Today: Iraq

[Occhidiangela]

Next week: Mars.

Next month: Uranus. Why not? The Seventh Planet of Sol is, like many politically motivated and grandiose pronouncements, is a nice big bag of gas. :P

Why a manned mission to Mars?

Why not explore with RPV's for 10 - 20 missions? The military is going ape over RPV's and UAV's as a more cost effective way to do reconnaisance. With payload weight being a key design metric, how does one justify the weight of two years of food and water?

For an interesting exploration of what a mission to Mars might look like, read C.K. Anderson's A Step Beyond

[Guest]

To encourage inovation and research in areas that are being neglected.

Any time you make yourself a big goal and have to build for it you push research and creativity ahead more than if you build goals to match your technology.

To simply find out data about Mars - yes its cheaper to send robots. But My feeling is that reasearch needed to allow the manned mission will be more valuable than anything we learn about Mars.







That said Im not overly impressed with the idea - and living on the moon seems kind of pointless.

[--Pete]

Hi,

To encourage inovation and research in areas that are being neglected.

While that is true in general, it does not apply to this case. Consider what can be learned from developing a manned mission to another planet:
1 Exploration of that planet -- can be done better and cheaper with unmanned platforms.
2 Ability to navigate in space -- we've had that since the mid sixties.
3 Ability to live in a hostile environment on a planet -- did that on the Moon, have been doing that in Antarctica.
4 Ability to survive long periods in space -- that's the function of the space station. And of Mir before that and of Skylab before that.

The reality is that there is a limited research budget. The priority for space research is and should be relatively low. To use the space portion of the research budget on a program that does not yield a large amount of information or technology is to waste it. This program, like most wasteful programs will not survive to be executed, and any funds spent on it are funds flushed.

--Pete

[Life]

After reading Michael Moore's book "Dude where's my Country". (not to hijack the thread or anything)... One has to really wonder if even 1/16th of what Mr. Moore's book details is correct, what is George W's motivation to attemtp to do this? In my estimation he is the biggest whako I've ever seen on the face of the planet.

Life

[Cryptic]

I hope the ambitious new plans are just in the spirit of exploration - if we ever get to the point where we have an interplanetary *program*, and not just missions here and there, then it makes sense to cheapen payloads by launching them from Luna instead of Earth. But I can't fathom how many from-the-moon launches you'd have to do to see a cost savings.
:huh:

The other answer, of course, is that there's a military interest in being the first and only nation permanently stationed on the moon (Moon is a Harsh Mistress, anyone?). One armed nuke up there and a couple hundred people who can live their lives semi-independently, and the balance of power on Earth is irrevocably shaken.

Hopefully that's just idle paranoia ... but when I heard it, I found it interesting.

[ShadowHM]

The reality is that there is a limited research budget. 

I thought the reality was that there is a limited budget - period.

The deficit is alarmingly large and getting larger. And the American taxpayer is not in much of a mood for tax increases.

This announcement still has me a tad baffled. Maybe I just don't get the psychology of it. Maybe the American taxpayer would swallow tax increases if they thought there was some pride thing in it for them along the 'Americans leading the way again' line? Maybe the notion is that all manner of other spending over-runs could be camoflaged by the 'new space race'?

[Doc]

Mars must be purged of any and all Martian Meapons of Mass Destruction. We don't want any Earth Shattering Kabooms™. When and if the Martian Government proves cooperative and decides to work with us, control will be returned to them.

Seriously now. The manned Moon Base being used as a launch pad to mars is hogwash. It's simple defensive measures. China is planning much the same, to secure a base on the moon. Instead of just being a manner of pride, getting a base on the moon is more of a protective means. The moon makes for a perfect launch platform to launch stuff at earth. Ronny Ray-Gun in his Star Wars Program talked of making a Death Star out of the Moon and while it sounds funny, I don't think he was kidding. Why not? We have orbital platform launchers already. We call them weather satellites. Today's forcast... Nuclear halocaust. And as Shadow mentioned, all this spending would allow for a little of the extra cash to slip through the cracks for special projects. All of this talk lends a a bit of credibility to the rumours coming out of the Skunkworks for a star fighter, an aircraft capable of space flight and manned warfare in outer space. Such a vehical would be needed to defend something like a moon base, and guard the supply route for it's construction. And if that sounds crazy... Read the Chabwell Report about how the Bush Admin has siphoned off a huge chunk of money into a study if our satellite network is secure from terrorists.

And before you write all of this off as nutzo, remember, the Shrub's father was a fanatical supporter of the Star Wars Defense Program. And so far, he has been a good son in carrying out his father's agenda.

[Raziel]

After reading Michael Moore's book "Dude where's my Country". (not to hijack the thread or anything)... One has to really wonder if even 1/16th of what Mr. Moore's book details is correct, what is George W's motivation to attemtp to do this?

Don't have to be Michael Moore to know the answer... votes.

Bush is doing it for the "gee-whiz lets go to space!!!" votes. There is no way the funding will get through congress.

It seems a lot of people are either too smart and see through the bs, or don't know/care about the value of the moon anyway. Thus far the only real cheering i've heard have been from the nutjobs who think the moon must be made into a military installation to save us from the perils of Red China. (Yes, that's pretty much what they say.)

By the way, the moon would be a nice place to set up a mass driver and lob a few rocks back at countries on Earth you hate. But only a lunatic would do that sort of thing...

Personally I find it difficult to see why I should give a damn about the Moon, or Mars. So we get people to Mars. Say.. ten people. Takes them six months to get there, six months to get back. While they're there they do.. what? They can't exactly kick start terraforming, now can they?

It's a laudable scientific goal and the information it brings us will be interesting, but hardly applicable to today's society. Nearly everything a manned mission to Mars would do can and is being done by automation. Once you send people you open the door to a whole host of logistical problems (like taking along food for the 12 month round trip).

Oh and did I mention that it's something like two years between launch windows on Mars?

[Bun-Bun]

1 Exploration of that planet -- can be done better and cheaper with unmanned platforms.

I submit that a properly designed long-term manned mission can equal or exceed the value of an unmanned mission (or set thereof) due to the flexibility and immediacy of a meat-computer on the scene. If it's a plant-the-flag-and-take-a-picture-bye-bye mission, it's much more efficient to send unmanned missions.

Not that I trust NASA to put together a properly designed mission or Congress to fund it. I can see a plant-the-flag mission as a prelude to a really valuable scientific mission, but I'd bet on the latter mission being cancelled due to budget concerns. I see that happening with the ISS now.

4 Ability to survive long periods in space -- that's the function of the space station. And of Mir before that and of Skylab before that.

How about the ability to survive long periods in space without a Soyuz Meals On Wheels truck pulling up every few months? I don't think we've really addressed that one.

I'd also like to add:

5. We would get a more efficient ground-to-orbit lift vehicle. I think that's something that is needed and would pay off in a number of other ways.

To use the space portion of the research budget on a program that does not yield a large amount of information or technology is to waste it.

I see value in a Big Hairy Audacious Goal. It may not be monetary value; it may not even be technological value. It might even be slightly wasteful when viewed in the overall context of the US budget. Nevertheless, it inspires and educates and draws our eyes out past our mean little horizons to better things.

Now, if they strip the NASA budget for unmanned exploration to fund this, I'll bounce right into the chorus of naysayers. We need those programs.

[Guest]

If you make a massive shift if how you focus your resources I think you will have more technological adavances.

Right now we spend a huge amount of money and learn very little in the way of practiacable knowledge.
If we actually had to build completely new contraptions rather than just try to find cheaper ways of making robots on rocket, we might actually get a few useful by products.



But personally I am against it. Id rather waste all the money making astroid devices. Sure we probably wont need it, but it least it might be useful.

Also a key element in new technology is - time contraints and imperative. Historicallly these are key element to programs that create real change. I dont see this with a Mars mission.

[Guest]

Technology is always a military advantage.

But your nukes on the moon stuff is half-banked liberal paranoia.

[Occhidiangela]

. . . paranoia, the missiles from the moon, then the Ballistic Missile Defense system under development starts to make an interesting sort of sense.

4 of 5 tests with the SM3 have succeeded, so far. It is nearing an "achievable" stage, albeit 'spensive.

[Rhydderch Hael]

The only reasonable space program I could see manifest in my lifetime with any practical scientific merit would the the creation of a manned facility on Luna. Planetary exploration will not derive any immediate benefit and would stand to drain focus and resources to a lunar program that will achieve results.

That program? The fabrication and utilization of a very large optical telescope on the far side of Luna. The Hubble Space Telescope has an advantage over Earthbound scopes in that it it beyond any atmospheric haze. It's weakness lies in the fact that it is a comparatively small telescope compared to the Earthbounds.

The largest single-mirror reflecting telescopes on Earth are limited to their size by the pull of Earth's gravity. The sheer weight of the glass used to make these mirrors increase in proportion to their size— go beyond the limit, and the weight of the mirror will pull the optics out of shape.

A very large telescope on Luna, one that is constructed there, will gain advantages over both Hubble and the Earthbound telescopes. First of all, the lack of an obscuring atmosphere on the moon. Secondly, the lesser gravity means the lens will weigh less, allowing such an optic to be fabricated much larger than is feasible on Earth. Thirdly, a lunar night lasts two Terran weeks. Earthbound optical telescopes are limited to operations at night, after all, and night only lasts hours on Earth. Night on the moon lasts many, many days.

With such a telescope, astronomical research would take a massive leap in depth of potential.

[Occhidiangela]

Expensive, but talk about a quantum leap in capability!

[Chaerophon]

Thus far the only real cheering i've heard have been from the nutjobs who think the moon must be made into a military installation to save us from the perils of Red China. (Yes, that's pretty much what they say.)

Very true, but what they don't realize is that China's no longer Red; it's turning a lovely plum and within 25-30 years will be as Blue as the rest of us.

[Chaerophon]

But your nukes on the moon stuff is half-banked liberal paranoia.

Last I checked, it wasn't the Democrats who were planning on setting up a moon base. Nor was it Clinton who advocated the Star Wars program... Liberals tend to be more concerned with matters on the home front. Did George Bush suddenly become a liberal? Paranoia about WMD? What? hmmmm.....

[Lord_Olf]

Hail Rhydderch Hael,

good point here - the best I have seen in favor of this program so far. What you say is something based on physics, it is logical and about an U-Turn away from the "Let's plant the Flag an be happy"-stuff. This is, so far, the one application that makes sense to me.

On the other hand: Sorry for talking what is in my heart here, but:

I'm really for exploration, as long as it makes sense. Not meaning that space exploration does not make sense, but, what possible value will even the discovery of water deposits on Mars yield? On the other hand, we have not even gotten round to exploring most of our planet (the oceans) below relatively shallow limits (40-60m, pretty much the limits to recreational diving, too). True, there are some DSV's around, but I'd really like to know their funding compared to what NASA oder ESA or the other space agencies are getting.

Sure, there may be interesting facts out there in space, but if there are, they are either pretty far away (and we won't therefore be able to study them in depth anytime soon) or facts gained from experiments in Zero G. On the other hand, still having so much to learn about the "depth" that Terra Firma has to offer, why not give that a try? Not sexy enough, maybe? And here we come back to the "Raise the flag and be happy"-element...

Well, not at all in disfavour of exploration, but it could be started elsewhere... OK, you Trekkies out there, have at me ;-)

Take care,
Lord_Olf

PS: Not disagreeing with your post, Rhydderch, but it seemed to my the best to respond to

[Guest]

1 There is little reason to use the moon.

2 I was suggested that the people on the moon would some how be more safely able to use nukes. Thats silly.


Nukes do have certain uses in missle defense systems, but the moon is pretty much a nonissue.

[Guest]

What can I say.......

[Bun-Bun]

Thirdly, a lunar night lasts two Terran weeks. Earthbound optical telescopes are limited to operations at night, after all, and night only lasts hours on Earth. Night on the moon lasts many, many days.

I'm all for a Lunar base and telescope, but isn't the corollary of a two-week Lunar night a two-week Lunar day? If your argument is that a larger percentage of useful viewing time is presented due to fewer lost twilight hours, that's fine, but as stated your third argument makes no sense.