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
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
So did we find oil on the moon and on Mars or something?
"Hate bush so much but want to find hot alien babes someday..."*head explodes*
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
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!
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.
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.
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...
Halliburton has just started a new manned-space-exploration division.
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.*
Bottom line is that 04 will see a record budget deficit - there is not room for a $50-$200 billion Mars mission.
This plan will be called "No Planet Left Behind".
It will be an unfunded mandate that NASA must establish a base on the moon and Mars, or lose its funding.
- The Sigless Wonder
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.
Y'know...
First of all, nice rhyme. Don't know if it's original or not, but well done.
The same argument was made in 67, when they started to pour tons of money into the first moon landing, and continued for ages. There was a comic in Mad Magazine, from roughly 1972.
Q "How come the guvmint can put people on the moon, but they can't feed us poor people?"
A "Who wants poor people on the moon?"
The same argument goes towards any and all basic scientific research, and budgets for groups like NASA and the NSF get attacked regularly, because there's always somewhere else more dire to spend the money. Unfortunately, throwing more money at medical care won't fix the problems there, and will take away from potentially incredible discoveries. True. you need money--LOTS of money--to make (for example) health care work, but the money is already there. It's reform that's needed, not more cash into the same system.
As for the statement about the US deficits, it's very true--and (again) stopping the space program won't help in the slightest. The US is in a stage of horrible mismanagement, rampant unchecked capitalism, and money(for the people) or power(for the government)-lust. I'm starting to think that within my lifetime, I'll see the first capitalist country to burn itself up, and make no mistake--it will be the US.
And killing off the space program won't change a thing.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
The Democrats succeeded in convincing us that the solution to all problems is to throw more money at them, and that the measure of our concern over an issue is how much we spend on it. Plus, we Republicans are all old farts and realize that when the bill comes due, we'll be dead and the young liberal kids are going to be stuck with the tab, so IT'S PARTY TIME! Give me my medicare, free drugs, and senior citizen discounts!
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.
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.
Conservative is not nessesarily limiting government spending, at least not to me. It's limiting government spending on stuff that can be covered better by others (like charity and welfare) and on stupid things (like research to tell us people who's parachutes don't open have a high risk of death). I prefer limiting government medling, but space exploration and expendature on global type research and development is a good thing.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
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
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
Y'know...
First of all, nice rhyme. Don't know if it's original or not, but well done.
The same argument was made in 67, when they started to pour tons of money into the first moon landing, and continued for ages. There was a comic in Mad Magazine, from roughly 1972.
Q "How come the guvmint can put people on the moon, but they can't feed us poor people?"
A "Who wants poor people on the moon?"
No, it is not original. In fact, it is a rather famous poem, Whitey on the Moon by Gil Scott-Heron.
For the lazy slashdotters who need not click links for fear of evil pictures (and now popups! damnit goatse.cx trolls, quit with the popups! goatse was enough already!) I have reproduced it here:
Whitey on the Moon
A rat done bit my sister Nell.
(with Whitey on the moon)
Her face and arms began to swell.
(and Whitey's on the moon)
I can't pay no doctor bill.
(but Whitey's on the moon)
Ten years from now I'll be payin' still.
(while Whitey's on the moon)
The man jus' upped my rent las' night.
('cause Whitey's on the moon)
No hot water, no toilets, no lights.
(but Whitey's on the moon)
I wonder why he's uppi' me?
('cause Whitey's on the moon?)
I wuz already payin' 'im fifty a week.
(with Whitey on the moon)
Taxes takin' my whole damn check,
Junkies makin' me a nervous wreck,
The price of food is goin' up,
An' as if all that shit wuzn't enough:
A rat done bit my sister Nell.
(with Whitey on the moon)
Her face an' arm began to swell.
(but Whitey's on the moon)
Was all that money I made las' year
(for Whitey on the moon?)
How come there ain't no money here?
(Hmm! Whitey's on the moon)
Y'know I jus' 'bout had my fill
(of Whitey on the moon)
I think I'll sen' these doctor bills,
Airmail special
(to Whitey on the moon)
> Conservative is not nessesarily limiting government spending, at least not to me.
Yes, that was a political myth generated by Republicans during the Clinton era. Now that roles are reversed, the Democrats are trying to create a new myth that says they are the ones who don't like reckless spending.
The real difference between the Republicans and Democrats when it comes to spending is which segment of society gets the handouts.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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.
Better yet, if Cheney could get any intelligence reports to hint that the Martians might have weapons of mass destruction, then the sky's the limit as far as the budget goes. And Halliburton could get the contract!
Yeah, because that $400 million, extensively-tested and over-engineered Spirit rover was a disaster, while the $65 million, under-tested Beagle 2 is sending back useful data.
While I'd like nothing more than to see NASA become more efficient money-wise, cutting corners isn't the right way to do it. There's a reason NASA's projects cost a lot: they check, double-check, then triple-check everything. Their systems tend to be over-engineered, which is exactly what is needed when travelling to another planet.
And before anybody trots out Mars Polar Lander, remember that the problem was, or so I have read, with one of the contractors not building its part of the spacecraft according to NASA's specifications (using Imperial measurements instead of metric). In fact, recent evidence suggests that Mars Polar Lander may have landed intact, which means that it failed for some other reason.
A human scientist on-site could probably learn much more than all the landers and rovers combined. During the course of its entire mission, the Mars Pathfinder rover only travelled a grand total of something like 40 feet. The reason the mission ended (and the reason that the Spirit and Opportunity missions will end, if everything goes well): dust gathering on the solar cells until they can no longer provide enough electricity for the vehicle to function. Not a problem with internally-powered humans.
Communications lag means that rovers can't be controlled in real-time, and the people involed with the mission don't want to risk getting the rover stuck (rightfully so), so each destination, and the best way to get to that destination, are carefully planned out. Combine that with the rover's low speed, and it's easy to see why Mars Pathfinder didn't travel very far. On the other hand, a human walking around on the Martian surface can decide which rock looks the most interesting and pick it up in a matter of seconds.
Lastly, NASA's budget is much smaller than many other federal agencies, as others have already mentioned.
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
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.
NASA budgets since fiscal year 1992:
# 1993 $14.309 billion, existing NASA budget when Clinton took office;
# 1994 $14.568 billion, $259 million increase, first Clinton budget;
# 1995 $13.853 billion, $715 million decrease;
# 1996 $13.885 billion, $32 million increase;
# 1997 $13.709 billion, $176 million decrease;
# 1998 $13.648 billion, $61 million decrease;
# 1999 $13.654 billion, $6 million increase;
# 2000 $13.601 billion, $53 million decrease;
# 2001 $14.253 billion, $652 million increase;
# 2002 $14.892 billion, $639 million increase, first Bush budget;
# 2003 $15.000 billion, $108 million increase (estimated);
# 2004 $15.469 billion, $469 million increase (proposed);
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.
The only ISP would be -Earthlink-
Frink: Nice try floyd, but you were designed for scrubbing, and scrubbing is what you shall do.
(although someone should explain to Bush that there aren't any fossil fuels on a planet devoid of fossils)
Bush has done this with near-every proposal he's made.
He makes a huge deal out of a great sounding plan that no one who wants to get re-elected can dispute. He gets it passed into law. The kicker? There is no federal budget to actually put the plan into action.
See post-9/11 mandates to first responders and "No Child Left Behind" for examples.
For the record, I think there was merit to these ideas, but not funding them while reaping all the political benefits is too machiavellian even for me.
obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
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.
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
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
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
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.
Wait, how does this work, we like Nasa, and like people who support Nasa, but we don't like Bush...I don't understand?
--Joey
"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.
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.
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?)
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
The people there are too busy being shot at by dimwitted American troops to engage foreigners about the transgressions of the former regime. The current one is worse.
Really? You've been there and asked the people directly? Gosh, you must really get around to have interviewed everyone in Iraq so quickly! Or, could it be that you're simply regurgitating news you would like to believe is true without first checking to see whether it is true or not? Could it be that you actually want the people of Iraq to be suffering because it feeds your anger against Bush?
Amnesty International was doing its thing. Being a respectable, diplomatic charity, it uses words and public opinion to change the world.
And over 300,000 innocent civilians are DEAD IN THE GROUND, executed by Saddam and his henchmen, while Amnesty International was "doing its thing", being "respectable" and using "words and public opinion to change the world." This all happened since the U.N. sanctioned war against Iraq in 1991. I wonder what the dead would say about Amnesty's "respectable" way of getting murderous dictators to change their ways. Oh, I forgot, they're dead, and you don't care a damn about them. If Amnesty International had been running things back in 1939, Hitler would be in power, the Jews would be history, and Frenchmen would be speaking German. Well, I guess that last one wouldn't be so bad.
And how Bush Sr. gave Saddam equipment to make WMDs, then gave him intelligence to use it. Hardly innocent.
Actually, you'd have to go back a lot further than Bush Sr. to see who was giving Saddam weapons. Try the Carter administration. As for innocence, perhaps you've heard of the all the Russian, German, and French conventional weapons we've found in country. You know, the ones that have been imported into Iraq after 1991 in violation of the U.N. mandate against Iraq? You're so eager to blame the U.S., but the key appeasers in the U.N. have far more blood on their hands, and far more recent blood at that.
You really need to turn off Fox News and read some books.
And you really need to quit living at DemocraticUnderground.com, Moveon.org, and CNN, since that seems to be your primary source of unfounded vitriol against the President and these United States.
Ronald Reagan was called a warmonger and idiot lunatic by everyone not a staunch Republican.
That's odd. The only people who called him that were hardcore leftwing liberals, not moderates, not right wingers, and not conservatives.
Well, seeing as Jimmy Carter has done more for the world during Bush's term than Bush, I think he'll be remembered in a much, much nicer light.
What's he done? Well, let's see. He badmouthed the current president on foreign policy, something that no former president has ever done, regardless of party affiliation, since the country was founded. He got a Nobel prize from a commitee more concerned with sticking their thumb in the eye of the U.S. than anything else. He's pontificated at length on how he doesn't think the U.S. has done the right thing, but he's completely dodged any possible question of what he would've done differently except to say that he would've handed it all off to the U.N -- which is a fancy political dodgy way of saying "I wouldn't have done anything."
I'm sure all of this is falling on deaf ears, because you're clearly too angry and naive to be even remotely rational. Please, try to think about what I've said, though. You're not doing anyone any favors by allowing your emotions to rule you in this manner.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky