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.
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
"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!
I agree with just about everything you say, except that I think establishing a permanent moon base first should be a priority. Reasons:
1. The moon is only 3 days away. Mars is months away. Logistically, it's easier.
2. The moon gives us an opportunity to work out engineering issues of establishing a permanent base on foreign celestial bodies.
3. There may be immediate tangible benefits to a moon base: mining, factories, observatories, astronaut training, research.
NO CARRIER
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.
Didn't you get the memo? "All these worlds are yours except Europa."
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
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.*
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
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.
However, a minor British bureaucrat has uncovered evidence that a Martian official tried to buy illudium from Venus, which could mean that Marvin has an Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator programme underway.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
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.
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
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.
> 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
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!
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.
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)
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.
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
I'm afraid you're jumping the gun. We've never tried to survive in any extraplanetary terrestrial environments, so we'd be developing technologies that would be generally useful. Keeping with your analogy, to survive in both the Sahara and Antarctica a team would require a habitat that was self-contained to isolate it from the extreme surroundings. You could go about it as two completely different projects that have no relation to each other, and you'd end up dividing your resources to create two converging technologies. Assuming zero prior knowledge, you'd both have discovered how construct a building, develop environmental control systems, and reliably/efficiently grow food under contained circumstances. What was the point of dividing the resources so early on when these basic technologies still needed to be developed? You've just doubled the cost of learning something new.
Going to Mars and taming space is the only way forward for humanity as a whole.
Humanity as a whole has problems a lot more serious and significant than finding new sources for iron oxide and colonizing a planet that lacks a breathable atmosphere. We'd be much better off, for example, pushing hard to find ways to make sure that the atmosphere of the planet we currently inhabit remains breathable.
Despite the fact that more than half of Earth is covered in water, we're currently unable to provide enough clean water for our population to drink.
Good news! We now have the technology to manipulate the climate of an entire planet! Bad news: we can only move it in one direction.
Future space travellers will be happy to learn that Earth can produce more food than its population requires, but they may be dismayed to realize that we haven't yet figured out how to distribute it to the Earthlings that need it, let alone a Martian colony.
Would humanity as a whole be better off sending a man to do a robot's work on Mars, or spending an additional $20 billion on reducing AIDS, TB, SARS, etc?
Would Americans be better off sending a man to Mars, or spending money to provide drugs for those that need them, and getting those who abuse drugs to stop?
Honestly, I think space exploration is a great thing, and something to which we should aspire. Spending a few $billion to do it makes sense. And yeah, it'd be a really, really cool thing to be able to visit Mars in person, even if 6 billion of us have to do it vicariously through a lucky two or three astronauts. But if you think that this is the most important thing we should be doing, or even that it's just very important, I think you should take a long look at the world around you.
Let me tell you what's really going on with this proposal. Through a series of tax cuts and spending increases, the current administration is doggedly pursuing a "starve the beast" strategy that will ultimately require a huge decrease in the size of the federal government, and a corresponding increase in the power of the states. Which, essentially, is what Republicans have been trying to accomplish for years. The more money the Bush administration commits us to spending over the next decade or two, the greater the pressure to reduce spending in other areas such as Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, education, and social services. And the cherry on top is that Bush gets to announce popular new spending programs to dupes like you who'll eat it up.
So yeah, by all means write to your representatives. But first think long and hard about what you want to tell them.
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
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.