Houston native to head moon-Mars panel

Houston Chronicle ^ | January 19, 2004 | AP

[Moonman62]

Errr... no. Right now, our robot explorers are goign hither and yon with no set purpose... we're looking at Mars just to look at Mars, essentially. But under the revised policy, we'll have robots that are going to various targets to do various things for a specific end goal. And Hubble is getting old and creaky, and maintenance is very expensive (about half a billion for a Shuttle flight); feel free to BUY Hubble, and maintain it.

And what would that end goal be? According to the new policy they must support future manned missions. Currently scientists use them to increase our knowledge about the planets and their history. While that may not be all that worthwhile, the knowledge we get from space telescopes have a bearing on physics, and our ability now and especially in the future to control our environment.

I would rather not maintain Hubble. However we could launch a brand new one for much less than the cost of one maintenance mission.

>And you really think it's a good idea for GWB to tell them what type of spacecraft to build? Nothing like that has occured, so far as is known.

He's already told them to build an Apollo type capsule.

[ambrose]

Russia and Japan.

[monkeywrench]

Thank you.

[Mr.Atos]

We learn valuable lessons from our mistakes. in 67 we learned that trace nitrogen is a fire repellant for pure Oxygen. In 70 we learned to improvise a CO2 Scrubbers in an emergency. In 86, we learned not to get too confident, and in 2003 we learned that eco-friendly materials can kill people too. There will be more mistakes. But, there will be much more progress. And the benefits will be far greater to humanity this time than just tin-foil, tang, and microwave ovens.

Atos

[Moonman62]

And the benefits will be far greater to humanity this time than just tin-foil, tang, and microwave ovens.

Like what? The few useful spinoffs NASA has developed have been done on the ground as basic research. There's very little need for new goverment controlled manned missions.

[Moonman62]

Where did Bush say he was ditching telescopes and robot explorers? I guess I was washing my hair. Please give me the quote.

Actually he said that all of NASA's new projects will have to support manned missions. When it comes to unmanned probes, GWB's paln is for them to actually increase, but they'll have to support manned missions. As to whether that will actually be the case, or if this is more GWB doublespeak (like how he supports a strong dollar), I don't know.

Now can you help me out? On the White House policy page there is this claim:

Kidney dialysis machines were developed as a result of a NASA-developed chemical process, and insulin pumps were based on technology used on the Mars Viking spacecraft.

That sounds to me like we wouldn't have dialysis machines if it weren't for NASA. However, that's not even close to being true. Dialysis machines go all the way back to the mid-1800's, and the first useful ones come from the 1940's. Can you explain to me what NASA means by that claim?

[Mr.Atos]

Knowledge! Technology! and Spirit!

"The Earth is too fragile a basket for the human race to kepp all of its eggs in." - Robert Heinlein

[orionblamblam]

> And what would that end goal be?

Manifest destiny.

> the knowledge we get from
space telescopes have a bearing on physics, and our ability now and especially in the future
to control our environment.

Then imagine the knowledge we'll gain by actually *going,* rather than staying home and looking at pictures and strip charts...

On Earth, our ability to fundamentally alter the weather is limited. nto because we *couldn't*, but because we'd be unsure jsut what the results would be. But on Mars... we can *make* the weather. What better way to figure out climatology than by creating a climate? Hell, we could terraform the moon if we wanted to...

> He's already told them to build an Apollo type capsule.

Ummm... I don't see that. The Apollo-type capsule was the preferred options of both Lockheed and Boeing in the now-oddly-named Orbital Space Plane project, which is beign transformed into the CEV. Basically, Bush was *told* what sort of people mover was coming along.

[orionblamblam]

> The few useful spinoffs NASA has developed have been done on the ground as basic research.

... basic research that would not have been done without a space program that desired said research.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Actually he said that all of NASA's new projects will have to support manned missions. When it comes to unmanned probes, GWB's paln is for them to actually increase, but they'll have to support manned missions. As to whether that will actually be the case, or if this is more GWB doublespeak (like how he supports a strong dollar), I don't know.

Well, that's much different than your claim he was ditching telescopes and robot explorers, now isn't it?

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Any idea what other countries?

I think Bush is lighting a fire under Lockeed and Boeing. You might say, it's a message in a capsule.

I don't think we're going international on this. If some of it is, I would imagine it will be on our invitation and under strict guidelines. At least in a perfect world, it would be. But then in a perfect world we'd all go together. So we should go alone and let the others come later as they can.

You know, Bush wants freedom and democracy to spread around the world. As soon as those who need it the most, begin to respond to this approach they too can add to the world's collective knowledge and help out with advancing technology. Gosh what a concept! Thank God for George W. Bush.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

This should get U.S. aerospace companies working overtime.

Russia Space Engineers Eager to Join U.S

[Moonman62]

Well, that's much different than your claim he was ditching telescopes and robot explorers, now isn't it?

It's different, but it still amounts to putting emphasis on NASA's weakness. We already know that the Hubble is going to be ditched.

I think we should allow NASA to keep developing space telescopes, put new planetary explorers on hold, and start a whole new organization for manned exploration. We could get four times as much done for half the money.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

It's different, but it still amounts to putting emphasis on NASA's weakness.

No it puts emphasis on exploration. Human-robotic exploration. It will repair the tear in our nation's exploration fabric and open up all areas of science. Telescopes on the Moon are in the offering. The farside shielded from Earth's radio noise will give astronomers something to see. Don't you agree? Or how about arrays of telescopes or dishes in craters pointed back into time? We'll need robotic missions to start. Orbital missions to more closely examine lunar resources, get samples and identify landing sites. There is plenty to keep everyone busy. Robotics will advance along with human presence. They compliment each other. Alone neither can maximize their potential.

[Moonman62]

I'm for exploration, but please take it away from NASA, and any other entrenched bureacracies. NASA can be left with what they do well. My point is we could start a new organization (much as NASA was back in the 1960's) and do a whole lot better, and take away another chance for GWB to expand the size, power, and cost of the federal government.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Get off the Bush bashing kick and you might see the good in his space initiative.

[Moonman62]

The only good thing is he isn't increasing their budget even more.

[Mr.Atos]

I certainly can agree with your point that such a venture is best accomplished via the market and private companies and corporations - as with everything else. And I have no love for NASA. But it is the historical caretaker of space exploration as far as America is concerned, and despite the entrenched bureaucracy, there is more experience, information, knowledge, intuition, and all the 'right stuff' there to get the job done. You cannot recreate that. Granted, you can clean it up. Space exploration is, however, a primary national interest. Regardless of aged notions (read, fears) of colonization, that is precisely what space exploration is about. It will take the monetary, and legislative power of the greatest nations on the globe to cultivate the incentives for space exploration because there is not any now that can overcome the price and fear required to convince a corporate board to do anything more than circle the globe with more metal crap. Additionally, there is a national security issue to space exploration and colonization as well and THAT is precisely the realm of the United States Government. Regardless of whether one chooses (or refuses) to recognize the benefits of the 'space race,' the contributions in terms of research, knowledge, technology, jobs, and capital, far outweigh any of the initial expeditures, and will again. The economy does not exist in a bubble and does not, in fact, conform to the falacy of the zero sum theory. Cultivate a new frontier and we'll harvest more individual and human wealth in all its many forms.

And as for the President growing government... at least his spending targets individual's, businesses and corporations rather than the sinkholes of graft that fuel the Left's statist powerbase. I would much prefer to see the beneficiaries of government legislation and spending be Pfizer, Merck, Honeywell, Raytheon, Boeing, Lockheed, Halliburton, General Electric and Microsoft (Their employees, clients, contractors, shareholders, and customers) than trial lawyers, organized crim-labor, teachers unions, the UN, foreign extortion, the National Endowment for the Arts(???) and the endless cycle of welfare dependency. That is wealth destroyed.

Atos