Posted on 12/21/2009 4:41:59 PM PST by KevinDavis
Why should humans go to Mars? Many reasons for and against have been cited over the years, and many still struggle to see the relevance of this priority. It seems so far out, so detached from life on Earth, and in many ways it is. Mars is physically hundreds of millions of kilometers away. It is colder than the coldest environment on Earth and it has an atmosphere—or lack thereof—that would kill you within thirty seconds or do in a most unpleasant fashion. Compared to terrestrial destinations it loses hands down. However, we need to look at Mars in a different context.
(Excerpt) Read more at thespacereview.com ...
Better yet, we could send all the Rats THERE.
He's also a fairly pleasant fellow to spend a day with when you're weathered in waiting for the RVR to come up. Understand this was fairly early in his career (the Vari-ez had not even been flown). At the time he was pretty much just another designer of fairly small experimental aircraft. Still, he was not intolerant of those around him. Nor was he annoyingly self-absorbed as some “pioneers” are reputed to be.
Just four folks, two planes and one airport waiting for the weather to come up. Those that were on aeronautically informal terms with Lindberg tell me that he was the same way. Just another pilot when the press/public wasn't around. The vocation tends to be something of an equalizer in that respect.
“You sound like a typical lib...tolerance is a one way street with you.
Oh, love your screen name; looks good enough to get you into a White House dinner these days.”
LOL! Well, I can’t save you from yourself on this one. I’ll let your commentary serve as my counter-argument. ;-)
I’d still like you to inform JimRob that he runs a libertarian site, according to you.
“I’d still like you to inform JimRob that he runs a libertarian site, according to you.”
I’ll let you tell on me if you want. :-)
Because its there?
Just change the water filters on Mars regularly and all will be well.
Not my style, even when I'm dealing with a punk.
“Not my style, even when I’m dealing with a punk.”
Philosophically, we may be closer than I first thought.
"I put myself in the (Those who fear expansion of Government control) group, and do not hide the fact that I have a clear bias on [ Anthropogenic global warming (AGW)]. My bias is based on fear of Government expansion and the observation of AGW data presentation fraud - not based on financial or any other personal benefit. I merely have found that the closer you look at the data and alarmists’ presentations, the more fraud you find and the less you think there is an AGW problem... For decades, as a professional experimental test engineer, I have analyzed experimental data and watched others massage and present data. I became a cynic; My conclusion – “if someone is aggressively selling a technical product who’s [sic] merits are dependant [sic] on complex experimental data, he is likely lying”. That is true whether the product is an airplane or a Carbon Credit."
I think we’re more likely to find libertarians on these particular threads rather than the threads about “I WUV SARAH!!!” or “OMG MITT WEARS SECRET UNDERWEAR!!!”
“Agree 100% The return is huge, starting with jobs.”
And a critical upgrading of the US educational system - a rising tide lifts all boats including those leaky rafts manned by the nay sayers.
“The naysayers of manned space exploration are most likely descended from those who in 1867 screamed bloody murder over the $7.2 million dollar purchase of Alaska.”
and the Louisiana Purchase before that, not to mention shaking fists at Columbus for wasting the Queen’s money in 1492.
“Don’t worry the environment nuts will ban space travel by humans else we disturb the “pristine biosphere of mars”.”
As they have previously argued about the moon...
“Obviously there is no one to trade with in space”
Yet...
“The forward momentum of the space program was killed by Nixon. If we had continued on with Apollo and then shifted into the next gear, we would have had a small (6 man) moonbase by 1985 and a manned Mars mission by 1995. After that, the future would have been wide open.”
Nixon killed Orion, Dynasoar, and Nerva and of course Apollo after 16 returned.
If Orion was allowed to proceed, then it would have been Mars by 1965 and Venus by 1974.
An none of these weightlessness, solar radiation problems we have with the current set up would have been a bother.
10,000 ton payload, crew of 150 - for the Orion small starter version. 40,000,000 ton for the intersteller version.
That was the wide open future that never was...
Except those were all direct benefits ... had they been a ‘natural progression’, then you might - if you could afford it - be now using a brand new Altar computer with nearly 32K of memory and a dot matrix printer; software would be something programmed in COBOL; some woman you know might be employed by ATT as a switch board operator; your doctor might think penicillin is the cat's meow.
The very idea of scanning a human body using magnetism or carrying a telephone in a shirt pocket would be absolutely revolutionary - you would be wise to rush out and patent those ideas.
That a telephone could do something besides make phone calls would not even appear in Popular Mechanics’ visions of the future.
“I think you can also see how the discovery of the New World have been happened without being attributed directly to Columbus”, said your ancestor in 1493.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.