Slashdot Mirror


NASA, European Space Agency Want To Go To Mars

coondoggie writes "NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA) are aiming to cooperate on all manner of robotic orbiters, landers and exploration devices for a future trip to Mars. Specifically, NASA and ESA recently agreed to consider the establishment of a new joint initiative to define and implement their scientific, programmatic, and technological goals for the exploration of Mars. The program would focus on several launch opportunities with landers and orbiters conducting astrobiological, geological, geophysical, climatological, and other high-priority investigations and aiming at returning samples from Mars in the mid-2020s."

129 comments

  1. My Two Kids Want To Go To Mars by jbeaupre · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    My 3 year old and 2 year old are aiming to cooperate on all manner of Lego robotic orbiters, landers and exploration devices for a future trip to Mars. Specifically, they recently agreed to consider the establishment of a new joint initiative to define and implement their scientific, programmatic, and technological goals for the exploration of Mars. The program would focus on several launch opportunities with Lego landers and orbiters conducting astrobiological, geological, geophysical, climatological, and other high-priority investigations and aiming at returning samples from Mars this weekend.

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  2. Cooperation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    As long as they agree on one set of units it should be fine.

    1. Re:Cooperation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I doubt it. ESA will defenitely work with SI units. And I assume NASA wants to use their old units for their old stuff. However, if they cooperate on a component level, this should not be a big problem as long as the systems are not integrated. For example rocket from NASA and rover from ESA.

    2. Re:Cooperation by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      (Mars lander smacks into planet at ballistic speeds)

      "I don't understand. By my calculations 1000 foot-pounds was enough thrust to bring the lander to soft landing." - NASA engineer

      "Foot-pounds? What the hell are they? I I built the rockets for maximum 1000 newton thrust." - ESA engineer

      "Oooops."

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    3. Re:Cooperation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      I doubt it. ESA will defenitely work with SI units. And I assume NASA wants to use their old units for their old stuff. However, if they cooperate on a component level, this should not be a big problem as long as the systems are not integrated. For example rocket from NASA and rover from ESA.

      NASA has used Metric for a long, long time now. It was a subcontractor who used Imperial that screwed up the Mars lander.

    4. Re:Cooperation by socrplayr813 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Aye, and any scientist/engineer with a degree from the last 20-30 years should be perfectly comfortable working with SI units. There are still hold outs, but they're just a few old fossils and managers. The people that do the actual science and engineering have no problem with SI.

      --
      The confidence of ignorance will always overcome the indecision of knowledge.
    5. Re:Cooperation by lul_wat · · Score: 0

      And not install the altitude sensor upside down

      --
      Divide a cake by zero. Is it still a cake?
    6. Re:Cooperation by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Funny

      (Mars lander smacks into planet at ballistic speeds)

      "I don't understand. By my calculations 1000 foot-pounds was enough thrust to bring the lander to soft landing." - NASA engineer

      "Je ne vous comprends pas, culturelement appauvri impérialiste chien de porc." - ESA engineer

      Fixed that for you.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    7. Re:Cooperation by damburger · · Score: 1

      And the subcontractors use metric now as well (seeing as they very much like remaining subcontractors)

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    8. Re:Cooperation by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 3, Funny

      AFAIK Australia doesn't have a space agency!

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    9. Re:Cooperation by lul_wat · · Score: 0

      Should have found the source .. here's one http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/space_blunders.shtml
      "NASA appoints a mishap investigation board to find out why parachutes on its Genesis mission didn't deploy properly when the space probe returned to Earth in September 2004. It had been collecting samples of the solar wind which scientists on Earth were eager to study. The board found the likely cause was a design error involving deceleration sensors. These switches sense the braking caused by reentry into the atmosphere, initiating the sequence leading to deployment of the parachutes and parafoil. But because the design plans didn't indicate orientation, the components were installed upside down. As a result, the $264 million mission nose-dived into the Utah desert at 300kmh.

      --
      Divide a cake by zero. Is it still a cake?
    10. Re:Cooperation by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Rogerborg wrote:
      >>>"I do not understand you, culturally impoverished imperialist dog of pig."

      abruti

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    11. Re:Cooperation by IronChef · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But like the American million dollar space pen/Russian pencil story, it will live on forever.

    12. Re:Cooperation by joh · · Score: 1

      NASA has decided to use imperial units for Ares / Project Constellation instead of metric units earlier this year.

    13. Re:Cooperation by 4181 · · Score: 1

      Comparing foot-pounds to newtons is like comparing tens of apples to dozens of oranges -- you have more than systems of measurement to be concerned about.

    14. Re:Cooperation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they did the rockets would launch upside down, how would that ever work! :P

  3. Harold and Kumar go to Mars by thijsh · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I'd watch that shit!

    1. Re:Harold and Kumar go to Mars by owlnation · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      No kidding! Mars, space amazon girls, and a load of fun, what's not to like. Plus, it gets Harold off the tedious yawn-fest soap opera that is Flashforward and back into doing good work.

    2. Re:Harold and Kumar go to Mars by thijsh · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Ah yes, based on the novel of the late Robert A. Heinlein (great olde SciFi).
      Just like another one of his novels 'Red Planet' which became: 'Harold and Kumar go to Mars: The Red Hair Planet', where Harold and Kumar go to Mars to harvest the red hairs of the famous (80's) Red Hair Skunk Cannabis.

  4. Re:First things first. by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Pfft! If they give enough money to Nasa on difficult enough project, they'll solve all of those. Well, maybe not the deficit, unless you consider the possibility of martian gold.

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
  5. Re:First things first. by nuclearpenguins · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Perhaps investing in developing the new technologies we would need to get our asses to Mars would create all sorts of new jobs.

    --
    Anonymous Coward: "This is slashdot. Accuracy is second class citizen here, unlike King Bias."
  6. Re:First things first. by rossdee · · Score: 1

    The price of gold isn't high enough to justify the cost of going to Mars and getting it (even if there were bars of it lying around on the surface.)

  7. Re:First things first. by FlyingSquidStudios · · Score: 4, Insightful

    NASA's budget is such a small fraction of the overall budget ($17.318 billion out of $2.9 trillion in 2008) that it really has very little effect on the economy. If you want to worry about the U.S. economy, fighting two different expensive wars is a much bigger problem. Less than half a penny out of every tax dollar goes to NASA. 5 cents goes to the 'global war on Terror.' [see: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ef/Fy2008spendingbycategory.png%5D

  8. awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm glad to see this kind of teaming up, I always thought space should be a joint initiative between all the countries of the world much like Star trek or the International Space station. I think this is really exciting news personally.

  9. Re:Euro Agency == unconstitutional? by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Euro agency is nothing to do with EU, but hey don't let that stop you!

    --
    IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
  10. Re:First things first. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can still invest in it. Do you think that when I invest $10,000 in gold I have it shipped to my basement? No, it stays where it is -- the purchase is just paperwork.

  11. Re:First things first. by MyLongNickName · · Score: 2, Funny

    Okay, I know there are tens of millions of tons of gold on Pluto. Please send me a check and it is yours. Heck, I'll give you a fifty percent discount.

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
  12. Re:Euro Agency == unconstitutional? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

    Oh good. Thanks for brightening my day.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  13. Did NASA take their stupid pills again? by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 0, Troll

    Getting to Mars is expensive and essentially pointless. It's a big dry, inhospitable place at the bottom of a f***ing gravity well and farther from the sun than we are. Less power. Less consumables. Less everything that would matter to a human.

    Near earth orbit, conversely, could be exploited for power, provide living space in the form of sustainable habitats, and can be used for zero G industries, hospitals, hotels, etc.

    So, tell me again, please, aside from some scientific interest, why the F*** does anybody want to spend BILLIONS to explore Mars?

    Thought question of the day: If we discovered tomorrow that there was primitive life on Mars, what difference would it make, really?

    Let the flames begin!

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    1. Re:Did NASA take their stupid pills again? by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think that being able to establish a base on the moon FIRST would be more practical and give us good practice for preparing for a base on Mars. Gotta walk before you can run....

      --
      You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
    2. Re:Did NASA take their stupid pills again? by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 0

      But the same arguments apply. If we're going to walk first, shouldn't we practice in near-earth orbit before we fiddle about with some dry gravity-cursed rock like the moon or Mars?

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    3. Re:Did NASA take their stupid pills again? by Trent+Hawkins · · Score: 1

      I think establishing a Casino on the moon is more practical.

    4. Re:Did NASA take their stupid pills again? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Have you heard about Gagarin?

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    5. Re:Did NASA take their stupid pills again? by rockNme2349 · · Score: 1

      But why walk when you can drive?

      --
      Sewage Treatment Facilities - "Our duty is clear."
    6. Re:Did NASA take their stupid pills again? by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

      I assume you mean Gagarin as in "Yuri" - first cosmonaut. Your point is....?

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    7. Re:Did NASA take their stupid pills again? by PGOER · · Score: 1

      One with black jack and hookers, on second thought forget about the black jack.

      --
      I am not a nerd, I just play one in real life. My avatar thinks I'm a total loser.
    8. Re:Did NASA take their stupid pills again? by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      I assume you mean Gagarin as in "Yuri" - first cosmonaut. Your point is....?

      Of course, if Heinlein is to be believed, then it is more like the first cosmonaut to get back alive. Considering all the Soviets who got killed in their space program, his story is not implausible.

    9. Re:Did NASA take their stupid pills again? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Well, the advantage of the dry gravity-cursed rock is that there are actually things you could use to build stuff on the moon. There's not much building stuff in near-earth orbit and the closest building stuff is in this really deep gravity well.

      Personally, I think the Moon is an OK trade-off. You can mine asteroids but you'll have to take the raw materials somewhere else to actually build anything. On the Moon, you have "low" gravity (no, not as low as an asteroid but much less than the Earth) lots of materials, lots of empty ground to build stuff, and no environmental concerns (so you can launch nuclear-powered rockets to your heart's content).

    10. Re:Did NASA take their stupid pills again? by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 0

      Well, the closest building material is earth, but why couldn't you build in zero G? Space is pretty chilly. Get enough water from either earth or slowly moved in from an asteroid or wandering comet, heat slowly with mirrors, put it into forms and allow it to refreeze. Water would be a great building material if you could direct enough into near earth orbit.

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    11. Re:Did NASA take their stupid pills again? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, you can conceivably build things in zero G. The question would be whether it's easier to build things in zero G or where there's a bit of gravity. Gravity has some advantages: Drop something and it will hit the ground, rather than floating away. While building stuff in zero G looks way cool, I'm more interested in efficiency.

      The problem with getting stuff from Earth is that it's at the bottom of a really deep gravity well, which limits how much stuff we can get out of it. So shipping water and building materials up to Earth orbit is expensive. Remember that, for x amount of fuel, you can ship 6X the weight from the Moon than you could from Earth.

      The problem with getting stuff from Asteroids is political: you have the "what if something goes wrong?" crowd. "Let me get this straight--you want to go find an asteroid and send it toward the Earth?! What happens if you can't control it?! What happens if something goes wrong and it crashes into the Earth?!? Won't somebody think of the children?!?!"

      You could mine it and process it on the asteroid and then ship it to Earth orbit for assembly. But we're back to the gravity issues: Mining and processing in negligible G (eg Ceres, the largest asteroid, is 0.03G) will have it own issues as well. On the moon, we have to deal with dust--imagine how much dust mining an asteroid will generate? This a problem we have to solve anyway, whether it's on the Moon or an asteroid.

      As for water, I may be wrong but space is not only pretty darn cold, it's pretty darn hot. The ISS temperatures range from -250 F to +250 F, depending on whether it's in direct sunlight. So I would think water would melt. But I may be wrong.

    12. Re:Did NASA take their stupid pills again? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Plus - most applicable objects in the solar system are probably piles of rubble, with gravity just enough to hold them together. Which presents its own kinds of problems if you want to move them or make any contruction work with them.

      As for water - yeah, comets are a good example of what would happen to exposed water ice in close solar orbits, though I imagine you can use thin external shields to limit exposure to sunlight or perhaps turning water into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pykrete (lunar dust could work great for this?) But water has another problem - it's hard to build lightweight structures with it, limiting it's potential usage mostly to small radiation shelters on ships and...stationary bases not meant to be moved / launched. Like on the moon.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    13. Re:Did NASA take their stupid pills again? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Well, you wrote your post like you were ignoring a bit that we are practicing near Earth for half a century already...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    14. Re:Did NASA take their stupid pills again? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      So...I take it it's even more plausible in the case of US space program, given that it actually lost much larger number of flight personnel?

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  14. Re:First things first. by daem0n1x · · Score: 0

    We could send the unemployed people to Mars. That would help solve the unemployment problem. Now, with the deficit and energy, that's a little harder...

  15. Re:First things first. by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

    Just Mandate that anyone taking government assistance must live on the moon or mars, this will solve ALL of our problems.

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  16. China/Japan/russia by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    China seam to have more money to throw about, I hear Japan are pretty good at technology and russia seam to be the goto guys if you want something launched. If getting to Mars is a serious scientific venture and not a cock swinging contest, why not work with them as well?

    --
    IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    1. Re:China/Japan/russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chinese certainly have the money, but they do not have trained Astronauts (like US or Russia) for such missions. The Japanese have the 'raw' technology, but their space program is no better than Indians'. In fact, India has had more success than Japan in launching rockets and building satellites. A NASA and ESA partnership is still the best bet, since the Chinese will never be included due to fear of IP theft anyway.

    2. Re:China/Japan/russia by rockNme2349 · · Score: 1

      If getting to Mars is a serious scientific venture and not a cock swinging contest, why not work with them as well?

      Indeed.

      --
      Sewage Treatment Facilities - "Our duty is clear."
    3. Re:China/Japan/russia by J_Omega · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sometimes serious scientific ventures are ALSO cock swinging contests.

    4. Re:China/Japan/russia by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      Chinese certainly have the money, but they do not have trained Astronauts

      The Japanese have the 'raw' technology, but their space program is no better than Indians'.

      Exactly, they need the ESA/NASA atleast as much as ESA/NASA needs them.

      A NASA and ESA partnership is still the best bet,

      Oh i don't disagree, i just think spreading the cost and the effort further would be better.

      since the Chinese will never be included due to fear of IP theft anyway.

      Yeah that does make dealing with china hard, because of the rocket, tracking, etc tech, but Japan and Russia aren't going to be going to war with us any time soon.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    5. Re:China/Japan/russia by dwiget001 · · Score: 1

      || ...not a cock swinging contest.... ||

      I guess this must be a new version of the old tried and true "cock measuring contest" (TM).

    6. Re:China/Japan/russia by Tablizer · · Score: 0

      If getting to Mars is a serious scientific venture and not a cock swinging contest, why not work with them as well?

      It's not serious science, but rather a PR game. Remote-control robots are much cheaper and obviously safer for collecting materials. A few will disagree, but remote robots have potentially better vision than on-site humans and more experts to review the images before selecting.

      Being slow is not a problem: the tortoise wins this one. But things may be faster than MER (current bots) if there's a separate survey bot and collection bot. The nimbler survey bot pre-screens candidate samples and the collection bot comes in behind to scoop up the picks. Perhaps have 2 survey bots per single collection bot.

      Plus, we have to make damn sure well there's no life on Mars before sending humans. The only way is bring back samples from multiple sites first, and this requires RC robots. After this is done, we'll have already done what the humans were supposed to do: collect samples to bring back to Earth.

      The planners have not thought this through all the way yet.

    7. Re:China/Japan/russia by khallow · · Score: 1

      The more parties you involve, the more difficult it becomes to get things down.

    8. Re:China/Japan/russia by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Yes, but Russia, ESA, and NASA have been working together for sometime. I have to say that I am surprised that RSA is not invited to this. It really makes sense to have them.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    9. Re:China/Japan/russia by physburn · · Score: 1
      A global Mars mission would certainly have the sort of budget we'd need for a manned mission, and we've managed (just) to run an international station (without china though). However the more partners in the group, the more politics the more potential incompatiblity between different components. In someways it makes sense to go on from an International space station, to an international moon base, to an international mission to mars. Up to the politians first, and the trouble is that the often go back upon what they say.

      ---

      Space Craft Feed @ Feed Distiller

    10. Re:China/Japan/russia by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      Yeah that does make dealing with china hard, because of the rocket, tracking, etc tech

      Not sure there's any IP left to steal, myself. Go to made-in-china.com and look up the "Long March" missile and launch system (I'm sure you'll find the little "add to basket" button as disturbing as I did). You can buy a ballistic missile off the web, apparently - or at least get in touch with people who will discuss it with you.

      Buy a few dozen and strap them together with Australian kangaroo hide belts perhaps (sorry, have to put a local content plug in somewhere - it's the closest we'll get to a space programme of our own).

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    11. Re:China/Japan/russia by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      But the problem with China is they're still at least a decade away from building a rocket big enough to carry a sizable probe to Mars. Meanwhile, the US can do it with the Atlas V rocket or Delta IV Heavy rocket, Russia can do with the latest Proton rocket, and the Europeans can do it with the Ariane V rocket.

  17. Re:First things first. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When moon men and Martians start to directly threaten my life and my freedoms then I will see your comparison of the two.

  18. Go to Mars by Shivetya · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just wait until you don't have to borrow the money to do so.

    The US needs to figure out its side of the equation, what is more important, buying votes or science?

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:Go to Mars by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Just wait until you don't have to borrow the money to do so.

      The US needs to figure out its side of the equation, what is more important, buying votes or science?

      We're screwed then. Politicians look at everything in the light of "Will this help me win the next election?" The people for the most part aren't interested unless it's American Idol or some such nonsense. Us hardcore science geeks are left out in the cold, marginalised beyond belief.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    2. Re:Go to Mars by khallow · · Score: 1

      The US needs to figure out its side of the equation, what is more important, buying votes or science?

      That's not the real question either, since science as an end in itself isn't much more important than buying votes. We fund science to considerable levels now because we expect it to pay off. What happens when that's not true? What's the point of gathering tremendous information about the Solar System, if nobody is going to be using it aside from a few scientists? Second, science in space costs about one to three orders of magnitude more than equivalent science on Earth. We could be doing a lot more science merely by redirecting space science funding into more mundane things on Earth.

      My take is that the reason the US and EU should be involved, is because this will be the next big human expansion after discovery and development of the New World (1492-present) and the conversion of the entire world to high tech societies (1900-present). They'll be in a position to figure good approaches for colonization and resource utilization. They already have a good idea what is out there. If there are American and European businesses making money in space or people living in colonies on another world, then there's a need for space science beyond just satisfying someone's idle curiosity or feeding a starving graduate student. Peoples' lives and livelihood would depend on that knowledge.

      This is the start of something huge. But we need to figure out how to get from here to there.

    3. Re:Go to Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah Verily!
      There is also a short term payoff in both technology, trained engineers and scientists, and spinoffs as noted above(Apollo is still paying dividends...watch color TV much?)
      There is a middle payoff in the ability to access the resources of the asteroid belt (the technologies could be used to hit Lagrange objects too)
      And long term, we need to become permanently multi-planetary (a species that does not expand becomes extinct)

    4. Re:Go to Mars by khallow · · Score: 1

      and spinoffs as noted above(Apollo is still paying dividends...watch color TV much?)

      Color TV predates NASA by a few years (1950 or so compared to 1958 being the start of NASA). My view is that spinoffs from current space programs are greatly exaggerated in a fashion similar to space science. This leads to a similar argument against funding space-related spinoffs (especially human space flight related spinoffs). Namely, that you can spend a lot less in more focused R&D to generate comparable spinoffs and science. In other words, if spinoffs and science, publicly funded, are your thing, then there are more effective ways to do it.

      Space development and exploration needs something more to justify its existence.

  19. Re:First things first. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But it is for diamonds... 5 carats = 1 gram

  20. Let them Go to Mars... ;-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and let them - in time - take anybody, who embraces war, terrorism, etc. with them!

    The rest of us will stay & work on solving the problems of, eg, Global Warming, Human Overpopulation, Species Depletion, Making various Renewable Energies work, Reducing Poverty & getting Mining companies to create great Robot "Key-Hole" Mining Systems (that will do - for Mining - what Robot Surgery has done for human patients), etc. :-)

  21. Flamebait by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I disagree entirely with this comment but flamebait? I Think it is a valid concern, a stupid one given the NASA is a fraction of the US's Budget but not flamebait. stop modding by agree/disagree!

    --
    IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
  22. Re:First things first. by Marcika · · Score: 1

    Less than half a penny out of every tax dollar goes to NASA. 5 cents goes to the 'global war on Terror.' [see: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ef/Fy2008spendingbycategory.png

    And 5c/$ underestimates it quite a bit -- since DOD spending would also be vastly less without the GWoT, not to speak of DHS spending, big chunks of the Department of VA's costs, and the interest on the debt created by a half-trillion of GWoT-related costs in past budgets...

  23. Re:Euro Agency == unconstitutional? by camperdave · · Score: 1

    For that matter, where does the U.S.C. give power to Congress to create NASA? Hmmm.

    Well... Article 1, Section 8: "The Congress shall have power to...promote the progress of science and useful arts".

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  24. Re:First things first. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The deficit could be solved by selling the organs of the unemployed and energy could be solved by farming methane from the unemployed...

  25. Re:First things first. by Orleron · · Score: 1

    I suppose for energy we could burn unemployed people as fuel.

  26. Congratulations by Sockatume · · Score: 2, Informative

    Your wholly invented figures have surely disproven his claim. And your specious* reference to parable of the broken window hammers it home.

    *The point of the parable is that net economic gain of an action is the sum of the gross economic gain (work for the glazier) and the economic cost (reduced spending power of the cobbler), and therefore an action with an economic cost equal or greater than its gross gain is a net loss. Outside of your invented figures, you have not demonstrated this.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    1. Re:Congratulations by commodore64_love · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I was making a semi-humorous point, which seems to have gone over your head. If you to be anal-retentive, heree are some actual figures on how much it cost the United States to save jobs. Note how the government spends more than the damn jobs are worth (in terms of salary):

      ID $130,028 per job
      KS $ 99,077 per job
      ME $187,220 per job.
      MI $376,443 per job.
      NV $97,782 per job.
      NM $628,989!
      SC $1,502,839 - each

      continued - http://www.google.com/search?q=cost+of+jobs+saved

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  27. Re:Let them Go to Mars... ;-) by mikael_j · · Score: 1

    Can't we just leave all the assholes? I suspect the amount of people we'd have to transport to Mars would be a lot smaller.

    /Mikael

    --
    Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
  28. Re:First things first. by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    How about Lunar Gold, Silver, and Titanium? Mining the ore would only involve the act of bending over and picking it up.

  29. BIG WASTE OF MONEY by xednieht · · Score: 0

    NASA needs to stop wasting taxpayer money on this stupidity. Yeah, it's cool, but there's not one practical benefit to studying Mars when astronauts and cosmonauts get their panties in a bunch over a fucking toilet.

    Demonstrate that you can manage Spaceship Earth before you go fucking around with other planets.

    Pardon the French, this waste aggravates.

    --

    Hope is the currency of fools
    1. Re:BIG WASTE OF MONEY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure the French remain unaggravated.

    2. Re:BIG WASTE OF MONEY by IrquiM · · Score: 1

      One of the reasons to go to Mars and explore, is to be able to understand this Spaceship Earth better. We might also be able to offload a few things from Earth to Mars in the future.

      And - Space is a waste you say? Not compared to the so-called War against Terror.

      --
      This is blinging
    3. Re:BIG WASTE OF MONEY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the USA needs to stop wasting taxpayer money on even bigger stupidity. I am of course, talking about the Iraq war etc. Yeah, it's cool, but there's not one practical benefit to beating them into submission when the oil will run out eventually anyway.

      Stop fighting useless and expensive wars. The NASA will be able to keep it's lousy budget and you'll have more money to pay off your national debts.

    4. Re:BIG WASTE OF MONEY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, that is what they use to say to Christopher Columbus before he jumped in his boat.... Why waste money looking for other lands when we have enough problems here at home.....

      On second thoughts considering what "Advances" USA has brought to the world, maybe they were right.

      P

  30. Re:First things first. by mforbes · · Score: 1

    Ironic choice of planet, and I'm wondering if it was intentional. From Wikipedia's article on Plutocracy:

    The word plutocracy (Modern Greek: - ploutokratia) is derived from the ancient Greek root ploutos, meaning wealth and kratos, meaning to rule or to govern.

    What the article fails to mention is that the world 'ploutos' is derived from the name of the Greek god Pluto (or vice-versa, not sure which was the cause and which was the effect).

    --

    Allegedly real newspaper headline from 1998:
    Man Struck by Lightning Faces Battery Charge

  31. Manned missions? by divisionbyzero · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Good. With the focus now on probes and robots maybe they can stop talking about the idiotic idea of sending people there. I'd rather see them dump the money into developing human-like androids to send to Mars than planning and paying to send humans.

    1. Re:Manned missions? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      I'd rather see them dump the money into developing human-like androids to send to Mars than planning and paying to send humans.

      I agree they should spend their time developing sex-bots. At least I think that's what you're saying... "Send to Mars" sure sounds like a euphemism to me...

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    2. Re:Manned missions? by Meneguzzi · · Score: 1

      Like send Venusian Androids?

      --
      www.meneguzzi.eu/felipe
    3. Re:Manned missions? by divisionbyzero · · Score: 1

      Flamebait? Some people are so weird.

  32. Re:First things first. by Kagura · · Score: 2, Funny

    Good afternoon Sir, I represent Monster Cable® Future Investment Planning Committee. We are interested in providing the highest definition audio and video solutions to our customers, and as such we would like to project our interest in purchasing your stock of Plutonian gold.

    As my old chemistry teacher used to say, "'ey you with the gold!!"

  33. Re:First things first. by nomorecwrd · · Score: 1

    mmmm...
    But how do I know you haven't already sold that to someone else?

    see... see... I'm not falling to your scam.

  34. Don't let the door hit you on your way out . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    NASA, European Space Agency Want To Go To Mars

    Great, with NASA and ESA "gone to Mars," maybe we can get some fresh blood (competition) into space exploration? Like, from some private folks?

    Hell, let them milk some millionaires for a few seconds in space to push space flight technology forwards.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  35. Re:First things first. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn, that's good nerd talk.

  36. Re:Why? by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why not do both. if you look at somewhere like France they invest in "practical" research such as fusion reactors, blue-sky research such as CERN (15%) and the ESA (23%) which is somewhere between the two. The value of blue-sky research is hard to predict but taking a Thatcherite view and dismissing it altogether is naive and apart from slowing progress, it's not economically sound (I'm not saying spending too much on blue-sky is a good idea either). If you look at biological research I'd argue that much less progress has been done recently (compared to what could have been achieved) because too much funding is attached to direct studies like cancer research and not enough is being spread around to just see what happens (mapping the human genome style).

    --
    IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
  37. Re:First things first. by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

    Actually, I wonder the same thing with actual gold sales where you don't physically receive the product. How do you know it isn't some dude with a phone center and a good printer?

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
  38. Who determines what 'high priority' is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you put it to a vote, what do you think the results would be on going to Mars versus making sure kids had enough to eat?

    1. Re:Who determines what 'high priority' is? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Parents can feed their kids. Most parents don't have the resources to start their own space program.

  39. Re:First things first. by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

    Well, it was. Just imagine if we had invested that in something like alternative energy (REAL alternative energy like nukes and algae, not corn subsidies and windmills), or cheaper medicine, or something that could start a new industry. That might hurt in the short run (too big to fail doesn't mean the bank can't fail, it means too many others are so wrapped in it they can't safely fail), but in a few years, imagine what would happen to the economy if we became energy independent.

  40. Re:Euro Agency == unconstitutional? by dlgeek · · Score: 1

    "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"

    Nice try....

  41. Re:Euro Agency == unconstitutional? by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

    Before NASA was NASA, that section was part of the US Air force.

  42. Re:Let them Go to Mars... ;-) by khallow · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a good idea. Don't screw up Earth too much while the grownups are gone. I wonder who you'll blame when the problems of Earth keep on going despite the removal of everyone you thought was at fault?

  43. If they really want to go, then.... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    they NEED commercial space. In particular, they need Bigelow to build their units and test them in space here as well as transporting to the moon, and then living on the moon. We need to have better tested equipment. Finally, we need to skip the idea of sending a mission there AND then coming back. It should be ONE WAY ONLY.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  44. Re:Let them Go to Mars... ;-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just make sure you bring the telephone sanitizers with if you're going to leave the B ship here.

  45. Re:First things first. by jfengel · · Score: 1

    What the article fails to mention is that the world 'ploutos' is derived from the name of the Greek god Pluto

    "Pluto" is actually a Roman god, adapted from the Greek god Hades.

    "Ploutos" was the Greek word for wealth, with connotations of "gold and jewels", i.e. from underground. The Romans took the name of the underworld god Pluto from there.

    (There was a Greek Pluto, but she was a nymph, and therefore aquatic. I believe it's unrelated.)

  46. Re:First things first. by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oil?

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
  47. Re:First things first. by khallow · · Score: 1

    The thing about gold in space is that anyone can grab it and there's virtually no chance of your claim being recognized.

  48. Establishing a public space venture by IronDragon · · Score: 1

    NASA's budget of about 17 billion sounds like a fair amount - more so than any private venture could hope to raise.

    However, consider that the US market for cell phones and related service is expected to top about 37 billion for 2009. Ringtones alone account for about half a billion.

    Sales of Subway's "5 dollar footlongs" have amounted to around 2.6 billion so far.

    I really do not consider money to be the issue blocking space access. Remember, the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and shuttle programs were all funded by US taxpayers. And if you want a better example, realize that we bought the Internet with only 2 decades worth of disposable income. The public is the real driving force behind funding these sorts of things. We spend more on cell phones in 4 years than the Apollo program did in 10.

    This is why I am developing the Open Space Movement. Basically, a collaborative development environment + educational resource/reference library + vendor marketplace + funding aggregation point to allow people to publish any sort of project which may be tested, prototyped, and produced for use within a series of public space ventures.

    If anyone is interested in this, drop a line to openspacemovement @ gmail.com

    We have recently filed for incorporation, and will file for non-profit 501(c)3 status upon receipt of our paperwork. Our website is currently under development at www.osmdevel.org. Register and make use of the forums if you wish. We plan to migrate things to the live site within the next few weeks.

    We hope this will be useful for everybody.

  49. Re:Let them Go to Mars... ;-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's just it: they won't. That's the idea because you are at fault you Beckite monkey.

  50. Re:First things first. by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

    The price of gold isn't high enough to justify the cost of going to Mars and getting it (even if there were bars of it lying around on the surface.)

    There is no test ban treaty on Mars right? Looks like Project Orion might have found a home and a goal!

    --
    Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  51. Re:Let them Go to Mars... ;-) by khallow · · Score: 1

    That's just it: they won't. That's the idea because you are at fault you Beckite monkey.

    I'm pretty sure they'll be able to find someone to blame. Maybe I'm beaming failwaves at them from my dark tower on Mars.

  52. Re:First things first. by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Actually, I wonder the same thing with actual gold sales where you don't physically receive the product. How do you know it isn't some dude with a phone center and a good printer?

    Realistically, you could pull off such a scam by simply issuing gold notes. Lets say that the price of gold is $1000/ounce.

    You collect $100000 from some guy and issue him a certificate stating that he has purchased 100 ounces from you which are his to collect within maturity of this note (or whatever language you want to include)

    Now, you have $100,000 to work with. If Mr. Gold Buyer waits 10 years and wants to cash out his gold, all you have to do is outperform the gold market with that $100,000. You keep (or lose) the difference (ignoring taxes for simplicity)

    There really isn't anything magical about the market... and come to think of it, why did I call that a scam? It's roughly what is going on in today's market with those notes. That's how most things are traded.

    --
    Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  53. Re:First things first. by khallow · · Score: 1

    Diamonds are only that valuable because of the De Beers monopoly. Still at highest quality diamonds, assuming with just a whiff of delusion that these diamonds could be sold for $80k per gram no matter what, then sure, you could probably make a profit. $80 million per kg is a pretty good price for payload.

  54. Re:Euro Agency == unconstitutional? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If brightening your day is what it's about just have another toke.

  55. NASA, European Space Agency Want To Go To Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NASA, European Space Agency Want To Go To Mars

    Yeah? and I want a pony! You can't always get what you want!

  56. Re:First things first. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about Lunar Gold, Silver, and Titanium? Mining the ore would only involve the act of bending over and picking it up.

    There's sodomites in them thar craters!

  57. Re:Euro Agency == unconstitutional? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not sure, but I suspect that you picked up a virus from loving that commodore64. It is obvious that your logic and most likely your brain is gone.

  58. Re:First things first. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (There was a Greek Pluto, but she was a nymph, and therefore aquatic. I believe it's unrelated.)

    Nymphs were female spirits associated with specific land-marks or aspects of nature, but not necessarily aquatic. There were aquatic nymphs but they were a sub-type of the main group.

  59. Re:First things first. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for knidly offering yourself to pay for their travel expenses and relocation

  60. Re:First things first. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many thanks for the correction-- you, of course, are correct. I was working mostly from memory in my post. Either way, the point was that Pluto was both the god of the Underworld and the god of wealth (because wealth was seen as deriving from the ground-- i.e., mined materials.)

    Again, you are correct and I thank you for your post.

  61. Re:First things first. by commodore64_love · · Score: 0

    >>>Perhaps investing in developing the new technologies we would need to get our asses to Mars would create all sorts of new jobs.

    "Yes sir. We created all kinds of jobs. They cost a million dollars each and only pay around 0.1 million each, but hey, at least they are working." - I think I'm going to go break some windows now, so I can create work for glaziers.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  62. Wheres my landing and colony :0) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good to see cooperation in this area, but why now extend the plan to a landing and Mars Orbit station, thence station to colony, even is further out time-wise. Need goal to keep funding. If it looks like it just a search for primitive life or raw science (not doubting the utility, just being realistic), it will face tougher funding challenges. If the plan's end result is a perminant presence on the red planet, then it will be more inspirational?