Mars? After he guts the Space Program?

[gslack]

Obama: Americans to Mars within his lifetime - Yahoo! News

Not likely, he gutted the program and expects us to reach Mars? He MUST mean SOME OTHER Country.

Hmm sounds familiar.... I think I heard another president say something about the moon...... Oh yeah JFK! and its not a deliberate PR job? HAHHAHA!

 

[hyakku]

The moon is commercially viable, first as an outpost, for development, then as a platform for transporting materials both raw and processed into Earth orbit (and finally commercially for tourism).The moon has an abundance of metallic magnesium, oxygen, some helium-3, and water-ice exists in certain crater bottoms. But if not, the raw materials exist there to produce water. Once a base was established on the moon, followed by the next "development" steps mentioned above, a mass ejector could be built to transport materials at very low cost into Earth orbit. Lunar craters are in effect giant open pit mines already excavated into the lunar crust giving us access to minerals and raw materials.

See, I'm not sure the fastest, or most efficient way even to do that would be by NASA. I think you'd be interested in this, its from 1998, and it's kind of interesting to see what they considered lofty aspirations ("large" projected costs, which, in today's trillion dollar bailout markets wouldve seemed like dips in the bucket), but more importantly she outlines that lunar settlement and exploitation is likely to arise from commercial enterprise. I believe she even states that initial space tourists will play a large roll in helping the beginnings of true lunar expedition.

Space Future - The Technical and Economic Feasibility of Mining the Near-Earth Asteroids

Once again, I'm far more in line with our current plan, but if we do renege on that and decide to shoot for the moon, i hope its along the lines of what she pointed out, not just a check handed to them like our previous administration (despite good intentions)

Mankind has never found sufficient reason to do anything if it wasn't financially profitable, and economically viable. A moon base would let us build on the economic viability of our efforts step by step, improving and developing techniques as we go right next door to our home base, Earth and LEO.

I believe, traveling directly to Mars will be at such a great expense that we will probably only make the effort once; if that. If we fail, and a crew is lost, we will never try again. The combined cost in treasure and loss of life will be found to not be worth the potential gain, as compared to the need for the practical application of resources at home on Earth to provide for our many, and unlimited needs.

(We've already "paddled" to the moon, many times) Twelve men have walked on the moon, and we’ve landed there 6 times. We barely scratched at the surface, in that endeavor. We've done a geologic study by collecting rock samples, and tested a lunar rover. Our efforts on the moon don't that much exceed experimental practice flights of the first airplanes, let's say over open water between London and Paris.

See mate, while I've gotta/ agree there may be more potential for exploitation and discovery, consider those numbers. 12 Men, in more than half a century? Let's contrast this with relatively new ventures like SpaceX who already run LEO flights, or Space Adventurers, who already allow for space tourism (one can go to the ISS and stay there for a few days if you have the resources).

On top of that, why wouldn't we just use the industries we're investing in? That would be a win for both sides, and SpaceX has already shown potential and willingness to offer FAR cheaper flights than counterparts, and, ironically enough, even some previous US budgets.

I believe that the president is right in offering inducements to private industry and innovators/entrepreneurs to get involved. They were there all the time and giving them an “award" or a prize is the best way to get them to excel at what they already want in the worse way to do. As I said above if our ventures don't produce economically beneficial results they will not happen.

Agreed, I didn't even know commercial spaceflight had already gained such prominence in the late 90s until now, but after checking some of her notions out I can see many of her ideas working now with commercial industry.

The settlements in North America which (not to mention those in Central and S.A. by the Spanish which were ventures aimed at treasure and empire) were successful and were based on the profit motive; In N.A. I'm thinking here of the Mayflower (and it's sister vessel) and Plymouth Colony. It is roughly equivalent to the situation we are discussing here. The King of England wanted a presence (population) to represent the crown in North America, and offered land-grants to settlers. It was up to them to get themselves there. There were investors willing to take risks to finance settlers and "pilgrims" and their few belongings to make an attempt at establishing settlements.

The frailty of their ships were barely equal to the task of sailing the Atlantic, and the people poorly equipped to make a viable settlement once they arrived. Pioneers are made of sturdy stuff. Our politicians, unless they were driven by national survival, are not. I don't think we will ever make more than a symbolic political gesture to that goal if we first over-reach, and that is why, in the end, those who actually do settle Mars, will have first settled our own moon; sadly I doubt that will be the United States. Instead it will be a country with a real fire in their gut to be first at something magnificent. All highly speculative I know, but worth considering as an appraisal of where we stand regardless of political leanings.

FYI - I enjoyed reading your ideas on the subject. You seem to have given real thought to the subject.

That was a salient analysis, definitely not overly speculative in the least. I mean, we're talking about events that haven't happened yet so its gonna inherently require some of that.

I agree with you, an avoidance of overstretch is needed. I'm not that learned on the subject, but upon the limited reading i've done, and considering some of the former authors proposals, I don't think the situations are direct parallels. You're definitely correct in asserting that the ships and their denizens weren't as prepared as they should have been, but in our situation, private corporation is on par, if not superior to NASA in many regards. Nasa has always used private contractors, and thus their faculties are more than equipped to support commercial space enterprises.

Also, explicit in this plan is the goal of landing on NEA's first. If I am to take into account the above author's relatively strong analysis, then this seems like a better step in terms of economical and technological return.

Again, I'm no expert in Astrophysics or anything of the sorts, so I may be under or overestimating the potential for the moon or NEA's, but in most of the more compelling arguments I find that the implicit notion is ambivalence at best, and slight disdain at worse for NASA's relative mismanagement of its large economic inheritance.

 

[Xenophon]

The closest Barry will ever get to seeing man on mars is if he rents 'total recall.'

 

[HUGGY]

The closest Barry will ever get to seeing man on mars is if he rents 'total recall.'

Defying the logic of the well known quote.."I was born at night..but not last night"

Your signature overlooks the passage of the pharm bill by the GOP in the middle of the night making it illegal for medicare to negotiate the price of meds. The bill went past the allowed time for voting and was defeated yet the vote and the twisting of arms and bribes continued till it was passed. I submit that incident might be an example of the worst congress in our history. Just sayin....

 

[Xenophon]

The closest Barry will ever get to seeing man on mars is if he rents 'total recall.'

Defying the logic of the well known quote.."I was born at night..but not last night"

Your signature overlooks the passage of the pharm bill by the GOP in the middle of the night making it illegal for medicare to negotiate the price of meds. The bill went past the allowed time for voting and was defeated yet the vote and the twisting of arms and bribes continued till it was passed. I submit that incident might be an example of the worst congress in our history. Just sayin....

Got it beat:

Barrycare

Stimulous

Cap & trade

Nuff said.

 

[rightwinger]

Other than the Star Trek factor, what value does sending humans to Mars have over sending a horde of rovers to investigate the surface?

What will happen if we don't go to Mars?

 

[Avatar4321]

Other than the Star Trek factor, what value does sending humans to Mars have over sending a horde of rovers to investigate the surface?

What will happen if we don't go to Mars?

We'll continue our existance and any benefit that we would have recieved from going there will be completely lost.

 

[rightwinger]

Other than the Star Trek factor, what value does sending humans to Mars have over sending a horde of rovers to investigate the surface?

What will happen if we don't go to Mars?

We'll continue our existance and any benefit that we would have recieved from going there will be completely lost.

How does walking around on Mars "continue our existence"??

What benefits do we get from having men walk around on Mars for a few days that we could not get from having ten times the number of unmanned rovers exploring for a year?

 

[American Horse]

Other than the Star Trek factor, what value does sending humans to Mars have over sending a horde of rovers to investigate the surface?

What will happen if we don't go to Mars?

We'll continue our existance and any benefit that we would have recieved from going there will be completely lost.

How does walking around on Mars "continue our existence"??

What benefits do we get from having men walk around on Mars for a few days that we could not get from having ten times the number of unmanned rovers exploring for a year?

Mars Exploration Rover "Spirit" is stuck in the sand at the present moment (since most of 2008), and has been going into the second Martian winter. The effort to free it has been given up and instead efforts have been prioritized to put it in a favorable position to gather sunlight early as possible next Martian Spring. it has been declared a "stationary lander" and will continue to operate in that mode if if can survive the Martian winter and its batteries have enough "spark" to boot up next spring.

 

[rightwinger]

We'll continue our existance and any benefit that we would have recieved from going there will be completely lost.

How does walking around on Mars "continue our existence"??

What benefits do we get from having men walk around on Mars for a few days that we could not get from having ten times the number of unmanned rovers exploring for a year?

Mars Exploration Rover "Spirit" is stuck in the sand at the present moment (since most of 2008), and has been going into the second Martian winter. The effort to free it has been given up and instead efforts have been prioritized to put it in a favorable position to gather sunlight early as possible next Martian Spring. it has been declared a "stationary lander" and will continue to operate in that mode if if can survive the Martian winter and its batteries have enough "spark" to boot up next spring.

The Mars rover Spirit landed in 2004 and was designed to execute a 90 day mission. It is still broadcasting data even though it is stuck in the sand.

What happens to a manned mission if they become stuck in the sand and cannot return to base?

 

[American Horse]

How does walking around on Mars "continue our existence"??

What benefits do we get from having men walk around on Mars for a few days that we could not get from having ten times the number of unmanned rovers exploring for a year?

Mars Exploration Rover "Spirit" is stuck in the sand at the present moment (since most of 2008), and has been going into the second Martian winter. The effort to free it has been given up and instead efforts have been prioritized to put it in a favorable position to gather sunlight early as possible next Martian Spring. it has been declared a "stationary lander" and will continue to operate in that mode if if can survive the Martian winter and its batteries have enough "spark" to boot up next spring.

The Mars rover Spirit landed in 2004 and was designed to execute a 90 day mission. It is still broadcasting data even though it is stuck in the sand.

What happens to a manned mission if they become stuck in the sand and cannot return to base?

There you go: they would extricate it. But taking risks is part of exploration. I understand from your comments that you don't favor going there anyway, but on the other side of the coin I support going there as part of human destiny.

I support the president’s policy vis-à-vis manned space exploration. I do so because it allows for, even promotes a flexible path, and commercialization, and suggests a loosening of the bureaucratic shackles of NASA. We have to be permitted to take risks even though doing so may be politically problematic.

 

[Samson]

I understand from your comments that you don't favor going there anyway, but on the other side of the coin I support going there as part of human destiny.

If its Human Destiny, then why isn't it funded through the UN?

Shouldn't Bangledesh be paying its fair share?

 

[American Horse]

I understand from your comments that you don't favor going there anyway, but on the other side of the coin I support going there as part of human destiny.

If its Human Destiny, then why isn't it funded through the UN?

Shouldn't Bangledesh be paying its fair share?

They will have paid their fair share. They have little with which to "pay", and some would say that that will pay; by way of the loss in the common environment. We all supposedly 'pay' a price through environmental change.

In any macro-economy there will be some who only participate on the fringes. The UN, is not a proper organization to promote space travel, it would only hamper progress.

Obviously there are benefits which accrue from leadership as opposed to being among those left behind. I used "destiny" because chances are that there will be no enduring destiny for humanity if we don't scatter our seed; the opportunity may be short lived, and it is here and now.

 

[HUGGY]

Other than the Star Trek factor, what value does sending humans to Mars have over sending a horde of rovers to investigate the surface?

What will happen if we don't go to Mars?

I've got your answer and I know you will not like it.

Our survival as a species yes and even possibly the very survival of planet earth may depend sometime in the distant or not so distant future of landing a team of men on a wayward astroid or comet or even a small planet with the unavoidalbe mission of altering its course or blowing it up into acceptablely small chunks. The last big asteroid to hit earth was about 6 miles accross and it killed 99% of ALL living things. It will happen again at some point in the future. That is gauranteed. If you don't believe in asteroids take a look at the moon. Count how many craters in your view. All of the big craters if hit us represent earth animals extinction.

This is a mission we cannot leave to robots when it come up. There will be none or little time for a second effort.

 

[Samson]

I understand from your comments that you don't favor going there anyway, but on the other side of the coin I support going there as part of human destiny.

If its Human Destiny, then why isn't it funded through the UN?

Shouldn't Bangledesh be paying its fair share?

They will have paid their fair share. They have little with which to "pay", and some would say that that will pay; by way of the loss in the common environment. We all supposedly 'pay' a price through environmental change.

In any macro-economy there will be some who only participate on the fringes. The UN, is not a proper organization to promote space travel, it would only hamper progress.

Obviously there are benefits which accrue from leadership as opposed to being among those left behind. I used "destiny" because chances are that there will be no enduring destiny for humanity if we don't scatter our seed; the opportunity may be short lived, and it is here and now.

You mean, we're gonna "leave behind" Bangladeshis?

What will happen to their "seed?"

Why isn't the UN a proper organization to promote space travel? Wouldn't it most appropriately represent Humanity?

 

[mudwhistle]

What's this with Obama trying to reshoot Armageddon the movie?

Now the dip-shit wants us to fly to a friggen asteroid?

Is he smoking crack?

 

[rightwinger]

Other than the Star Trek factor, what value does sending humans to Mars have over sending a horde of rovers to investigate the surface?

What will happen if we don't go to Mars?

I've got your answer and I know you will not like it.

Our survival as a species yes and even possibly the very survival of planet earth may depend sometime in the distant or not so distant future of landing a team of men on a wayward astroid or comet or even a small planet with the unavoidalbe mission of altering its course or blowing it up into acceptablely small chunks. The last big asteroid to hit earth was about 6 miles accross and it killed 99% of ALL living things. It will happen again at some point in the future. That is gauranteed. If you don't believe in asteroids take a look at the moon. Count how many craters in your view. All of the big craters if hit us represent earth animals extinction.

This is a mission we cannot leave to robots when it come up. There will be none or little time for a second effort.

I saw that movie....Bruce Willis saved the world but ended up with Ben Affleck marrying his daughter. You can't win them all

 

[HUGGY]

What's this with Obama trying to reshoot Armageddon the movie?

Now the dip-shit wants us to fly to a friggen asteroid?

Is he smoking crack?

I don't suppose you could just limit you stupid "End of Days" armageddon crap to yourself or your immediate church and let the rest of our species do the best we can to survive?

 

[hyakku]

What's this with Obama trying to reshoot Armageddon the movie?

Now the dip-shit wants us to fly to a friggen asteroid?

Is he smoking crack?

Oh yea, especially when we KNOW that NEA's have precious metals and minerals, along with other unknowns. Not to mention many of them are closer and more easily accesible than the moon and could be better spots than the moon to launch to Mars from.

Regardless, as long as we complete our own deep space ship, we should be fine getting to Mars eventually. Asteroids hold more potential about explaining and possible discoveries in my opinion than the moon from what I've researched. Everyone talks about their being water on the moon so we should set up a base, but the amount of water that bomb showed is akin to dropping a bomb in the sahara and looking for water molecules. We need to know if there's more outside of that rather large basin or if its actually deceptively dry before we just start setting up moon bases.

Unmanned space vehicles will continue to evolve as unmanned technology gets better here. It makes more sense to do it the unmanned way until we get more concrete info on both NEA's and the Moon, but wasting billions just to go back to the moon again is worthless without a solid plan or impetus other than "A lunar base in the future."

 

[Samson]

Unmanned space vehicles will continue to evolve as unmanned technology gets better here. It makes more sense to do it the unmanned way until we get more concrete info on both NEA's and the Moon, but wasting billions just to go back to the moon again is worthless without a solid plan or impetus other than "A lunar base in the future."

Unmanned vehicles are boring.

I thought the whole purpose of The Space Program was to produce X rated films in Zero gravity.