Slashdot Mirror
Subcommittee Stops Human Mars Mission Spending
An anonymous reader writes "Last week's House Appropriations Subcommittee for Commerce, Justice, and Science FY08 budget markup would prevent work on programs devoted to human missions to Mars. According to a House Appropriations Committee press release, the markup language states that NASA cannot pursue "development or demonstration activity related exclusively to Human Exploration of Mars. NASA has too much on its plate already, and the President is welcome to include adequate funding for the Human Mars Initiative in a budget amendment or subsequent year funding requests." The Mars Society is already leading an effort to get the language removed."
The first link is to a PDF file. If you don't want to read the whole press release, here is the relevant part:
"The bill language also continues a moratorium prohibiting NASA from implementing a reduction in force and from funding any research, development or demonstration activity related exclusively to Human Exploration of Mars. NASA has too much on its plate already, and the President is welcome to include adequate funding for the Human Mars Initiative in a budget amendment or subsequent year funding requests."
Yeay -- way to go congress!
This unfunded mandate has been robbing our science for long enough.
If you play a Ke$ha song backwards, you hear messages from Satan. Even worse, if you play it forwards you hear Ke$ha.
If NASA is that busy, then why not offload some of its activities to the private sector fer cryin' out loud?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Wow I think we just found intelligent life in Washington DC, alert the press. Call the nation guard, they must be stopped before they do other things that actually make sense.
Yes I'm all for space exploration but I think Mars is a little far out there. There are a lot of other space programs that could really use the funding (launching a new hurricane observation satellites and global warming research satellites come to mind). Maybe we should think about a moon base first and once we get that up and running then a president can start talking about Mars.
-RZ
You can either go off starting random wars of aggression, or you can conduct planetary exploration. The American taxpayer, quite rightly, doesn't want to pay for both. Many don't want to pay for either, frankly.
If you would rather support explorers than crusaders, make sure the Presidential candidate you vote for in '08 agrees with your point of view, and hold him/her to it.
I'm not sure I disagree with this idea that we shouldn't be blowing money with some goal of sending humans to mars. What exactly would we gain of it? I suppose the theory is that we could bring back samples of shit to study, but why couldn't the same be done on an unmanned mission? Seems to me there is little reason a human needs to go there, and doing so is more about proving that they can than getting anything useful out of it. On top of that I would imagine it complicates the mission immensely with additional systems and failure points(life support, how the astronauts stay sane through the trip, etc).
Really, what is the point?
This is basically a big FU to Bush, one of many that will come out of Congress over the next 2 years. The relative merit of appropriations is irrelevant - this is the "We Hate Bush" congress, and their actions will typically have that as a primary element.
In other words, politics as usual.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
But that was 35 years ago. And the intervening time has been nothing more than a series of disappointments, vast amounts of wasted money, broken promises, contractor giveaways, and harsh realities. A shuttle that was supposed to be like a spaceship turned out to be more like a very expensive splashdown pod with wheels and a hefty refurbishing pricetag after each mission. A space station turned into little more than a low-orbit money sink. Promises of new ships and grand missions were promised--with little more to show for it in the end than some animation and a lot of wasted money.
The height of our achievement was putting a couple of glorified RC cars on Mars and putting a telescope in orbit. And both those missions were a pittance compared to the wasted billions of dollar spent on projects which went nowhere and accomplished nothing.
I've come to accept that man may one day land on Mars. But he won't be wearing a NASA logo on his suit.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
According to the article, NASA "has too much on its plate" and needs to focus. Given the fact that there are many problems in the low Earth orbit area (aging weather satellites, and Hubble to name just two), should NASA be diverting valuable manpower and time to Mars mission planning?
I know I'd rather have NASA put up replacements for aging weather satellites before putting up manned missions to Mars.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
Relabel it all as "Human Ganymede Landing Research."
Didn't anyone learn from Wrong Way Corrigan?
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
Almost all of NASA's spaceflight planning for the next decade are focused on getting new flight hardware ready to replace the shuttle, and maybe then going to the moon.
We need tax money to make craters, not explore them.
Currently bidding on sig
I've always looked up to the Space Program. Putting people and satellites into orbit or on the moon is incredible. That's it. Incredible. The scope of what they do and the success with which they do it is nothing short of phenomenal. To top if off, it's something that we have undeniably been the best at. No ifs, ands, or buts, we are quite simply the best at it. Now the politicians have decided it's no longer a priority. Toss it on the midden heap and watch us get passed by. Not just by the Russians (who were never ALL that far behind us), but by the ESA, the Japanese, and any other country who has leaders that have a sense of adventure and a sense of the long term benefits all the research involved produces. This is a sad day.
Perhaps someone will get the point that humans, on Earth, in this country called the United States of America, which the US Congress happens to have at least a portion of authority over, are way more important than sending humans to a rock somewhere out there in space.
I don't particulary care if China makes it to Mars before us. This "manned space flight is the only salvation for humanity" nonsense needs to stop. You'd think that simple things, like, oh, not spewing tons of chemicals that cause humans heal problems into the environment might be a slightly simpler, and more cost effective method of saving the human race from extinction than a hideously wasteful space exploration that doesn't have any actual advantage over unmanned probes. If a private entity wants to do it, that's their money to waste. But my government should damn well not be the one wasting it. Tell Mars Society can fund their own damn space program.
Flame on.
It's not that I don't like PDFs, it's just that I hate loading Adobe into a Firefox tab.
Is it possible to indicate that the link is to a PDF similar to how links in the comments explicitly display link sources for "safety".
I say, hooray. NASA has better things to do, e.g. support science. Unmanned missions are a far better value.
#!
The crash is coming, are you prepared? China is currently propping up the US dollar (buying it), and loaning the US billions of dollars, while continuing to create a larger trade deficit for the US.
Defense spending is aggravated by a costly excursion into Iraq that is likely to require another decade of occupation.
Housing bubble has already shown it is ready to burst, and the net loss in wealth for the average American will make it very difficult for anyone to plan a way to pay off their own credit card debts, let alone the trillions of dollars the US collectively owes the world bank...
It's time to balance the federal budget.
www.jmagar.com
-
Mission to Mars. ...
A Planet with a high percentage of Carbon Dioxide - What can we learn from that, maybe links to global warming?
Finding ways to store mass amounts of energy to shuttle astronots back and forth from earth to mars, in a small place, perhaps will help with out energy consumption problems?
Ligher Weight, easer to move, rugged space suits. This can help create far better materials for many applications.
Number of americans employed for such a project helping the economy.
Working with other nations of such a project, better tolerance for other cultures.
One project of this scale has many side efects that a lot of supid winy people just don't want to grasp their minds around to understand.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
This is a dumb idea for America, because whichever nation has a Mars base has an escape valve from Mutually Assured Destruction in instance of nuclear war. "Yeah, you got Washington, all right, but our 6,000-person Mars base is going to last a lot longer than your radioactive, rubble-strewn ass..."
technical writing / development
Sorry folks, but Mars is a waste of time. We're better off studying the asteroid belt and sending probes to the more interesting moons. Even with fusion, it would take a really long time to make Mars even close to livable.
The asteroid belt is full of resources and the great thing about them is that they are already in space. We should start cataloging them and marking the ones that have necessary things like water, iron, gold, etc. Once we know what's out there, it won't be long before someone figures out how to get it and bring it back.
NASA is a dead end.
Stick a $1 billion prize into an investment fund and hand it over to anyone who can get people on to Mars and back alive. Do same for moon base. Close NASA down. Billions saved and lots of highly motivated businesses and individuals will do their damnest to earn that cash.
Deleted
Also keep in mind that it says that manned Mars missions need to be explicitly funded, and not taken from general NASA funds. So if NASA ever gets to the point that they actually could consider a Mars mission (many years away), this bill won't even get in the way - they'll just fund it explicitely.
There is no significant funding for human exploration of Mars, nothing that even registers on the FY 2008 budget highlights. There might be a few relatively small grants to develop next generation spacesuits, but those will be useful on the Moon, too, so they won't be affected.
This isn't then an appropriate response to a fiscally unsound endeavor by a careful legislature. It's a gesture that the Congress will not support the President's Vision for Space Exploration in its entirety.
But, this language has the capability to significantly delay an eventual human mission to Mars if it's passed. It will force NASA to view the Moon as its ultimate objective, rather than as a stepping stone to Mars and beyond, as envisioned by the President.
Whether this is a good thing is up to debate, but I am inclined to believe that this empty gesture has great potential for unintended consequences further down the road.
*most people never really think about the consequences*
What's really gonna suck is when we do finally get a NASA ship to land on Mars, they're gonna see a Chinese flag already planted on it.
Red planet, indeed. Maybe if had some more red and white, our politicos would be more willing.
Just keep their hands off of NASA. Switch budgets with defense and leave em alone. We'll have colonies on the moon and Mars in a decade.
well it's not like we're escaping from a death star. surely not everything has to be decided by a committee ?
We spend so much on the military and war. Why not give more to the pursute of science? If NASA was funded like our military, we would not have to worry about other countries attacking us, because we would all be living on other planets.
A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
Deleted
Like i've said in many other posts, everything is decided for us by people (government) who don't have a fucking clue what they are doing. Why can't nasa funds be on a national ballot vote? As previously stated we should be voting once a month as a nation for the progress of this country. (ie, do you think we should be in iraq should be voted on once a month BY THE PEOPLE). Same here with nasa.
Q: Do you as an American feel we should shift 5% of the iraq war funding to the nasa program?
Holy shit, do you relize what that would do if we just threw 5% of the iraq war bill at nasa? It would inject more into it than me on jessica alba after 10 beers.
Point being, we as Americans have no decision in our future. Its all decided by some fucktards who get corrupted by money every time. Also, show me a politician who was a scientist before getting elected, they don't exist (and if they do I don't know anything about them). We need a Stephan Hawking in congress. We need competent people who know about the issues in society and our future. Not a bunch of random retards. Id rather our country as a whole decide the issues with monthly voting than someone with no clue at all. Then you at least get a small pool of specialists who could weight the vote.
For any of you who aren't aware, the Bush administration is notorious for unfunded mandates. If Bush thinks it's so good as to put it in the State of the Union address, he better damn well find a way to pay for it... otherwise it's just hot air as usual.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
since when does the government write using HTML or XML. :)
MUCH more than glorified RC cars on mars. These programs have tested and confirmed a system of delivering payloads safely to mars. A planet that is notoriously difficult to get to given the track record of many countries. This system will be used many more times for mapping and reconnaissance before any manned mission can occur. The missions have given us compelling reasons to put men on mars. While the shuttle and ISS missions have squandered money, Hubble and MER have been kicking ass.
They just don't want the general public finding out about our existing DSC-304 shipyard on Mars.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
The committee has it right: trying to impose a manned trip to Mars on NASA without a huge funding increase is going to wreak havoc with NASA's science programs. If the president wants this, he needs to fund it.
The Mars society should be ashamed for trying to have this language removed; apparently, they think that going to Mars is worth dismantling the rest of our space program.
Sucks that short-term politics and pet pork takes precedence over the future of humanity itself.
What are you smoking? Do you seriously believe that "humanity" has any hope of colonizing another planet to "save" itself?
It's been half a century since we first put people in space, and now we're still "just" putting a select elite few up into space to screw around with silly zero-g experiments with little commercial or scientific value.
The suggestion that we will have the resources, technical capability and political unity as a planet to put a large-enough-to-be-genetically-diverse-enough-to-" save"-humanity population not only into orbit but to reach a habitable planet, build a base large enough to house them, grow food, mine raw materials....long enough to either "teraform" that planet or "escape" again to another...
...is absolutely batshit insane. It'd be a hell of a lot cheaper and easier to build protected self-contained habitats on earth.
Please help metamoderate.
While I think that a lot of bad choices have been made by most of the presidents involved with NASA (starting with Nixon), NASA has been moving forward. Take a LONG look at what is happening right now. Bezos with with his new Shepard is simply a clone of the DCX (funded partly by NASA), but a decade later. Likewise, you have Spacex with falcon/dragon moving up, which is definitely a copy of NASA's Saturn/Apollo. And of course, you have Bigelow who bought the rights to Transhab as well as has had support from NASA dealing with life support which are all from ISS. Scaled Composites is creating a low cost version of the craft that NASA was going to build in the 70's, but Nixon killed (foolish). Even now, with naysayers knocking the ISS, it is doing a great deal of ground breaking work. Before we can go to mars or moon, we MUST have subsystems that will not fail. In addition, NASA is designing new sats and engines all the time. Hopefully, by 2012, the indis will have us not only in space, but heading to the moon. At that time, NASA will probably re-focus on doing things that they can not/will not do such as Nuclear engines for LONG-TERM sats and mars. This will be needed by 2015. And we will see the indis once again use this tech as a means of springboarding elsewhere. NASA has a function in doing what companies/individuals can not/will not do. And to that end, they have been a trailblazer.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
However, I completely agree that any such plans should be funded appropriately - and not at the sake of other important NASA missions.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
The Mars effort was a stupid agenda from the start (presumably due to the fact that our 'leaders' do not understand science and have no vision).
One should only consider sending humans to planets, after:
1) One has exhausted all possible exploration capabilities of robotic explorers.
2) One has "rad-hardened" (genetically enhanced) astronauts that don't require tons of shielding from radiation.
3) One has robust nanotechnology to make such ventures significantly less expensive.
Now, shortly after one has all of these capabilities using nanorobots to disassemble planets and contribute their mass to a Matrioshka Brain seems like the likely situation. Thus humans don't get to go to the planets because they will no longer exist! The Mars Society is thinking in "primitive human terms" and fails to realize that humans are about to be transcended by significantly modified and/or more capable robots, AIs, and mind uploads. Would you send a "steam locomotive" (aka human)" to Mars if you could send an advanced Mars rover/AI/cyborg instead?
The Singularity ramp up makes any multi-decade long plans based on "common (historical) human perspectives" dead on arrival. One might hope that a few wiser representatives might see that and take actions such as those which seem to be taking place.
Off-planet habitation should focus on the moon instead of Mars.
You'd still need completely enclosed domes, caves or spaceports.
You'd still need full shielding from cosmic radiation and hard UV.
You'd still need imported air, water, food, medicines, equipment, etc.
However, you'd be a lot closer to home, reducing shipping costs and times, both ways. You can coast to the moon in three days, or accelerate there in 12 hours.
Reduced time in transit means reduced radiation exposure, which means reduced ship shielding (and weight) necessary.
You'll have better solar array efficiency because of brighter sunlight and no dust. Or you could use nuclear power.
No pesky winds or dust to mess with your instruments.
More people would be able to afford a vacation trip to the Moon than could afford a vacation trip to Mars. Better revenue stream.
0.16G surface gravity means a space elevator would be more feasible to move cargo and people up and down the lunar gravity well. Getting off the earth would still be horrendously expensive, but maybe our space elevator cable could be made in our lunar factories out of moon dust. That would certainly be convenient.
The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them. - Mark Twain
1) it ain't SciFi 2) it is based in solid physics and economics.
I agree that we should focus on the steps necessary to get to Mars, but it appears that Congress is out to cut the funding from even that.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
You can either go off starting random wars of aggression, or you can conduct planetary exploration.
Or you can divert that money to humanitarian purposes: clothing, feeding, housing, educating, and providing medical care for your citizens. Or, cutting taxes while putting 50% of the federal tax burden BACK on corporations, where it was in the 50's, and where it belongs.
Got some money left over? Great. NOW you can go play in space.
PS: You do realize that most of NASA's research goes straight to the military, right? When they develop a new rocket booster, it isn't to put sunshine and lollipops into orbit, son. It's (mostly) for weaponry; missiles, fighter jets, UAVs, spy satellites. The rest is for commercial purposes.
Please help metamoderate.
I think this is totally the right decision. The "Mars mission" was just another load of horsecrap from Bush to throw sand in the face of (in this case) the geek crowd. There was no plan, there was no money provided, there was no rationale, it was dated decades in the future when he knows he won't be accountable, there's *no way* it would ever happen the way it was laid out. It was yet another impossible Big Lie from Bush, one that actually damaged all the other priorities NASA has that could actually accomplish something. Yay, this time, for Congress.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Hatred, perhaps at times, but not irrationally so. Perhaps they 'hate' him for stocking agencies like NASA with unqualified partisan hacks who do their best to deny and stymie the very real science that should be going on in gov't for ideological reasons. Perhaps this 'hate' you speak of is actually good policy. Then again, there is still that 26% of the country that thinks otherwise to contend with--and their irrational love of Bush.
Oh, and Colonize MARS! Mars First! MARTIAN FRONTIER!
A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.
The robots are far from being R?C cars. They pretty much have to do a lot of complex maneuvers on their own because otherwise we could accidentally direct them off a cliff. The robots mainly have human input because they aren't capable of finding points of significance or getting unstuck.
Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
Offtopic? If humans aren't spending money on the mars missions, who is? Dogs? Cats? Uranus?
The congress is missing the point. The problem with Bushies plan to send rockets to Mars isn't sending the people -- it's that the contractor and platform involved is Lockheed-Martin's TLAM -- Tomahawk Land Attack Missile. The current plan is to use the TLAM avionics software and systems on a Mars vehicle, perhaps to be called the MLAM or the TMAM or somesuch.
Congress should stop all Mars-related and moonbase-related programs immediately -- these are BushCo initiatives to weaponize space.
No doubt, a mission to Mars might yield technical advances which could better life on our space rock. That said, there are large immediate problems here on Earth which require great technological pushes as well. I'm sorry, but screw Mars. We need massive pushes for energy independence, stem cell research, water acquisition etc. There is knowledge to be gained there and solutions developed will likely have a much greater impact upon our future.
We should secure the "future of humanity" by addressing our terrestrial problems, as opposed to solving extraterrestrial problems that will hopefully yield a technological trickle down. No doubt, I like Temperpedic pillows and freeze dried ice cream, but I'd also love for our country to never to funnel money into crazy nations chocked with bubbling crude.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
When the Shuttle program ends it will give an out to the ISS partners to begin the end of the ISS program. When the ISS program ends, manned spaceflight be over for at least the remainder of the 21st century.
Why would you care if one day a man walks on Mars? Maybe I am just a selfish prick, but unless that man is me, I don't really care. Turning vast amounts of society's resources into a project to get a handful of humans onto Mars is a waste of my money. It might make your nationalistic pride feel warm and fuzzy, or maybe give you a feeling of greater human accomplishment, but warm fuzzy feelings is the extent of what is really accomplished.
If NASA wants to do something worthwhile, it would dumped the maned space programs all together and focus on making space access cheaper. If Europe had a NASA in 1400's it would be trying to make a row boat that can cross the Atlantic so that three people can go over, come back, and tell us how awesome North America is. Screw that. I don't want row boats for three. I want big three masted ships packed full of pioneers looking to plant crops, build houses, find gold, and kill the natives (OK, that wasn't the most PC analogy). My point is that if NASA wants to make itself useful, it should be working on space ships to let any brave/stupid soul cross through space, rather then showing that using the resources of a civilization it can get half a dozen people into space and back again.
If I had my hands on NASA mission statement it would do exactly two things. NASA would conduct basic research into the nature of the universe (Hubble, Mars Rovers, etc.) and it would conduct and fund research to bring the cost of space travel down. There would be none of this silliness around blowing a few billion just so that a handful of humans can say they went to Mars and came back.
BTW,
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
They are still working on sending a man to Bahgdad and keeping him alive there. So far it has been only partially successful. Another $100 billion should solve the problems.
Good riddance to Bush's 1969-throwback Mars program. Humans should not approach another planet until that orb has a functional orbital network, and a ground-based network of rover/robots.
Money spent figuring out how to keep wetware alive to pick up a bag of rocks is better spent investing in robotics, nanotechnology and the AI to fully explore any spot in our solar system we so choose. And, having learned how to do so, expand that robotic/AI/nanobot presence to neighboring systems, whether they have earthlike planets or not.
Learning how to live on the Moon is a great waste of time, as is the ISS. These things drain resources from the interesting and progressive sciences and projects. Tell me, what are the top results from the ISS project? A whole lot of nothing, is what.
Humans to the Moon and Mars is just an extension of the dead-end thinking that you can't go anywhere if you don't drive there yourself. Free yourself from that particular transport-bound thinking and the world's space science programs will blossom and knowledge will accelerate.
So, humans should remain earthbound only to send huge fleets of robotic servants everywhere in the solar system and beyond. Let the results from a vast array of interplanetary cameras and analyzers and comm equipment drive human imagination. And if you really need to feel a freakin' rock, send a thousand errandbots to fetch the best ones from any point--not just those available to a chucklehead on a golf cart.
To use a phrase that Bush 41 uttered with such contempt.
Why anyone would trust this administration to get this initiative right in any sense is beyond me. Even with funding and congressional support this Bush couldn't send a man to New Orleans and get it right. Making the attempt resulted in colossal waste and fraud, and a transfer of taxpayer dollars to his political cronies. Attempting to send a man to Mars at his behest would have the same result--only this time with trillions of dollars instead of just billions.
We should be thanking Congress for this. We're all better off waiting for (and supporting!) leaders who actually have vision and are capable of achieving it. Not just making hopeful, distracting speeches but actually focusing on and funding your initiatives to realize your goals.
This is basically a big FU to Bush, one of many that will come out of Congress over the next 2 years. The relative merit of appropriations is irrelevant - this is the "We Hate Bush" congress, and their actions will typically have that as a primary element.
Do we know a Democrat inserted this language? I'd love to know, but 5 minutes of searching didn't help me find out.
Besides, Bush can't back Human Spaceflight to Mars - there's a Republican War on Science underway, don't you know?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
There's nothing there. We already sent up a rover (at great expense) and what did it find? A desolate beige dirt landscape that's less remarkable than the scenery in West Texas.
If people want to see pink/beige rocks, they can go to Arizona.
There is no benefit whatsoever to having a person fly all the way out there, land, plant an American flag, then go back.
Of course, the President knows for sure that God only put life on earth about 5000 years ago. Going to Mars is a waste of money. Even you can see it is much more important to send money to Africa to inform the AIDS infested people there that using condoms is a sin.
This sure seems to be another political move - with very little to do with the science or the budget. Check the house website Science Subcommittee, which seems to have more information about complaints to the administration than actually doing anything. Now - on the other end - yes, the President should fund it if he wants it. If he doesn't, then NASA should be focusing on other priorities. I don't fault the committee for holding him to the fire over that, they are right. I think exploration, by humans, SHOULD be a part of NASA and other space agencies around the world. Space exploration, even the Space Race of the Cold War, has been of benefit, even as just an opportunity for dreams and hopes.
-- I really need to bleed off some of this
This is why it's called 'Human Colonisation', not just that of a handful of countries. Instead of Australia contributing military dollars (cough, splutter), it should be a contribution to the Colonisation project.
I'm not saying that Australia could contribute that much in respect to manufacturing (know-how, experience, etc.), but our effort could be very cheap raw materials. It'd be a start. A good one, me thinks.
.
Bush doesn't want the money to go to Space research because he needs it for Iraq!
My web domain.
But why assume that we must colonize space using machines that are identical to the ones on earth?
Especially because the machinery we send with any space flight will be extremely delicate and difficult to reproduce, all in the name of keeping the weight down. But when you arrive, you can build a 30-ton inefficient monster of a machine.
We're not going to reproduce earth hardware in space. We're going to develop types of hardware that are more suited to their respective planets. Start with extracting resources, then bootstrap new machinery from those resources. It does not need to compete with earth designs, because shippign costs for those will be crazy.
Finally, you can spend a few hundred or thousands of years to do this. It's not like we need that self-sufficient colony by next friday.
I lost my sig.
Pournelle got it half right: every dollar spent on NASA's budget for manned space travel is a dollar wasted.
NASA's satellites, robotic missions, etc., however, are highly successful and yield incredible results. They are also the kinds of missions that, like all basic science, would never get funded by comparnies.
Any talk about budget discipline that doesnt include paying off the national debt and/or reforming entitlements is just pissing in the wind. So far, none of the candidates have really put any effort into the matter, so quit using financials to justify your own political opinions. Certainly, the democrats have zero credibility here.
c le/2007/06/20/AR2007062002342.html
We're spending twice as much just on the interest associated the national debt as we are on Iraq each year. And, the debt continues to grow.
Going forward, if entitlements aren't under control, in a worst case scenario 75 years from now, about 95% of the entire net worth of america would have to be sold off to pay for social security, medicare, etc.
And, the numbers get worse each year we delude ourselves into thinking iraq/etc are the major financial issues.
Read up and get informed, then send this on to your friends:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti
Am I the only one here that knows Congress is the one that writes the budgets? States can (rightfully) bitch about unfunded mandates all they want, but if the legislature wants to make something happen, it can. Saying "Bush didn't fund it" is a cop-out. They should just be honest and say, "All things things considered, we don't want to pay for that."
P.S. I'm no friend of W.
That's a good point about the airlines. At least in some sense, they do a bit of long-term planning. However, I think it might be more the exception than the rule. (And I think the planners and investors also realize that should their plans not work out, the planes are an asset that can be liquidated fairly easily to someone else; it's not a complete and total commitment.)
As for cathedrals, they're historically a very good example of the sorts of multi-generational projects that I'd like to see more of, but when's the last time you've seen anyone build a cathedral like that? (I don't just mean a cathedral as a literal building, I'm sure there's some of those that have gone up around the world -- with today's construction methods you can put up something the size of Stephansdom in a few months or years, I mean something on that scale, relative to what's possible at the time.)
Oddly enough, regarding corporations in my earlier post, I was informed that Disney actually issues 100 year corporate bonds. I'm not sure if that's the sign of a long outlook, or just arrogance on their part. Somehow, a blind belief that you'll be around in a century, doesn't in my mind necessarily imply that you're actually planning for the next century.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
But manned missions are very expensive compared to robotic/unmanned missions. The science per dollar is generally much higher with robotic missions. There are also some fantastic plans to find earth-like and potential life-bearing planets around other stars using specialized telescopes. I would rather see the money spent on that. Manned missions are mostly about "glory", not science.
(I've been in heated debates about robot sample return versus human geologists on Mars. I hope I don't spark one of these again.)
Table-ized A.I.
"Question - how much did it cost to fund Christopher Columbus' initial 1492 expedition? (Considering that it required royal patronage... I'm thinking it was nearly the same order of expense). In retrospect, that cost was paid back and then profited by history (consider the combined GDP's and natural resources found in Canada, the US, Mexico, Central and South America...) "
l e_Columbus.htm (first hit from google),
short answer: "A week's worth of entertainment for a visiting royal dignitary." said the Queen's financial adviser, in terms she could understand.
Long answer: Jack nothing. Columbus was cheap, anywhere from a few $10K's to $2million dollars, depending on how you count (and what goods you use to measure inflation). I had an medieval economics prof. do the math in class. The only reason it was so hard for Columbus to find funding was he was an absolute idiot who thought a trip around the world was doable only because he's measurement of the circumference of the earth was completely off.
Sailing to America was "easy" to do with standard, "off-the-shelf" technology (all his ships were second- and third-hand). It just required a leap of faith to sail out into the middle of nowhere. He wasn't the first to try it. Only the first to make it back.
So please, its not fair to anyone to compare Columbus's voyage to the landing on the moon, or the human trip to Mars. It may feel appealing, but its apples and oranges.
Oh, and here's someone else's word: http://www.uhv.edu/flame/March_2006/FEATURE_Artic
he says: $700K.
Politicians are not interested in space. For the majority of people that have power, including politicians, religious leaders, CEOs and military commanders, their interest is in how they will maintain and extend their power on Earth. It's only you and me, probably geeks, probably sci-fi fans, who are excited by space exploration.
Let's not forget that (if) we went to the moon, it's because of the cold war. The USA wanted to dominate the immediate space around Earth, because of the fear that the Soviets would launch nuclear missile space platforms.
It's a sad fact, really, but the chances are in favor of a big (probably nuclear) world war (with religious tones) rather than constructing the NCC-1701 and going off to explore outer space...
Because it really doesn't when it comes to NASA funding.
NASA funding is only popular when NASA does something that keeps it in the eye of the public for weeks on end. Then and only then does NASA get any real consideration from Congress.
When the rovers were first popular you could always find a Congressman on tv or print saying how important NASA was for science and America. Yet when the mission goes on without press release after press release of something that catches the public's eye; the space station doesn't seem to anymore; they get ignored.
The Iraq issue is just a convienent dodge. The money would be sucked up somewhere else for someone's bridge, library, or homeland security project, long before it ever made its way to NASA.
Only two ways NASA is going to get more money. The people who support it make sure that their local Congressmen know that as VOTERS its important or if NASA can find an exciting way to market the mundane activities of a space station to where enough public support occurs simply because its on the tube everyday
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Look, I thought this when Bush announced it and every bit of news like this only confirms it:
A manned mission to Mars will NOT happen within our lifetimes. Not the US, not China.
As far as I understand it, there's no way currently to get something down onto the surface, with enough fuel to get back up into space again. Therefore, any manned excursion to the surface will be a one-way ticket. Anyone fancy volunteering for that?
As for sending enough kit to manufacture fuel from the resources on Mars and use that to come back, don't make me laugh.
I guess you could use dozens of shuttle-launches to assemble a massive spaceship in Earth orbit before sending it off, but that'd take decades and cost far more than the $100bn proposed by Bush, at least if the ISS is anything to go by.
The whole thing's pie in the sky nonsense dreamed up by (probably) Karl Rove to keep a few geeks onside during elections.
You thought you could break the laws of physics without paying the PRICE?
"Certainly someone already got the point that killing humans, on Earth, outside this country called the United States of America, which the US Congress happens to have at least a portion of authority over, is way more important than sending humans to a rock somewhere out there in space."
Why bring it back ? Any resource that's not sitting in a big fat gravity well (like Earths) is worth more than one that is.
Except for some really rare materials (no, even gold doesn't count here, but maybe Platinum or Rhodium do).
Yay! Indeed. Mod parent up. Humans on Mars is a fraudulent boondoggle, or it would be if it ever happened in our or our children's lifetime. We're not ready; there's no decent rationale anyway, and the costs and risks are simply out of sight. Can you imagine the consequences of a failure of this particular stunt? Space exploration would be set back decades, generations even. There's nothing humans can do there that robots can't do -- more slowly, yes, but far more cheaply and safely. The Incumbent said, "we're going to Mars" in the same way he said, "mission accomplished". He was simply ... what's the word I want? ... Oh, yes: lying.
Science fiction for grown-ups...
And in 2006 there were $29 billion (with a "b") in unvoted-on earmarks, spending that was tacked on to budget and other bills, which go to friends and other local constituents in Congressional districts. The Executive branch isn't required by law to spend these, but it's been traditional that they do. If you're talking a multi-year program, $29 billion would go a long way to funding that.
By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
But see NASA isn't a dead end. No company is going to operate at a $119 Billion loss(assuming it only costs $120B, but that could be as bad as the trillions) to get to mars, when it has no current current practical value. NASA exists because there is no company that could operate with such losses when there is no immediate commercial gain. That's not to say that going to Mars doesn't have amazing repercussions for science or giving the human race a place to expand to. It is a good goal for sometime in the future but NASA has more practical considerations that should not be dropped just for Mars.
NASA makes contributions into aeronautical research both in safety and in generating new technology and in environmental science. The first is how we stay competitive with other nations who's aerospace industries are heavily supported by their government (China, Europe, et al). The second is extremely important for anyone who believes that we have air, water, dirt and life on planet Earth irregardless of climate change.
So if you're willing to see our aerospace industry collapse, our knowledge of the Earth stagnate AND real space exploration fail then we can go your way, otherwise you're just not being realistic. Of course we could just give NASA the money it needs for all jobs, but this is probably not feasible at the moment considering the mismanagement of our taxes either fighting wars that we probably should not be in, or through pork barrel BS.
Patrik
----------
Just your ordinary BOFH
http://killertux.org
Is that different from the Tomahawk made by Raytheon?
Why don't we consentrate on getting a good foot print on the moon, set up a base, maybe even a launch site w/orbital fueling and then... think about Mars. It's hundreds of millions of years old, it'll still be there next century and with a base on the moon to supply fuel at a fraction of the launch cost we can send a much, much better equiped mission there.
Also the technology developed to sustain life on the moon can be used on Mars with the added bonus that the moon is that much closer should anything go wrong.
br.Until man goes to the moon I think we should consentrate on sending more driods to Mars, maybe set up a remote base built and run by robots.
In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
You can't go until you start going.
There is nothing impossible about having a colony on the moon or mars, it just takes time. To get there we first have to start going - it will probably take 20-30-50 years. Or never if we don't ever start.
For Candyland all you need is the pony - but it has got to be the *right* pony.
So we ship spares.
lots of them.
1) build colony that can make air and water and food...
2) ship spares
3) BIG ROCK HITS EARTH
4) Profit!!!!
The trip will go a lot more smoothly once development of the Lyle Drive is completed. It's probably better to wait for that rather than pen up a crew in a tiny spaceship for over a year, just to get there that much sooner.
---GEC
I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
It would take a lot less effort and we would be a lot more likely to succeed at establishing a permanent Lunar base using local resources for all bulk mass requirements (oxygen, hydrogen, food and structural materials) than even a single Apollo-style round-trip Mars mission.
And the next stop... the asteroids are closer, energy-wise, and more useful.
To hell with Mars, we have unfinished business on the Moon.
You're assuming that the activity wouldn't cause a space based economy to develop. Things like space based factories, asteroid mining, space tourism. etc etc.
Deleted
First, I agree with you that the Mars mission is an empty hype that needs to be funded or else silenced. By my response is to your question: "anyone fancy volunteering..." Yes, I do. If that sounds crazy to you, for someone to offer a suicidal sacrifice for the benefit of Science, then perhaps you don't value Science as much as I do. I am volunteering. I will land on Mars, make as many possible scientific observations and collections of information as I can with the resources available, send all of the information back to Earth, and then calmly swallow my cyanide capsule right when the oxygen runs out. I will make an excellent candidate for the program: I am a young adult American male with a college degree in Computer Science. I am in excellent physical condition. I have a deep understanding of physics, math, electronics, computers, and astronomy. I'm not so selfish or so concerned with my own little life that I'd rather postpone my own death as long as possible simply because I am afraid of dying. I'd rather be part of something profound and monumental, than spend the rest of my days watching reruns of Lost or American Idol, drinking my overpriced Starbucks lattes, and playing video games. Now of course, nobody in America would support such a radical idea--to sacrifice one of our own. So this will never happen, obviously. But I've made my point: some people would rather blow billions of dollars per year killing innocent Iraqi civilians under the guise of protecting national security, and some people would rather blow billions of dollars per year investing in research that has countless benefits for manufacturing, engineering, technology, and international relations. And if the only way we can have the latter over the former is to sacrifice one human life, then fire up the engines because I'm going to fscking Mars, baby!
2) Live without it.
Also, I don't think anyone ever said that a self-sustaining colony couldn't import things from Earth.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....