in November, at least. And he was planning it as part of a balanced budget.
here's a feasible project: send the frozen remails of Walt Disney on a trip into intersteller space out past pluto, etc. The cryogenics can be switched off, and maybe some alien race will eventually find the body, like the golden record, and return with the solution to earth's current copyright crisis. Relatively inexpensive (compared to missions to moons, planets, asteroids, etc) and with potentially immense rewards.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
My thoughs before I read the article (in true Slashdot tradition) or any of the comments (to remain as unbiased as I can be, which isn't terribly much, admittedly):
... they will ALWAYS have stuff to do.
Why wait a decade? Why not poll around for a group of, say, eight or ten people willing to be sent on a one-way trip to Mars? They'd go in, say, two linked ships (linking them facilitates artificial gravity [by spinning them about a common tether, which might remain behind, in [geostationary] orbit, as a sort of radio station/weathersat/etcetera]) which allows some redundancy in case of catastrophic loss of one of the ships and two entry landers (again: redundancy).
Send regular supply drops for them to replenish tools/atmosphere/food/medicine/etcetera from, say on a bimonthly basis, using the parachute/airbag system currently used for the landers/rovers (though since most of the stuff would be inert, there's less to go wrong). "Precharge" their arrival area with several such drops. They'll be a bit scattered, but that's not a huge deal if they have a "Mars Car" (or two) to to get 'em.
Build an underground habitation facility, with airlocks and hydroponics, with two of those "safe, buried" nuclear reactors for power (like they were discussing for that Alaskan town). Better still, make TWO such habitats, again, to protect against catastrophic loss of the whole colony. People could/would switch off between them when they started to get cabin fever with their mates. Keep 'em busy, and it won't degenerate as fast as in isolation on Earth
Their objective would be twofold: build a permanent, ever-growing, and self-sustaining human presence on Mars and perform the scientific studies and explorations of our sister planet that we simply can't do with autonomous rovers.
I'm sure there'd be more than eight volunteers, even if it *is* probably a one-way ticket. Hell, a third objective (which would appeal to the corps, should they get involved) would be to build the facilites to construct, fuel, and launch Mars-to-Earth vessels. This wouldn't be as hard as it sounds if the really tricky stuff (small parts, electronics, etc.) could be delivered from Earth. Then you can return samples (fairly easily), people (not bloody likely: too much invested in getting them there), and even precious minerals from mining projects (later on, perhaps by running a mag-lin-accelerator up the side of Olympus Mons?).
And so on.
But without a "be able to get them back to Earth" mechanism, the US would never go for it. Depsite the fact that that's precisely how their country was pioneered/settled. And which is also why China is more than likely to be the ones to establish such a colony, first.
.f00Dave
Since a lot of people think the moon will be extremely valuable someday when interplanetary travel is common...I thought I'd inform everyone that they can buy land on the moon. I haven't done it. I'm not sure if it's a hoax or not, but here's the link. Planetary Investments
And that makes you think you should be less cautious? You don't really know WHERE your country is now, do you? Some free clues. Your government is feared and loathed the world over. Your economy is completely fscked - you have to borrow (IIRC) $500 bn [1] every year from the rest of the world to subsidise your absurdly fat lazy lifestyles, which your productivity in no way justifies. Your country, my friend, are fucked. The thing that bothers the rest of us is how badly the American empire will destroy the rest of the world in it's death-throes. Forget the ex-Soviet islamic republics - it's the thought of all those Minuteman silos in Tennessee and Texas that scare me...
Disclaimer: Yes, I have American friends, and I have nothing at all against them as individuals. I am not anti-american.
[1]: http://www.uaw.org/publications/jobs_pay/02/no3/jp e04.html
Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
No kidding - here's another scary paragraph:
During the remainder of its participation in space station activities, NASA's research would be redirected to sustaining humans in space. Other research programs not involving humans would be terminated or curtailed.
Even if they're only referring to station-based science activities (such as they are) here, this would be the nail in the coffin for the original justifications about the need for a space station at all.
I wonder if they're really going to scrap two or three decades of real and exciting space science just to land a couple of people on Mars?
The government has no right to seize my property (in the form of taxation) to fund space exploration. Let Bush pay for it himself if this liberal idiot wants to go to the moon for a "mission accomplished" photo-op.
The world's population is not "exploding". There are too many obstacles to that. You mentioned war (one of them). AIDS (and other diseases) is another. On the positive side, we are aware of the world's limited resources, so the population won't explode!
Curiosity killed a cat, but for a while I was a suspect.
Just a few months ago, when other countries announce their moon/space intentions, majority of the comments were to the effect "ah, 1968 calling.." BUT when the US does the same, you guys go nuts high fiving each other...
If we have 6 billion people, can't we just send one or two to see what happens? Why the decade of preparation? Just strap together some peices of columbia, point the rocket in the general direction, and leave the rest to HAL, he's reliable, right?
This isn't the first time a presidential canidate has proposed a Mars trip
Its a nifty trick. You talk about something *positive* that everyone finds uplifting and that gets associated with your image.
Bush has been in office over 3/4 of his term. Why bring this up now? Am I being being cynical in my appraisal of this situation and thinking that the Mars trip is not a serious proposal?
The headline I want to see is:
Bush signs bill into law that will prevent American IT jobs from moving overseas....Democratic canidates propose similar measures
SteveI agree we have already been to the moon! Who wants to go again? Mars is a new adventure. how long will it take to get to mars? How do they plan to keep the (un)lucky person alive for that long? Well, I wouldn't go!!
Adam
GCNR is much nicer, most of the thrust, far less fallout, no big pusher plates needed.
We just have to convince the stupid greenies that a nuclear powered rocket is less dangerous than Kerosene-lox.
This is probsbly just some backdoor attempt to boost the SDI budget and get Nukes into Space.
-------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.
I don't think we would send astronauts to Mars and then not have them land.
Incredibly enough, I just heard on NPR that the rumour is they're planning exactly that. Colossal waste of time and effort.
I can moon mars from my backyard.
Instead of spending money on building McD's for these people to flip burgers in, why is Bush spending money on stupid missions?
A bit tart... but true.
Campaign finance reform is national security.
At least George Jr. didn't invade Iraq ON THE EVENING OF HIS IMPEACHMENT.
At least George Jr. didn't attempt to win the election by denying our overseas armed forces their right to vote.
I suppose Kennedy, Clinton, and Carter were also working to line Dick Cheney's pocket when they paid Haliburton to perform tasks? Especially Clinton/Gore, since they were the preferred contractor for a large part of their term, including Haiti, Kosovo, and Somalia. I don't have the details, but a large part of their work under the Clintons was also no-bid contracts...
Try to seperate your unreasoning anger at Bush from any legitimate complaints you have, assuming there are any you can actually express coherently.
Bush wants to see if there is life on MArs so he can invite them to come work in America too....
VBJonC
Oh, come on, just because he mentions this in a speech means its legitimate? Bush is (A) an ass, and (B) has zero experience in this field. So if some smart people at NASA want a renewed push for space exploration, then great. But enough with the typical credit-taking president whose just looking for re-election and a distraction from everything he's been screwing up.
Here's a great quote from someone over on Kos:
To the moon and Mars! We can use the Orient Express Hypersonic Space plane that President Ronny Raygun help build. Oh wait, Reagan never got that program off the ground.
But we still have the fully funded Space Station Freedom that Reagan and Bush 1 advocated. Oh, that was never really finished either.
We could always use the budget surplus that Bush 2 inherited to build the moon base. Oh gee, that's gone too.
Right wingers: good at press releases, bad at engineering.
1. land and draw a line in the sand.
2. drill for natural gas and oil. No environmentalists here.
3. make a home movie proving we landed there this
time.
4. recruit all the old people from the past to run the campaign since we don't trust anybody that didn't do it before.
5. Build the spaceship by foreign companies and label it "Made in the USA".
6. import cheap martian workers to work in the US.
7. steal someone else's quote saying "one small step for man, and one giant leap for mankind!" while campaigning for votes.
This just proves once again how dumb George W Bush is.
There's no oil on Mars, silly!
The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
if we just let people die off, as you suggest, where would Stephen Hawking be?
In a box?
I'm all for science advances but can't help to think he might be trying to drive attention away from some of other problems
[alk]
The funniest part is that a space elevator is a better idea because it can have the classical spin-off benefits that ANYBODY can see just from RESEARCHING it.
Knowing how to spin cable thousands of miles long made from carbon nanotubes would be more useful in SO many places then just going to or living someplace new(Mars or the Moon). Carbon nanotubes composites have more uses then i can dream of.
Oh, and once we have it space is our playground. I always wanted a bigger sandbox.
What do you say to the man that has nothing? Cast it away!!
We need a transformation of NASA, similar to the transformation of military affairs Rummy is trying at the Pentagon. For all the good NASA does, they also waste a lot of money, resources, and time on pork and various functionaries's pet projects. On the one hand, I fear how much more inefficiency will occur if you just hand NASA a bigger checkbook. On the otherhand, perhaps the problem is analogous to peacetime army problems. A lot of BS develops in the military during peacetime, that gets quickly dropped in wartime when the pressure of combat operations shows it to be the waste of time that it is. Sure, some BS survives in a wartime army, but not as much. Perhaps that is what is going on at NASA. Maybe they would be a lot more efficient and have less BS if they had a dramatic and difficult goal to focus their attention. Just throwing money at them will do more harm than good. Throwing a difficult task at them might be what they need.
Let's send the useless 1/3 of our population to Mars: Politicians, Phone Sanitizers, etc... Dubya could be their captain and have a bath the whole way!
Dubya: The spaceship isn't supposed to land, more sort of crash. ... There was a reason for that, but I can't remember what it was right now.
Arthur Dent: You're all a bunch of loonies!
Dubya: Ah, yes, that was it.
Seppuku: Your solution to my problems!
He's just a martial lunatic.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
I am curious about the cost of this project. Really, if we want to put a man on Mars and a space station on the Moon, the money has to come from somewhere. Something tells me that a U.S. taxpayer will have to pay for it and it is not going to be pretty.
Let's see, American middle class is getting pinched by unemployment, off-shoring of labor and expensive wars in the Middle East while G.W. swipes yet another credit card through our asses. Nice! I got a better project for you, G.W. How about free higher education for every citizen and permanent resident? Can our wallet handle that for starters? Let's talk about space exploration after kids can afford going to school for engineering degrees.
I can only imagine what pay stubs are going to look like in the future. Something tells me that we are going to have a "Space Exploration" tax in the future, along with that 50% Social Security tax that has yet to come when all the damn baby-boomers retire.
The only reason Bush would annouce such a plan is that he will now be known in history as the first president to propose the idea. Much like Kennedy was the first to propose going to the moon. It's irrelevant the fact that Bush won't actually be the one in power to see it through to fruition. (God help us, anyway).
This type of behaviour is nothing new for the ultra right-wing hawks in power. It's not actually what they know or do, it's what people perceive what they did.
The Martians will be pissed... but they fund terrorists anyways and supply WMD to other terror sponsoring planets - they brought it on themselves.
GWB is expanding the search for oil to the moon. When asked where oil comes from, he responded "the ground. And since there's a lot of ground on the moon...".
The moon's 3 days away, you can go to the moon, or leave pretty much any time you want.
Mars is 3-6 months away, with an 18 month gap in available launch windows.
There is no scenario, under which Mars is easier to get to than the Moon.
Just disclose the Stargate Program for general public and you don't have to make costly distractions like this.
China has a focused and reliable space program. The US manned program has been meandering with creaky shuttles and bloated space station.
China can afford a space program more the the US. China's economy has been growing at 8% a year for 20 years, twice the US economy's rate. It has the second largest GDP, though per-capita is diluted by its huge population. It has a foereign trade surplus of $300 billion, while the US has an annual trade deficit of $500 billion. The 30% devaluation of the dollar with respect to the Euro is just the beginning of paying for this.
Curing diseases in space doesn't make good TV. Video of US Marines in space will get middle america's heart racing. So freakin' predictable. Look at that charade on the aircraft carrier last year. Instead of flying out on a helicopter, he had the carrier turned round to hide the coast so he could lie and request a carrier landing and strut around the flight deck like some geriatric tom cruise mid-way through a stroke. He wasted MILLIONS of dollars on that stunt, purely to boost his own re-election campaign. If fraudulently using state money to ensure your "re-election" isn't a dictatorship, what is?
He's all about the sound/video bite. He's looking out for himself, not the world. That's painfully obvious.
Maybe he is hunting for the Evil-Doers there too?
Is there some pipeline deal he is setting up for the capitalist pigs that will be funding his next election??
-L
Don't Panic.
There's a large difference between Earth's pull on the surface of the planet itself and the Earth's pull from the moon. I hate to break it to you, but gravity decreases the further you are away from mass. The idea is to use the moon's minerals so that ships are able to carry less materials to the moon from earth (the most expensive part), then shoot from the moon's lower gravity field a more massive ship needed to reach mars. Construction of smaller pieces into a larger ship might also sometimes be a better choice than sending one large chunk straight into space. One promising idea is to use laser or ionic propulsion. The moon could serve as an electric/light propulsion and refuel station utilizing a solar array. Without an atmosphere, light will travel uninhibited.
The Martian atmosphere isn't sufficient to provide enough shielding for humans to be on the surface for more than 15 minutes total with the man-made radiation shielding technology for space suits existing today. Unless some underground caverns could be found or if some pretty heavy, and expensive, machinery were sent ahead to burrow tunnels for EVAs, the journey would be 1-2 years to get there, go outside one time only for 15 minutes, then sit inside and control robots for exploration and research; which is what we are doing now; then spend another 1-2 years for the return trip. So Jr. Bush wants some astronauts to spend 2-4 years of their lives for 15 minutes of fame.
The moon and mars? This guy looks under EVERY rock.
Had a Democrat made this announcement we would be hearing cheers instead of jeers because we all know Slashdot is a breeding ground of Linux shills which strangely enough are also Democratic shills.
Eat cock hypocrits, we all the game you people pay.
I am all for space exploration, but sometimes I wonder... Why?? Why should we explore space when we have so many struggles here on Earth where the money could be (arguably) better spent.
I say this to say: NASA does not do a good job marketing itself. I bet a lot of "average" Americans say/think the same thing. I REALLY wish NASA would get a professional marketing team from Madison Avenue to get Americans more excited about space. Big Question: What do we have to gain from it? And I'm talking about monetary gain. Where will we be paid back from out investment in so many tax dollars? Like I said, I'm all for it, but I think NASA (and the government) need to do a better job of selling it.
Co-founder and designer at Music Nearby: http://musicnearby.com
I wish Bush would go back to Mars. Perhaps we can put him up first.
It only costs us $20 billion to go to Mars, but it costs us $87 billion to go to Iraq...
What's up with that?
Visit me on the web at Permanent4.com.
I hope you do realize how much plant life and technology is needed to keep even one human self-sustained, let alone a large group.
Perhaps this was all a bad joke.
The Electoral College did, remember?
Obviously not.
to be the biggest deficit spender in history, even as he slashes the social wlfare net. I hope they find more on Mars than they found in Iraq. At least it'll probably cost fewer soldiers lives.
what value do humans add?
as the prestigious but expensive shuttle program has demonstrated, they just add to the cost without returning any justifiable value-add.
robots can do all that cheaper and better
Isn't this just more dick wagging with China? I thought they announced plans to set up shop on the moon recently..
By refocussing NASA toward this ludicrous (and despite the peanut gallery's comments, at this point it is ludicrous) project to the exclusion of unmanned probes, he sets up NASA's eventual dismantlement for failing to deliver what even NASA must know they cannot deliver.
From the peanut gallery:
DNA - 1953, First heart transplant - 1967, etc
If I had more time I could list hundreds or thousands of things that were impossible for humans to do.
With that, I'll simply state that those who say it cannot be done should get out of the way of those doing it.
-Adam
Oh, Marge, anyone could miss Canada on a map, all tucked away down there.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
I have american friends (and an american wife), and I completely agree with you. they do too!
We already did vote Bush out, last time I checked, but somehow he finagled his way into the White House anyway. :)
- "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
They should have shot off MPL again instead. That one would have been more intersting. Then we'd have pictures of - ice!
Eat at Joe's.
Bush is such a fscking wankstain, makes me bloody insane. I propose shipping Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Rice, the lot, to mars. The world would be a much better place without those fucks.
Seems like there might be some offshoring-proof jobs for slashdotters in the aerospace industry.
Wouldn't you feel silly having spent billions upon billions of dollars to build your lunar helium 3 mine and then having a method of fusion developed a few years later that did not require helium 3?
Eat at Joe's.
I'll but comment on the one most important thing in your replies, namely on the trillion dollar asteroids. The value given there is probably correct, considering the massive mass of quite some asteroids, that combined with that the standard composition of asteroids is different then the earths crust, comes down to having alot of ore and having more rare elements in the mix like iridium. So the value would be accurate considering current market prices for these elements and minerals.
Now down to the real problem, how to get it back down here profitiably. The problem being it's one of those nasty circular things. You could mine asteroids quite easily and fairly cheap if you had a properly setup spaceindustry with some sufficiently sized colonies. But we don't and to build them would be insanely expensive. But you could recoup your expenses in the very long term if you could get them built.
Basically it all comes down to that the earths gravity well is to deep. It's hard to get off the flipping planet cheaply. On the other hand chucking things down is quite cheap, if you but had the infrastructure for it. (and on and on goes the circle. ^_- )
PS, I thus propose we research ways to seriously cut down the launch costs so we could build it to a more reasonable price.
Quickshot
I'd like to be excited about this announcement, but I know it is going be wrapped up in the American flag and served with Apple Pie. I love my country, but nationalism is so Cold War. As usual, that idiot from Texas is going to use this announcement to appeal to all his cowboy friends. BTW, I have nothing against idiots. I just don't think they should be running our country.
Want a tax increase?
Or Wouldn't a BMW be nice? How about a 34 inch big screen plasma TV and 6k computer all on plastic and you can just pay it off later?
That sounds absurd and irresponsible but this is what is happening here. We are 2 trillion in debt now, with a sinking dollar
All the conservatives and moderates hate liberal politicians over this issue of taxes. Especially this year where white males think its a top priority and believe more tax cuts are needed to stimulate the economy.
But how can a president increasing spending and cutting income tax from the IRS by record numbers? Something has to give and yes there is a cost.
I want better education, cheaper college tuitition, free health care for the working poor and senior citizens, and social security when I retire. YEs, its going to be gone very very fast at this rate of spending!
Ir your a republican reading this, then a ballanced budget with fiscial responsibility is needed as well as huge budget cuts for Nasa and the military to pay for tax cuts.
Pick it guys. This or higher taxes?
http://saveie6.com/
Fox News also reported that President Bush saved two dozen orphans from a bus set on fire by terrorists, pinned Saddam Hussein after a stunning top-rope body splash during the latest WWE RAW main event, and threw the winning touchdown in the NFC championship, securing a return visit to the Superbowl by the Dallas Cowboys, all the while composing heartfelt replies to love letters from Ann Coulter in his head.
Take that, Al Franken!
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
You've got loyal Americans there, they live for very long periods of time without so much as a window on the world. You'd have to get some seriously hardcore volunteers like that for a mission to Mars.
"No fair, you changed the outcome by measuring it!" - Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth
Finally.. bush admits to his plan to shoot Rumsfeld to the moon!
Going to Mars and taming space is the only way forward for humanity as a whole.
You hit the nail right on the head with that one. Ladies and gentleman, one way or another we as a species are going to have to band together and figure out how to get off this lovely little rock we call Earth or our species will eventually go bye, bye. Granted we have billions of years before the sun engulfs the Earth in flames but it's eventually going to happen. The Sun won't last forever, all stars die. When the Sun enters it's latter stages it's going to expand and engulf the Earth, killing everything on it. That is, if we can even make it that long without a really big asteroid heading our way and colliding with our planet taking us all out first.
We've got to figure out a way to get people off of Earth and Mars is pretty good way to start. I mean just think of what a great accomplishment it would be for humanity. No human has ever set foot on another planet before and after hundreds of thousands of years humanity is finally very near the point where we are finally ready to do so. What an absolutely amazing accomplishment considering that a few hundred years ago the vast majority of us still though the Earth was flat.
We finally have a president that is going to set out a proposal for getting us to Mars and half of you poo poo it because you don't like the guy. While I'm no huge fan of Bush, I don't really care who the heck proposes the trip to Mars. At least it's out there now; at least it will be talked about. At least there is a possibility that it will happen. 10 years is a realistic goal considering how much it will cost. Even if it ultimately takes 15 - 20 years, so what? If NASA starts now and plans correctly, there will be plenty of money available. It just won't be there all at once. It will require careful planning and probably scaling back and eventually ditching the aging shuttle fleet, but again, so what? The current shuttle fleet has nearly outlived it's usefulness.Perhaps many of you don't like the idea because we've already been to the moon. Well I was born in 1981 and there hasn't been anyone on the Moon in my lifetime, nor in the lifetimes of subsequent generations. I, for the life of me, cannot figure out why, after so many successful missions, we would stop sending people into space with the hopes of going father and farther and exploring more and more. Heck, I would be happy just to see us send someone back to the moon so I could witness it with my own eyes (via TV that is). Think of all the good things that could happen if we do send someone to Mars. Think of all the technological advances that are sure to arise as a result. Think of all of the children that might be inspired to become engineers and scientists.
American scientists and engineers are a dieing breed. There were very few from my graduating class in high school that planned on studying science or engineering when they went to college. A manned mission to Mars could provide an inspiration to all of the young kids out there to become interested in science and engineering. Hey, it happened during the space race in the 50's and 60's and it could certainly happen again.
In short, don't shoot down the idea because it comes from Bush. A manned mission to Mars wouldn't require a huge increase in funding if it is something that NASA starts planning for and funding now with the goal of getting someone there in say 10 - 20 years. We have absolutely nothing to lose by trying to go and we have quite a lot to gain. With all of the things that presently divide this great nation, a manned mission to Mars is something that almost every single American man, woman and child could get behind and be excited about regardless of who the president happens to be and regardless of what other circumstances we may find ourselves in. In my humble opinion, something like that is definitely worth pursuing, no matter the cost or the time it actually takes to get it done.
Didn't jfk do something like this shortly before he was killed?
I wonder if he will be touring Dallas soon?
That's an "urban" legend, up there with the supposed bureaucratic folly behind NASA's pens, which is also nonsense. When it shut down the Apollo program, NASA didn't shrug and say "Nice trip, let's throw away the map." They kept the Saturn V plans for the future, of course. The problem with a new Saturn V would be recreating old technology -- making boosters would be a particular sticking point -- and getting the launch pad stuff ready for them rather than, say, shuttles.
(Not that going to Mars necessarily has anything to do with Saturn Vs -- or Atlas-Agena B target ships for that matter, as long as we're assuming we're re-creating old technologies.)
Look at the failures of unmanned Mars spacecraft. Even if we had the technology, you would expect a few human-less dry runs first, much like the Apollo missions.
What does that have to do with anything? Um, yeah, speaking of Agena-B unmanned docking ships, they'd obviously have some steps along the way.
The loss of robotic probes, meanwhile, is a reflection of the way those programs work; they accept higher risks in exchange for the lower costs, because there's not the same safety concern. The rover on Mars right now landed in the higher-risk of the two landing sites chosen by the science team. They played the odds, hoping they'd get at least one of them down safely. You can take chances with robots. Beagle 2 was made on the cheap, for an example, with little redundancy in systems. (Oh, well -- it was really the orbiter with its deep-scanning radar that's the bread and butter of that mission, though we're disappointed in the lost chance on the ground.)
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
married couples in space. Jan Davis and Mark Lee were the first married couple, but only because they hid their marriage.
"No fair, you changed the outcome by measuring it!" - Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth
I was excited about this, and rushed to Slashdot when I heard the news, but now i'm sadden to see the discussion degenrate into who can hate Bush more discussion.
I was just about to post something similar when I came across your comments. I couldn't have said it better myself!
Can you imagine what would have happened if, in early 2000 instead of early 2004, there had been hints about something like this in connection with Bush? Can you say, "President McCain?"
This is just another example of Republican betrayal and corruption. If you want small government, voting for Republicans isn't the way to get it. I used to think, "at least they're not nearly as bad as the Democrats" but after these last 3 years, I just can't see a difference anymore.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
His father said the same bloody thing in '91 and never did anything but cut funding for NASA. Bush I was a liar on many accounts and we all know what kind of liar is Bush II.
Developments within conventional attempts at fusion power have hit the equivalent of a brick wall. The required energy to stabilize the reaction does not make it cost-effective. There are many energy sources available that are not adapted because of the cost-benefits of doing such.
Hell, there are identified oil fields that are not pumped simply because of the fact that it won't be as profitable...note that it would still be profitable but not nearly enough that it would justify pumping.
Jesus, why do I get suckered in by trolls like you? Fusion power?? It's not there yet and Bush isn't going to make it happen by slashing scientific budgets to send humans to Mars.
The sitting President of the United States of America announces a manned-mission to the Moon, and a manned-mission to Mars, and the majority of SLASHDOT thinks this is a bad idea!!! AM I IN SOME EVIL ALERNATIVE DIMENSION WHERE EVERYTHING IS OPPOSITE OF WHAT IT SHOULD BE!? If so, WHERE'S ALL THE SEX!?!
One thing I see as short sighted is that there are no plans to setup a Moon Base, only to use it as a test bed for techniques to be used on Mars. There might be a lot of overhead spent setting up a moon base, but you would get a lot of use out of it if it were only going to take the 17 years they have proposed for getting to Mars. In reality it will take much longer than that, and having an established base on the moon would allow us to do far more testing of techniques, as well as give us a "closer" base to test test our living away from Earth. At least we can get to the moon in a week instead of months as is the case for Mars. All in all, I'm glad to see a commitment like this coming from so high up. Let's hope it doesn't get cut by the next president, always a concern when a project spans terms, in some ego trip move.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
http://www.cgff.net/comics.html
As far as this goes there are two kinds of people Bush is addressing:
1) Space nuts
2) Everybody else
Yes, the space nuts are the type who would vote based on the NASA budget. There are few, but I'm sure they are out there.
Ultimately though this is about looking visionary. It's an ephemeral concept, but by proposing big ideas, he looks more like a leader. Saying that he wants to go to mars sounds forward thinking without being totally ridiculous. So people will add that into the composite of what they think of him.
This is not a major thing, but it does add one little piece to the puzzle and it costs him nothing. It's good press and all he has to do is say it, and have some of his people do a cursory investigation of the prospects. Then he can forget about it and let congress kill it.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Don't forget the energy to get out of Mars' potential well. Mars has a lot more gravity than the Moon.
Or were you planning on a round trip?
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -- Albert Einstein
goldstein?
Please explain.
God is real unless declared integer.
From the article.
Stanford University's Douglas Osheroff told AP.
In any event, "I think we're still 30 years from going to Mars and if there's any reason to do that, I don't know"
So if we listened to him and did nothing, then Mars would always be thirty years away. Convenient quote for all the folks who don't ever want us to leave the planet. Or just hate Bush so much that they'd rather see him fail more than see a space program he initiated succeed.
I'm sure a lot of people wanted Apollo to die because it made Nixon look good even though it was initiated by a Democrat.
Who's to say the day we land on Mars, Hillary Clinton wont be the one making the (9 minute delayed) phone call and getting all the political mileage.
Just a though for all of you who want this to go away because it's "Shrubs" idea.
Four weeks, Twenty papers, that's two dollars
True. However, the ability to make the fuel for the return trip ON MARS, and not to have to drag it from Earth and soft land it on the surface, more than makes up for the difference in escape velocities.
You're right in that there are more and easier departure opportunities to the Moon than to Mars. However, my point is that the energy required, and thus the cost, is lower for Mars (if you use the Martian atmosphere to generate fuel at the other end).
But what awful timing. Here we are with the biggest budget defecit in recent memory and an administration that has no plan to get spending under control. They continue, in fact, to commit us to fantastically expensive foreign adventures. Things aren't likely to get better in the short term.
Meanwhile, million of Americans live without health insurance. The federal government keeps shifting the burden of services back down to the states, who are massively cutting things like education just to stay afloat.
There's a soft economic recovery underway, but it won't last long when interest rates begin to react to federal debt. Then there will be inflation, and even more idle workers will add to our miserable unemployment rate.
Now it's proposed we spend a trillion dollars or so on the down payment for a Mars program. What madness.
This is an election year stunt and grounds for the biggest corporate welfare program since the Cold War. The Spirit photos are exciting, but let's figure out how to go to Mars without bankrupting ourselves or putting more workers on the streets.
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
Talk up something you have absolutely no funding for.
Then, when your opponents hold the White House, you can yap about how THEY killed this project.
I think the Democrats should get behind this project 100% but that they should demand that funding for it be specified and earmarked.
We can't pay for a moon/Mars trip without funding and we don't get the funding without taxes.
If the taxes won't support it, then we can't do it until we get some more taxes.
Going to Mars happens to be a Good Idea that you like. Start asking every man on the street about other Good Ideas and you're going to hear a lot of stuff that you disagree with. Should we all just turn over 100% of our paychecks to the government and have it implement everyone's Good Idea?
It sounds like you might be a Republican. Well, think about this: how are you going to feel, when the shoe is on the other foot and a Democrat is in power again someday, and they start pushing for National Healthcare again. How are you going to like having your taxes raised to pay for someone else's corrupt money-skimming scheme? If you just felt a shudder creep down your spine, then maybe you should take a step back and think about whether you really want to keep reinforcing the precedent that just because something appears to be a Good Idea, the federal government should implement it.
Whatever happened to individual people taking responsibility for doing what they think is right? Private companies are working on trying to win the X-Prize right now, and believe me, the prize money isn't really why they're doing it. They're doing it because they're Real Men and they care about the goal. There's no reason Real Men can't also go to Mars or whatever, without government. We can do it, because we want to do it. (And if you say people won't pay for it, then I'll challenge your assertion that anyone really wants it.)
Fuck NASA, fuck social security and medicare, fuck farm subsidies, fuck it all. I want my federal government to give me defense, the FBI, and courts. (And maybe a few other little things -- and I mean little. Maybe FTC and SEC, I'm not sure.) Everything else, we can do (i.e. voluntarily fund) for ourselves, depending on how badly we want it.
Wanna go to Mars? Get to work! Feel bad for your neighbor's plight? Help him! (You don't need an IRS agent pointing a gun at your head, in order to feel compassion and help someone, do you?) But just because you want something, don't try to force other people to cough up the dough. Because if you do, then they will return the favor and take your money for their projects.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Go troll adultswim.com, you fagsack. It's more your style.
From a purely scientific standpoint, it is a big waste of money. I think we should be investing in better remote robot technology, not ignoring it. With several dozen billions of dollars, robot missions could be a lot more powerful. A manned Mars mission budget could pay for a large fleet of rovers with rock-gathering ability. They could explore dozens of sites and collect rocks for later sample returns. We could get samples from a far larger portion of Mars.
Table-ized A.I.
I once read an analysis about Bush that attempted to determine the key to his success. The long and short of it is that his opponents keep under estimating him. He loves projecting the personna of being stupid and underacheiving. Then, when lulled into smug confidence, he crushes his opponents.
Sure, you laugh, but we are now about four years into the Bush presidency and look what he has suceeded in doing. He got his tax cuts. He broke the Taliban. He conquered Iraq. He revamped the EPA. He created a new federal agency. Do I need go on?
You may hate his policies. I am sure you will even offer long anti-Bush posts after this. But, it does not change the fact that he does what he says, and succeeds in doing it. If he says we will got Mars, we will go. How can any truly thinking indavidual read the situation otherwise?
My two cents,
-Iowa
"He who laughs last, didn't get the joke."-Cap
I don't remember lobbing bombs into Iraq, but FWIW, that big 'Wag The Dog' cruise missile attack in 1998 missed Osama Bin Laden by half an hour. Based on quotes from people who watched him make the decision, Clinton knew it would look like an attempted distraction from his scandals but did it anyway -- and came damn close to preventing 9/11 as a result.
Its not hard to see that no country is going to look with favor on any other country gaining that kind of power without trying to get there too.
Of course, even better for the current administration is the notion that the existence of a rock is de facto proof of the existence of weapons of mass destruction.
He wants to get the focus off of his welcoming in
the illegal aliens from Mexico.
IT'S AN ELECTION YEAR
Ok lets get this puppy rolling...
Blar.
Well, this is an urban legend, but as many urban legends it is lacking in accuracy. I think snopes provides a nice summary.
a sp
http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.
Stop five people on the street and ask them where or what Europa is. Go ahead, I'll wait.
...
I know what you mean. I was recently on a second date with a woman, and I happened to mention something about Europa. I immediately realized I had better either shut up or explain what I was talking about. Since it was too late to shut up, I started to explain that Europa is a moon of Jupiter and
She interrupted me and said she knew about Europa and its icy surface.
I think that was the moment I started to fall in love.
"If I could live to be several hundred
I could take a walk and really wander, really wonder."
At the time that our solar system is greatly developed and colonized, you will find that the Luna (our moon) has become a major transport hub, and that the Earth is a very lush residential garden planet.
Isn't the earth already a very lush residential garden planet???
I mean, what exactly about space exploration is going to make the earth better than it is now? Only a tiny tiny percentage of the population will be able to afford to leave Earth. I tend to think Earth will slowly become yuckier and yuckier, to the point that we've soiled our nest so completely that we have to find a new home.
I think the money would be better spent
on basic science research rather than
a trip to mars. More general science
research would be of greater benefit to
humankind.
"One small step for man, VOTE BUSH 2004!"
~To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation. -Yann Martel
Should make sure his knowledge of cantonese is sufficient to read the road signs.
You may not hate him, but you find it hard to give him credit for anything just the same. Don't feel bad, you're in good company:
c J: www.indystar.com/articles/4/098743-5314-021.html+% 22hate+bush%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:YkwdgzL1lT
Could there have been any other title more disrespectful and threatening than that "Hate Bush!" bash in Hollywood? And when Bush gets reelected in 2004, will these people still fight anything he does, even if it's beneficial, because they can't see past the fact that they aren't in charge?
Actually, it's harder to get things done when the Texas Dems all decide to go on a little jaunt to New Mexico to escape their voters. A fine way to run a government there. This is exactly what I'm talking about - and don't think the people don't notice these shennanigans. It doesn't get much more shameful than this.
This goes beyond taking the 'W' keys off of keyboards and childish B.S. like that. A state legislature goes off on a bender to run away from a job they were elected to do - like it or not. Personally, I don't understand why they aren't all in jail for dereliction of duty. I wonder how much good and needed legislation was not passed during that session because of their selfishness and lust for power.
You should read up more. There's been FAR more redistricting done by Democrats in this country than the other way around. Also note that this was sanctioned by a FEDERAL court as as well. You know, sometimes your side does lose voters - it's a fact.
And... If I may add, please remember who put those nasty-wasty Wepubwicans in office as a majority to begin with in the great state of Texas. Was the election rigged then also? Maybe the underpriviledged and downtrodden in Texas had trouble at the polls? You know how complicated THOSE THINGS are...
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
Besides, consider the context: expedition to ice-planet Hoth, President Arnold... Lighten up!
Shouldn't we make sure there isn't life there before we start contaminating it with earth germs... It would be a shame to "discover" life on mars only to find out it was actually something brought there by humans.
I cant recall the numbers, but the (american) army have alot more than $15B... hand that to the world, please.
"...a generation of kids has grown up thinking Trance is the shittiest music since country and western." - Paul van Dyk
That's right -- because he is a goddamned liar. Two grand promises in one week -- a sweeping reform of immigration, and now a sweeping vision of space exploration. Both so full of rheotoric and so short on details that only mental incompetents would believe him.
He would only declare Linux to be the official OS of the government if one of his contributors was selling the distro...
==============
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
He plans to send cheap mexican imigrant astronauts to Mars. That's why he was so light on the details of his new let illegal aliens become citizens announcement.
Moon not got stuff. Moon icky. Mars got stuff. We like stuff.
In other words: Mars is a full fledged planet with resources that we can use. The moon is a worthless ball of dust. A Martian colony can gather a great deal of the resources needed by the colony from the local environment, while a moon base would need to have everything shipped up from Earth at a huge cost. You think that the moon would be easier because it is closer, but when it takes 3 days to get anything there it might as well take 3 months.
It's a good thing the world sucks or we'd all fall off.
See all the people with glasses around? How did their genes make it through the long period of history before lenses were created? I would think that natural selection would have culled all the uselessly-blind organisms out of a population...
============
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
Why only fascination with space? A project to explore earth's core by sending a probe across sounds very interesting to me. I theorize that we will learn a LOT, especially about seismology, volcanology, geology etc., by developing technologies to send a probe to earth's center which can telemetry the data to the surface.
How about cure fro cancer ? Sustainability for every country ? Completely get ride of dependnece on fossile fuel ? renewable energy ? AIDS cure ? I can within a few minute more goal that would be a greater human endiaviour than a simple technoligical and FEASIBLE now roudn trip to Mars.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Why not just give ALL of the American economy to 3rd world hellholes? And why stop there -- Europe and Japan have money too. How about the Saudis?
You seem to be assuming that addressing poverty is the responsibility of the US. Why? We have our own problems. And failed states are not failed because of the US. So tell me again why this is our problem?
The leaders of Zimbabwe, Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Myanmar, Cambodia, etc etc etc are the ones responsible for the well being of their citizens.
The idea of giving 100% of the US DoD budget away is so risible it's hardly worth addressing. Are you an American? Beyond the fact that defense is a Constitutionally mandated function of the federal government, do you think the US and the world would be better off if the US had no military at all? Bollocks.
# 1993 $14.309 billion
# 2004 $15.469 billion
15.469 / 14.309 = 1.081, for an annual compounded increase of 0.71% over 11 years. But that's in nominal dollars. The real value depends on the inflation rate you use (a contentious subject.) But for example, a inflation rate of 2% would result in a discount of 0.8043. Multiply by 1.081 and you have 0.8695, a total cut of about 13%.
"The good reader is a rarer swan than the good writer."
There is no way that could be a hoax. They have a website and everything!
I think that may be the most cleverly planted troll ever.. or just coincidence.
Virii is not the plural of virus.... as has been discussed to death already.
However, if there WERE a word, (there isn't) in latin that pluraized to "virii", it would be "virius"... so in a strange sense, your spelling is technically correct.
Titan by Stephen Baxter comes to mind.
How many trips to Mars (bringing fuel) would it take before you get your fuel factory going?
How much does all the metal for the fuel factory weigh?
It is easier to put mining and manufacturing on Mars in a Science Fiction novel than it is to achieve it in reality.
We've gotten to the point where about half our robots we send to Mars perform their limited science laboratory tasks.
At a half a billion dollars a mission, how many of these trips would it take to build your fuel factory?
We should all start saving our pennies for the permanent Mars base!
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -- Albert Einstein
Since it just uses the CO2 from the Martian atmosphere (along with a little H2 brought from Earth), along with electrical power, to create Methane (CH4) and Oxygen (O2), it doesn't require much of a factory at all. In fact, there was a small, maybe 10 pound, demonstration version on board the Mars Polar Lander. Unfortunately that crashed in 1999, so it wasn't able to show that the process worked . . . Anyway, there's no mining to be done. All it takes is tanks, an air fan, a little starter Hydrogen, and solar panels (though admittedly it works better with more power -- for a manned landing it would require a small nuclear reactor). You can just set the thing up, hit the 'on' switch, and wait a few months and it fuels itself up. You can read more about this sort of thing in Robert Zubrin's book, _The_Case_for_Mars_.
My appologies, hell I have the guys books sitting right here *smack to forhead*
I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
I did not want to spend all my Friday defending Pres. Bush, but I hate blind bashing (I was same for Clinton too). First, the uniter/divider statement is an increadibly weak attack to come back with since it is touchy/feely statement. The above post would be stronger if it was based more hard legislation, but so be it. Let's look at it more analytically, shall we? Afterall, we are all nerds here and we like logic over emmotion, don't we? :)
By uniting, one can define it as bringing people together. First, lets examine the case of the US. When Bush took office, it was on the wings of a disputed election that was bound to leave about 50% of the country pretty pissed off no matter who won (same rules for Gore). The polling numbers reflect this, with Bush having a favorable rating of about 50%. Currently, he is about 60% with a career high in high 80's near sept 11. this number is down from the mid 60's this week after the introduction of new immigration legislation, which is at the momment unpopular but about bringing the US and Mexico closer together and more united. (funny that.) Now, back to word, unite. Unite does mean bring closer together in opinion in idea. In his time, he brought 10% (more on average) people together. Therefore, he was true to his statement and he united. FYI, you may be horrified to know that the great uniter and very charismatic Clinton had a similar approval rating at the end of hist term, and low in 30% range (no, this wasn't even due to impeachment but his first/second year).
Wait, you cry! It is silly to look at polling data to define unite! Well, I sorta agree, but the attack was silly in the first place, we work with what is given. Do I admire Bush in all things and always agree with him? No, certinally not. But supposedly thinking people evaluate each situation based on facts and what they know. I hate to break it to you, but Bush is not always wrong. He is not hated by everyone. It is ok to admitt he is good at somethings and even occasionally correct. If you see it otherwise, then hate is clouding your judgement and that is just sad.
my two cents
-Iowa
"He who laughs last, didn't get the joke."-Cap
Discounting posts based on someone's journal... and to think they let t00ls like you vote. Ugh...
JFK committed America to landing a man on the moon within a decade, and sure enough, it happened. Now, GWB is making a similar claim. But there's no analogy. The space race was initiated in the 60's to beat the Russians in the Cold War. We don't have that war now. Today's war is the so-called "war on terror." And the enemies in this war are generally people sick of our meddling in the affairs of their oil-rich countries. The solution? A visionary president right now would commit us to developing complete energy independence in the next decade. Beat terror by getting the heck out of the oil business. Save the earth while your at it.
Okay...For an article about going to the moon/mars there sure is too much political discussion on this one..
But I think a more realistic view is that going to Mars and the Moon will not only drive innovation, but should also put to work a lot of out of work skilled dot-com job seekers. This may quiet many of the folks concerned about all the jobs in the US leaving for other countries.
Besides that...even though technologies discovered during this could be used for miltary purposes, it finally puts some of our money towards techlogical efforts towards a peaceful use instead of making military technology.
When we try and do productive things to help mankind on earth (genetically engineered foods, AIDS research funding, etc) it always gets twisted by opponents as being some hidden agenda for the US. The case could be made that there is money behind it, but it cost money to do these types of things.
And here I was complaining about being too political...sorry guys.
Eric B
ebresie@gmail.com
Absolutely. This isn't said often enough. Our society has become safety obesessed to the point that we will not allow people willing to be heros to do so. If someone wants to sacrifice themself (and certainly there are many who would be willing) for the good of us all and for the glory and adventure of it, I would have hoped that they'd be priased and admired, not restrained.
*rant*
I'd rather die trying to get to mars than stay stuck here on earth and watch someone else do it, or some dumb robot. Humans should be starting to travel to other planets, because we are starting to realize that our civilization as a whole will have to undergo some rather drastic changes in the not so distant future. Our oil deposits will last maybe another 50 years or so, and with our current population growth, we'll have the planet pretty well overpopulated within a few centuries. The way we are destroying our environment is pretty bad (and i'm not even a tree hugging hippy or anything). We need to start looking to space for resources, real-estate, and energy. We can always talk about putting human spacetravel off until it's safer or we have better technology, but if we keep putting it off, it'll never happen. Mankind hasn't gotten out of low earth orbit in decades. It took less than 70 years for us to go from the first powered flight to the first moon landing. We need to continue this growth trend for the next 70 years, moving on to begin colonization of other planets.
*/rant*
If you can read this then I forgot to check "Post Anonymously"
It sounds kind of similar but back then few took it seriously when he handed the task to the VP of the time (Dan Quayle) and it never got any serious finding.
Great post!
First comes the mod, then comes the marriage then comes the moderator in the baby carriage!
> 5. The hierarchy of NASA will be changed so that the Defense Department is now included in the planning and future use of future technology. Expect big stuff from this. Having the military involved is a GOOD thing.
OK, wake up: This is not about going to Mars but about further research in the (top secret) Free Energy experiments they did in space, and the DoD hopes for solutions to tame that energy and make it usable for their purposes on earth (which are most likely not in the spirit of mankind as a whole considering how fear-driven decisions made in the US currently are)... So while the results of this research most likely could be a blessing for mankind, it shouldn't remain in the hands of the DoD or the US exclusively... Look up project HAARP to get a picture of/in what dimension of energy we're talking about here...
Much high-frequency radiation will be stopped by a few metres of regolith. The metal interior hull will block microwave radiation. Mirrors are used to admit sunlight without admitting radiation. The designs were worked out by a bright guy working for NASA called G. K. O'Neill a long time ago. The craft I'm proposing is based on his concept for the "R H Goddard"-class transfer vehicles.
:v)
The ship does not "generate gravity" the interior habitat (not the shield) rotates to simulate gravity by centripetal force. A diameter of 400m was chosen because it will give 0.5g with a rotation rate of 1.5 rpm, which humans should find comfortable.
It is not necessary to land the main craft on Phobos or Deimos to aquire fuel. Mars landers can be employed for this purpose before they set down if specialist craft need to be avoided for any reason.
I am well aware how much plant life and technology is required to keep people alive. I design Closed Environmental Life Support Systems (CLESS) and conduct research into low gravity hydroponic systems. A 400m sphere without external "gardens" would support a few dozen people, exactly how many depends on how you do it and how much reflector or other light transmission systems you're using.
Vik
If you have a nuclear reactor, why do you need to make chemical fuel ?
In space you should use ion drives, and in planetary atmosphere you could simply use a nuclear-powered ram jet (take in the air from the front, heat it, and let it burst out from the back).
Remember, the only reason we use burnable fuels is that the reaction mass needs to be heated to make it expand. Ion drives use magnetic acceleration, and nuclear plant could easily provive heat for atmospheric engines. The end result would basically be a space-capable airplane. It would also be an ideal solution for Earth-to-orbit flights - chemical rockets are never going to be cheap, due to absurd amounts of fuel needed (and every kilogram of fuel added means another kilogram that needs to be lifted from the surface, further increasing the fuel requirements. This is why we have multi-stage rockets - it's virtually impossible to make a single-stage Earth-to-orbit rocket, because it wouldn't dump the dead weight (empty fuel tanks) as it goes, resulting in each kilogram of fuel added needing more than one kilogram of more fuel to lift it, and that addition then needing more, and so on).
Of course, it would be stupid to land your main vessel to a planet, but if you must...
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
He wasted MILLIONS of dollars on that stunt
According to the US Navy, it was actually cheaper that way than helicopter, because of the distance to the ship from shore. By the end of the trip, it was cheaper to use a helicopter, so he took that back.
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" P. J. O'Rourke
Mabye we should just outsource the entire space program to Russia. Just give them money and a date by which they have to reach that goal. And the sooner they acomplish that goal the more money they get. I thin 10 billion dollars is more than enough to setup a moonbase if you are paying russians to do it. Plus they need to finally fly a man to the moon anyways.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
Historically this has been: building railroads, mining mountains, picking crops, building pyramids (getting further back here), etc. All of this requires significant work force, making ex-Earth living and working not just a luxury but a way to get a decent paying job for many people.
In a developed solar system, there is much work to do, and a lot of it may once again be mining and construction. Situation is a bit different now, because we can get robots to do a lot of work. But you just can't replace the dexterity and autonomy of a human, at least not now, and probably not for another 50 years.
So the result is that a lot of people will live and work elsewhere. And with resources coming in from off-Earth, and manufacturing going on off-Earth, it becomes easier to keep Earth clean. Everybody likes parks; it's just that some people like getting rich more than having parks. If they can get rich easily without destroying Earth, they will.
For news, status, updates, scientific info, images, video, and more, check out:
Mars Exploration Rover Highlights (AXCH).
One of the things I have heard is that NASA is the only department ever to pay for itself in the technology that has come out of it.
Seriously, Think about all that we have thanks to the space program. Light weight whell chairs, Tang and Coolaid style drinks, medical equipment that came out of it so we could monitor astronauts health and other things. Can anyone think of anything else?
The trip will develope technology that people would not otherwise have thought of, and it will be marketable.
Ad Astra
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Robinson Crusoe on Mars - http://www.rocketshipvideo.com/reviews/crusoe.html
Theres a list of Mars and Moon related films on the same site.
I also saw Dark Star
and The Martian Chronicles
(Who would you give your last oxygen tablet to?)
My hyperlinks aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
Primarily because there are private concerns that will make it happen even if NASA does not.
Note that you did not specify they would be live men/women, which alters the odds a bit - but someone will try within 60 years, easy.
You call me idealistic, but you ignore advances (and the rate of advance) in material science that make a project like this feasible today, and ever more feasable year by year.
As for the advantages, all of our best periods of history have come from people striking out on bold ventures. That's just how humans are, and always will be. To say that I'm maximising advantages is to turn a blind eye to history and the inter-relatedness of excitment in the populace with human achievment.
The United States leads the world in many, many industries already. Why MUST space exploration be among them?
Given that such races of leadership are inevitible, what would you rather have them do? Arms race? Been there, done that, still in the contest.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"Bush To Announce Manned Trip To Moon, Mars"
He is leaving? Yaaay!
The only thing he hasn't done to capitalize on this is to declare the creation of the Ronald Reagan Space Flight Center in New York, the one remaining mega-electoral state without a Center.
Chomsky, I don't know. But Galbraith certainly speaks along these lines in his New Industrial State.
I thought this topic would be raging by the time I got home! At least 3000+ comments by now.
I suppose everyone is too busy practising their Lunar Lander technique and brushing up on their orbital trig calculations, hoping to be one of The Chosen...
Co-operation beats competition
Do any of you realize that George Bush Sr, made the exact same speech in 1989?
It was a great speech until the price tag of 500 billion was seen.
That was the last of that.
This is a VERY GOOD IDEA.
It will promote cooperation between the Russian people and North America. It will help rebuild the Russian economy.
It will save us money.
This will promote intercourse with the Russian people and will help world peice and in the process we will gain strong allies from the Eastern Block.
I can only see good comming from a program like this.
Any program that promotes intercourse and world piece with russian women deserves our support!
:-)
Russian women are BEAUTIFUL!
Hell yes, I support the idea that we humans need to get off our collective asses and get off this fragile little planet.
However, Mr. Cubicledrone, I'm not going to argue that the notion is impractical. Or that it shouldn't be done. We NEED to get off this planet and out there, exploring.
I will repeat what many others here have said: This announcement is NOTHING but a political ploy from a guy who's built an entire existence around lies. His -father- floated the same proposal over a decade ago -- and then never funded a single project that would've pushed NASA in that direction.
Bush the Lesser, as always, will probably do his father one better: Grandious proposals, followed by gutting the very programs he claims to be supporting.
Environmental initiatives -- followed by massive cuts in EPA enforcement, Parks department funding, and pollution restrictions.
Education reform (aka "Leave No Child Behind") -- Grossly underfunded.
Photo-op last year with those rescued miners in Pennsylvania -- followed by cuts in OSHA safety enforcement funding.
And in this case, look for NASA's budget to be cut, not increased. It's what the Shrubster's done before, and it's what he'll keep on doing.
Frankly, we'll see a Taikonaut on the Moon long before we'll ever see another American there. China's is the only manned space program actually BUILDING NEW LAUNCH SYSTEMS.
Science is the wrong reason for going to the moon or mars. There. It's said. The right reason is profit. That's it, money...
Do you think that America was discovered and colonised for the sake of science? No, it was the promise of gold, spices, jewels and land which the various kings and queens of Europe wanted to exploit.
Who are the kings and queens of the 21st century? Multinational corporations. They have to be given a reason to finance expeditions to the moon/mars/whatever. For a start this means that there has to be something out there which they can make money off of.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Why not just send enough stuff to LIVE? Send a bunch of stuff over before the mission on "the slow boat", then set up to stay.
Why make it a suicide mission? We should be able to land a decade's worth of canned food, water and such within a few kilometers of the target landing area. Set up a green house and / or wait for the occasional "care package" and do the explorer job.
Hell, in 10 years, maybe you can get a ride home on a new & improved ship...
Yow! I'm supposed to have a plan?
So, why is it whom and not who? And why does popular culture use who and not whom?
I know that popular culture is not an authority. But popular culture gets it right a lot of the time.
When does grammar yield to popular culture such that "correct" grammar becomes like "Ye Olde English?"
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
oh damn, that was cruel, but it's also the funniest thing I've read today.
Or maybe we (by which I mean humanity) will establish a penal colony on the moon and send political dissidents there to work the mines. (Okay so maybe working the mines is a bit Klingon, but you see what I'm saying.)
Kinda like Australia. Or that damn book.
Wow, ya got me! I don't know why it's "whom," and not "who"! All I know is, a long, long time ago, a group of people decided to speak the same language. We call those people "English speakers." We don't call them "English talkers." Another curiousity! But you're right, I suppose if we all decide that proper grammar is just another way the man keeps us down, we can ignore it. For starters, I propose we start using the word "disrespect" as a verb, and fuck that noun shit! Who's with me?
I am not left-handed, either!
I think Bush honestly intends to do this. I really do, but this'll probably get pushed underneath all the of other crap. Bush has been tossing money at Education for the last three years with no demands on improvement or on reform and they still SUCK ASS.
People have said that there are better things to spend our money on, but whenever the government gives money away to introduce a new public service it creates a lack of competition and suckage ensues. Education has been raped, where ever the moneys going public school is STILL failing to teach our children and teachers are STILL underpaid. SS has hell to pay, it bites, save your money now kiddies, cuz Uncle Sam wants to keep his cash. Free Med has been tried in Europe and then research died. Oh and what about that billion we sent to Haiti? Or the two billion to China we send every year? Their military seems to have reached the cosmic level, but Human Rights still aren't nearly what they should be. Or how about the billions sent to small farmers so they won't become god damn busboys?
Ofcourse there are still plenty of other scientific efforts that are worth going at. Medical research is still alive and well in the US of A and while alternative energy resources are being researched, with economics the way they are they'll never be commercially applied to anything useful. Then there's the ultimate technology we've only started researching as of late - nanotechnology. One or two slashdotters proposed that this may be a chimera, but to me, the science is sound and the possibilities seem limitless. And there's a whole slew of ways to get to space that are better/ cheaper/ more practical. The most notable of which is the 'space elevator' idea that was being tossed around in the late 90s, and while by no means new, seems sound and, *gasp*, safe. This could get very interesting.
Politics seem to be the nut of this. While I don't think he did this soley to get votes, I do think he'll pull this out of his hat later this year when election season gets warmed up. Honestly, I don't think the budget would be a problem if he would cut out the fat. Maybe, he might even do that. Maybe.
Oh yeah, and before you vote Dean, remember even an Idiot is better than a poll drone. *gets modded for flamebait*
PS. Are the Mars Chronicles any good?
"Am I a butterfly dreaming I am a man? Or a bowling ball dreaming I am a plate of sashimi?"    
With the recent successful transfer of many good images from the mysterious planet of Mars, a transfer which seems to be able to continue providing good images, there is a good chance we will see a successful manned mission to Mars sometime soon, or at least we will all think so.
I heard they want to use our own earth moon as a starting point; I wonder if this mean the old studio of the earth moon landing will be taking into use again? And which is cheapest, modifying the earth moon studio or building a new studio from scratch?
I wonder when the first images of earth moon was available, thinking how long it was before we sat our foot there?
That's a good point. The real reason is that space-based nuclear reactors have been used before and a new one could be easily space-qualified, and therefore be cheaper. A nuclear rocket would take a lot of up-front development, which would be more expensive -- however, eventually I think that nuclear propulsion will be the cheapest way to Mars. Just not yet.
Also, you can launch, land, and use the reactor in an unmanned vehicle -- no shielding for astronauts necessary!
In Ukraine there's an old joke.
Two old-fashioned west-ukrainians talk:
- Hey, dude, did you hear the news? Russians flew to the Moon!
- (with hope in voice) What? All of them?
Science however has little to do with this. The symbolism and unfication of manned missions are too great a political lure to resist.
Mind you, jettisoning the politicians sounds like a good start. :)
Insert Signature Here
Actually, I apologize. I read your post as "men are not needed to staff the GLOBAL ECONOMY", not "men are not needed to staff the SPACE PROGRAM". That does make it rather different. Still, suggesting that I should go into politics is below the belt, sir!
eikimartinson.com
But you're right, I suppose if we all decide that proper grammar is just another way the man keeps us down, we can ignore it.
For that matter, a sentance shouldn't start with 'but' unless one has a really good reason. If one can do without it, one should. It's similar to the "to be" phrase and the phtase "all stuff like that." They just add extra garbage one could ommit all together.
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
Here are two resources without even really looking hard including one from space.com and niether from the lone gunman. This isn't a conspiracy theory, its a well known fact russia used fission reactors for many sattelites. The only consipiracy element is wethere or not they used them in more than the admited. As you may notice in the second article the US sent and operated one reactor in orbit as well.
_ sp ace_010625-5.html
http://www.uic.com.au/nip82.htm
"Between 1967 and 1988 the former Soviet Union launched 31 low-powered fission reactors in Radar Ocean Reconnaissance Satellites (RORSATs) on Cosmos missions. They utilised thermoelectric converters to produce electricity, as with the RTGs. Romashka reactors were their initial nuclear power source, a fast spectrum graphite reactor with 90%-enriched uranium carbide fuel operating at high temperature. Then the Bouk fast reactor produced 3 kW for up to 4 months. Later reactors, such as on Cosmos-954 which re-entered over Canada in 1978, had U-Mo fuel rods and a layout similar to the US heatpipe reactors described below."
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/nuclear
"...Although the former Soviet Union/Russia has placed over 30 reactors in Earth orbit to support sophisticated high-power spacecraft, the U.S. has flown only one - SNAP-10A in 1965, which was shut down after only 43 days of operation."
I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
People seem to think the NASA budget is insane and the money used on space ventures could accomplish so much more used somewhere else. Here is the NASA budget outlay for 2004.
c at ion.html
. ht ml
. ht ml
n sp ortation.html
h tm l
a .h tml
.019% of those three budget line items and I am not counting social security which weighs in at a cool 513 billion
. ht ml
http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/
15.469 billion
Here are the individual portions of military spending which is alloted more money than NASA. individiual elements.
http://www.cdi.org/budget/2004/topline.cfm
Military Personnel - $98.6 billion (6 percent increase)
Operations & Maintenance - $117.0 billion (3 percent increase)
Procurement - $72.7 billion (4 percent increase)
Research & Development - $61.8 billion (9 percent increase)
All told these elements account for 350.1 billion of 399.1 billion for the total 2004 military budget. The 2003 budget was 282.2. In otherwords deffense spending was increased from 2003 to 2004 by more than the entire budget alloted to NASA for 2004.
arguments about the course of our present military activities aside I am not saying the military spending should be altered. Simply using it as an example to show the scale of the NASA budget in comparison. It pales in comparison to the social works budget by a greater margain.
consider the following examples.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/edu
DOE discretionary budget ~53 billion
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/hhs
Department of Health and human services
discretionary ~65 billion
mandatory ~471 billion
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/hud
Housing and urban development
Discretionary ~31 billion
mandatory ~164 billion
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/tra
Department of Transportation
Discretionary ~53 billion
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/va.
Veterent Affairs
discretionary ~28 billion
mandatory ~34 billion
And now back to NASA
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/nas
Discretionary ~15 billion
no mandatory outlays.
Frankly people we are not spending all that much on space. Considering its visibility most people think NASA is on par with Defense which is why I used that comparison initially. Hell the Air Force spends more on gas in a year than NASA gets for its entire budget.
Health , HUD, and education comprise 784 billion dollars. NASA's budget represents a value of
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/ssa
People our hearts and our money are in the right place in terms of percentage of the budget going to help the people of this Nation versus that spend to explore Space to the tune of 15 billion to 1,297 billion.
So puuulease spare me the space costs to much bullshit. And sure as hell don't shit bricks if Jr suggest increasing the budget a little.
I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
Let's see:
1986: NASA loses ability to put men in LEO following Challenger disaster
1989, Bush senior: let's put men on Mars!
2003: NASA loses ability to put men in LEO following Columbia disaster
2004, Bush junior: let's put men on Mars!
Diagnosis:
1. severe reality disconnect
2. inability to learn from experience
3. stuck in a "Groundhog Day"-type loop
4. possible violation of the ban on human cloning
5. reelection more important than future of humanity
If Bush wants space exploration instead of white elephants, he should fund more robotic probes. If he wants to be seen as a visionary, he should fund the space elevator, which would do more for manned spaceflight than any number of economically unsupportable, one-shot Apollo-type stunts. (That said, I'd take the one-shot Apollo-type stunt anytime over the ISS.) But what am I saying, I'm forgetting diagnosis #5 above.
- nic
Be faithful to your obsessions. Identify them and be faithful to them, let them guide you like a sleepwalker. JG Ballard
A choice paragraph is:
also Clearly training men and women is a crime against humanity. Those corporate leaders have no morals.He who lies down with [the french], shall get up with fleas
At least this time he's got over 60 years of Sci-Fi books, movies, and comics to back him up this time.
Something intelligent here.
It's important to remind you all that the Apollo program was just a TV show. Just like his fathers proposal 10 years ago nothing will come of this, the real issue is what will it take for you to realize that you cant really fly to the Moon. If you were to make a real sincere effort, even just to plan really flying to the Moon you would soon realize that you have no such abilities. If 10 years from now we are no closer to the Moon, will you be any closer to realizing the truth?
It's a good thing Bush is finally looking for economic solutions that can help the common American and not just old drinking buddy (or worse) government contractors.
I don't try to be right, I just try to make people think