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."
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
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.
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.
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!
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?"
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
This is certainly a significant technical hurdle, but it does not merit discounting the proposal.
If we look at similar projects, such as building the atomic bomb in WWII, or the Apollo program launched by Kennedy, equally, if not greater, technical challenges had to be solved under intense scheduling goals.
The question is not whether we can accomplish a mission to Mars in the next decade. The question is whether we are willing to expend the resources to make it happen.
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.
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.
Most of the radiation comes from periods of sunspot activity. These can be detected and the crew given a warning so they can get into a radiation shield area for a few hours. All this would require is a small lead coffin/shield at some point on the ship. In addition, the water supplies can be arrayed to provide protection as well.
Yeah, it's not perfectly safe. I (and I'm sure many others) would be willing to take the risk, though.
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.
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.
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
Since we haven't yet figured out how to produce useful energy from hydrogen fusion (hydrogen bombs don't count, presumably...), talking about exploiting the Moon's atmosphere for helium fusion is just nonsense. Even assuming we could produce the vastly higher temperatures and pressures required, at around 1000 atoms per cubic centimeter, there's not a whole hell of a lot there as it is.
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.
What's good for the goose...
Mouser
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
I suppose going to mars is important in that it will hopefully make long distance manned space travel a reality.
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?
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
The US goverment isn't very good at sticking with one plan that long.
In 1961 Kennedy said we'd make it to the moon by the end of the decade. They seem to have stuck through that plan.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
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.
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.
Also, a large cause of the amazing progress in space research in the 60s was because we were in a space race with the Soviets. Competition can be a very good thing.
"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.
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!
That's true, but it's more of an aberation than the norm.
More money was spent redesigning the ISS to meet the continually changing requirements from congress than was in the original budget to complete and launch it.
NASA has wasted stupendous amounts of money over the years by starting projects and expecting congress to deliver the additional money (promised by congress) needed to complete them. Congress changes their minds, cuts and changes the budgets, and generally screws things up. The end results generally mean a lot of money spent, but little accomplished.
Part of the reason that NASA has been more effective over the last few years was that a new director came in (I forget his name), who understood what was happening and starting planning for it.
plus-good, double-plus-good
Great... 800,000 deaths from heart disease a year, 600,000 deaths from cancer, and the department that gets the budget increase, is the one that will be used to prevent 3000 lives from dying in an explosion.
Is death by terrorism really any different from death by cancer to warrant massive budget increases in the military and reductions in anything else? Especially considering that you were 20,000% more likely to die from cancer in 2001 than you were from terrorism?
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
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!
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!
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.
Oh God, that would be so sad. I'm all in favor of manned flights, but it would be silly to cancel unmanned exploration in order to make that happen. The unmanned spacecraft are the ones that allow us to learn all about the other planets and moons before we risk human lives. Besides, it's ridiculously cheaper - easily 10 unmanned flights for the price of one manned, if not even more.
Disclaimer: I work at JPL, the NASA center whose primary mission is the robotic exploration of the solar system. If all of NASA's unmanned programs were cancelled, a good fraction of the 5,000 people at JPL would either be out of a job, or at best would get transferred to a manned mission, giving up on years of dedication and experience.
>>800,000 deaths from heart disease a year
Well, hold on, let us take a look at your scary figures:
800,000deaths/365days = (more or less) 2200 deaths per day.
2200 per day over the whole united states.
number of cities in US over 100,000 = 260
2200/260 = 8
Thats 8 deaths per city over 100,000, per day. We'll lower the number a little because we're discounting hundreds of small towns under 100,000.
So on average a populate area has 6-7 deaths per day from heart disease. More if your a bigger city..less if your a smaller city.
YAWN.
Will that even put a scratch in the stockmarket?
not one iota. reason why? it's nature. plus people chose to eat that mcdonalds and not exercise. The people in the twintowers didn't choose their fate.
Several Thousand going all in one instant, in the same place?
Hell yea, that'll make an impact.
You see, one is called nature. And the other is called horror. Your statistics aren't so scary when put in proper perspective. I could talk about the number of people dying around the globe, and work those numbers up so that headlines read very startingly.
move along nothing here to post about.
Anti-Bush/Cheney is not antiamerican. You'll be able to tell the difference better in November.
--
make install -not war
I think a few countries already tried to explain there were no WMD's in Iraq and look how that turned out.
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.
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.
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
Second, considering the previous three presidents did fuck all to advance space exploration in any meaningful -- or more importanly, exciting way -- I'll take the president that can't pronounce the words, but can try to get people excited about going to the Moon / Mars, thanks.
George W. Bush could declare Linux the official OS of the government, get a Penguin tattoo and give Linus Torvalds the Medal of Freedom and /. would still find a way to bag on him for it.
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.
The problem with a one-way mission isn't so much the hard reality of someone dying. It's that you have to ask. Implicit in such a mission is that the state asks the qualified citizens that it has, "Are there any of you that will give your life for this?" And for something this significant, I'd say it's nearly guaranteed that you would be able to eventually find qualified people willing to do this. So it's kind of a tricky situation. The government can't really just say "Will anyone do this?" because they know someone will. So it basically amounts to the state killing some of their "brightest and best" in the name of science. We don't let scientists kill people for medical research, and I really don't think you'd be able to make this fly.
But, that aside, it's a PR NIGHTMARE. You have to admit that a large part of having a space program is nationialism, generating pride in your citizenry, "look at what we can do", "we are so awesome", etc. No matter how logically you try to explain it the truth is a lot of people will be very put off by the notion that the state is going to end someone's life like that. It's a downer no matter how cold you try to approach it. Imagine if the Apollo 13 crew had all died. There would have been memorials out the wazoo, and the nation would have collectively cried and mourned like you can't imagine. Surely you recall how the entire nation was so completely breathless and mortified when even the *notion* of the crew perishing came up. To send men in space that you know damn well are going to die would be even worse, in terms of public perception. There's no way around it. You just can't do it.
If I did not misunderstand you, then I have almost diametrically opposed views. I think to spend enormous sums as a result of a single aberrant event (that killed scarcely more people than died the same day from heart disease) shows a lack of objectivity. Except, I do not think the spending is a result of 9/11 anyway: 9/11 is the excuse used to justify the spending priorities they would have wanted anyway.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
If we look at similar projects, such as building the atomic bomb in WWII, or the Apollo program launched by Kennedy, equally, if not greater, technical challenges had to be solved under intense scheduling goals.
The U.S. population was happy to spend big bucks on those programs because at the time they seemed necessary for the country to survive. The average American doesn't care a whole lot about going to Mars (whether they should or not).
The way people feel about Apollo or the Manhattan project: "We have to do this, or we're screwed."
The way people feel about going to Mars: "That'd be kinda cool, huh?"
To draw a logical conclusion from your statement, in order for your choice of candidate to be voted in, something like, oh, a literacy test would have to be instituted? Or perhaps do you have some other method for keeping the "under-educated" from voting?
It seems to me that you think, for some inexplicable reason, that these "under-educated" people have less right to elect leaders than you do. I'm curious how anyone can believe this, frankly.
There is, imho, one big flaw in your argument.
:))
All these wars have started when we have colonized INHABITED lands.
Or did I miss the big Antarctian war? (Unfortunatly its hard to find other good exambles of colonizing of uninhabited lands - but I hope you understand my point anyway!
umm the ass that took a post about a space program and turned it into a 'bush is an a hole' post..
Perhaps you do not understand - to be a liberal Democrat today is to KNOW that you know what is best for everyone. People that disagree with you are not simply wrong, they are ignorant (and probably working for the oil companies or Enron).
The new retro Democrats would like to adopt the ideals of the old Dixiecrats - literacy tests and things like that - to keep the unwashed from tainting the voting pool. So in a way, they have much in common with your average far right wing looney. For example, we could have the potential voter pick a paragraph written by Noam Chomsky from several other paragraphs written by David Duke or Pat Buchanan.
Now of course that literacy test will not be applied to say, african-american voters, who might be tempted to mindlessly vote for Democrats, no matter how little they actually do for them. As long as a bogeyman or bogeymen like Trent Lott can be brought out, they don't have to worry about former clansman and Democratic Senator Byrd saying nigger on national TV or Senator Clinton making jokes about Ghandi working at a gas station. No, just keep voting for Democrats cause their social programs have done a bang-up job helping black folks - unless you are going to actually measure such things as illegitimacy, home ownership; all of which have gotten worse since the "war on poverty" and social programs were instituted.
But hey, at least those government entitlement programs keep them on the "Democratic Plantation", electorally speaking of course. Because Democrats are all for helping black folks, as long as they vote for the same old crackers they put up for office year after year. After all, the Democratic party did give us our first "black president". And what black person doesn't swell with pride to hear that statement - a president who will be most famous for getting a hummer from a 20 year old intern in the oval office. Too bad the "Clinton" economy didn't seem to reach to down to all his brothers and sisters.
Most of the responses here are very USA-centric. Remember that you make up about 5% of the worlds population and different cultures would have different views on a 1 way trip. Centuries ago explorers set off to explore the seas and more often than not they didn't come home. Emigrants left their homes in impoverished regions and set off for a better life with no intention of coming home. It was common to have a wake (funeral) for these people before they left because everyone knew they would not see their families again.
Like it or not, someday someone will make a 1 way trip to Mars. Its built into the whole premise of colonising the place. Do you think all humans should die on Earth? It doesn't have to be suicide though, There could be a bunch of resupply missions every 26 months. With sufficient tools and equipment a person or small crew could survive there for 10s of years building the first colony which would serve as a base for future manned missions.
872835240
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.
. . . 9/11 . . .
I think it's about time someone said this.
In fact, I've heard damn few Americans say ANYTHING like this lately.
I would MUCH rather die in a terrorist attack, than live in a country that isn't free.
Osama bin Ladens suicide bombers and poisons don't scare me. It's his ability to terrorize my sheep countrymen, and make them beg to take away their freedom that scares me.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
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
hear hear!
after 9/11 we heard over and over how certain actions or certian inactions would mean 'the terrorists have already won' to the point where hearing it was nauseating.
nonetheless, the point of terrorism is to terrorize, to instill fear. something this obvious shouldn't have to be pointed out, but people don't seem to get it, because they can't seem to react in any other way than to be scared. The current administration, with the help of sensational media, has done nothing but *reinforce* the fear, while systematically destroying the freedom that makes this country what it is. I wouldn't believe it if i wasn't seeing happen myself, that a nation so ostensibly protective of liberty would allow itself to be so easily shackled; that a nation founded on disobedience to unjust rule should fall so far that citizens are called TRAITORS for disagreeing with the policies of the administration in power; that the richest and most powerful nation on earth could be filled with people who haven't the vision to look past headlines and marquees and analyze what's being done to them by the very people sworn to represent them.
W said that there must be limits to freedom, which is among the few statements he's made that i consider 100% true, but he misinterpreted those limits. He wasn't talking about the limits on freedom which separate a democracy from anarchy, he was talking about those that separate a democracy from a police state, a place where "safety" and "security" against an amorphous, undefined foe, have replaced freedoms we allowed ourselves to take for granted.
it is our fear that empowers oppression.
The difference is they are worse. They practice don't tax and spend. We are running the largest yearly deficit in our history. Why pay for stuff when you can just charge it to future generations/let other administrations clean up the mess.
It seems to be a pattern of conservative presidents over the last twenty years- look what happened under Reagan, Bush I. Fiscially conservative, my ass.
It is reasonable to believe that only those who have some ability to understand what effects their choice of candidate will have should be allowed to vote. The problem with instituting this scheme is actually two problems: Who decides where the cutoff is, and who administers the tests? Hence it is impossible to implement, and we just have to leave it at one individual, one vote. Of course, the electoral college ruins that, and let us not forget all the shenanigans (I definitely call shenanigans) during the "counting" (aka, inventing of numbers) for the last election.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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
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.
You could produce oxygen there, and of course there's the argument for terrforming - which you'd want to start early considering the timeframe.
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.
One human scientist on the surface of mars would literally be about 1000x more efficient than all of the landers we have now plus ten more combined. Plus (and here is the big plus) around 90% of the planet is simply not even considered for a lander because it's too dangerous for the lander to traverse - not even just to land, but to drive around. Humans could ruch much more of the surface using moon-buggies or the like. I'll site NOVA as my source of reference for the range of landing sites.
Sorry, you can't have it both ways. Which do you think we need: more tech jobs, or more unemployed techs?
We simply need more people to be inspired by science and get out and build new things, rather than a nation of couch potatos we are becoming.
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?
How about we inspire new scientists so they can build things no-one can imagine, instead of giving all our money to a slowly shrinking pool of scientists working under conventional wisdom. In science, you are bettre off with sheer numbers of people thinking about things for it only takes one "what-if" moment to surpass a thousand researchers gridning away at boring science jobs.
Please, do go on. I can already hear the violins, warming up to play the Star Trek theme.
That's funny, I was hearing the Sanford And Son theme. "All that money on a Mars mission! Oh My heart!! I'm going now!!".
You pretty much define the word "Curmudgeon" (or, dare I say, "Troll"?).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I don't disagree with you, but you are still placing some kind of semi-arbitrary dividing line when you say adult. Would you allow a IQ: 50 middle aged person who lives with his parents vote and not an IQ: 150 teenager who lives independently? How is age absolutely better than IQ?
A Usenet Troll Triumphs on Slashdot
Just out of curiosity, I figured I'd check this story out and see how long until it devolved into a bash Bush fest. I'm hard pressed to find ANY posts not following this scheme.
/. right? I mean I would have to believe that 90% of the people posting here really truly believe that we should send people to Mars.
/. reader and want to see a mission to Mars, just applaud the president on this one thing. Feel free to mock him on any number of other things, but put the partisianship down for a moment and perhaps we can finally get the world embracing the spirit of exploration again.
Now everybody stop and think for just a minute. This is
But apparently If Bush gets to suggest it, well Democrats can HAVE that can they. I just waiting for my esteemed Senator Daschle to rip into this for some reason or another, when his real reason would be its Bush's idea.
I think we should just chuck all the damn politicians indo deep space and then prepare for the Mars mission.
When did it happen that everyone had to reflexively oppose any idea of the party they "dont belong to" instead of possilby nodding and saying, hey thats a good idea we should go for it?
So if you're a
Try $400 Million for Spirit Rover. You're quoting the cost of 2 Rovers Spirit and Opportunity. Opporunitty is to land the 24th on the other side of Mars. Don't worry, there are 3 ramps Spirit can go down. Only one is blocked, and perhaps only temporarily.
THINK POSITIVELY. I read that positive thinking people outlive others, if you're interested in being around a while to see the fruits of Mars exploration.
What's past is NOT ALWAYS prologue for the future!
In any case, it's not the electorate that has to know every issue, all having IQs of 150 or more or other such nonsense. It's the elected. You don't have to have an IQ of 150 to recognize the values of a candidate, and know those values are good or bad ones, that the candidate will move the country in a direction you agree with.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Take a look at an eighth grade exam and give it to an eighth grader today.
Now onto the reason for the electoral college look at the trouble we had with a close election in Florida with the recount now imagine trying to count and recount if we went by a popular vote, not only Florida but every vote in the nation would have been recounted. Today with computers to tally think of the effort that would have taken.
An electoral college gives you a reasonable way to break down the vote into countable chunks and only twice in more than two hundred years have the EC and the popular vote differed.
> We don't consider children capable of consent to things like sexual acts for the same reason.
n -election population as well.
We do if they're at least the age of consent...16 in most states. I'd say 16-17 year olds make up the majority of the underage, competent-enough-to-make-their-own-decisions-in-a
16 is also the age at which the vast majority of working teenagers start working, and thus earning their own money and being taxed on it.
Maybe this should be the voting age as well. Seems logical and reasonable. Most 16-year-olds are either apathetic (won't vote anyway) or passionate about various causes, so their contributions to the electoral system would be just as valuable, if not more (due to being more informed) than your average "adult's."