Mars Mission a Trojan Horse?

Wired News ^ | 02:00 AM Jan. 16, 2004 PT | Suneel Ratan

[vannrox]

President Bush's plan to go to the moon and to Mars without much additional funding will force NASA and Congress to make hard choices -- particularly regarding the space shuttle and the hugely expensive International Space Station, observers said.

The Bush plan increases NASA's budget by just $1 billion over the next five years. That means the space agency has to figure out how to carry out the mission -- first a return to the moon and later a trip to Mars -- without a lot of additional money in its budget.

[anymouse]

John Pike thinks politically in 1 dimension.

John Logsdon thinks politically in 2 dimensions.

President Bush is thinking politically in 4 dimensions.

[greenwolf]

Of what realistic benefit is a 'Mars Mission'?? If anything, a lunar mission makes some sense.

I suspect that these images and others like them have to be part of the reason for the push to Mars:

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[F16Fighter]

For all I know, these pictures were taken from a dermotogist's lab.

[greenwolf]

From what I can gather surfing the web, they're all NASA images taken by various Mars probes over the last ten years or so.

[F16Fighter]

Only bustin' onions...;-)

[Richard Kimball]

Sorry. Couldn't help myself.

[Simmy2.5]

Can't have a Mars thread without mentioning our favorite "Martian expert", Richard C. Hoagland.

Probabaly another big supporter of going to Mars first. After all, not only can we get to find out all the "secrets" of the face...but when we do get there, NASA can't hide from the "lies" they have been giving us. Lies that, Hoagland has been uncovering!

For example...

[R. Scott]

[R. Scott]

Pushing a manned space program worked to help JFK’s popularity, maybe … naw, W’s advisors couldn’t be that naive.

[af_vet_rr]

Why oh why do these writers fail to acknowledge the fact that countries across the globe are attempting the same thing? China, India, Brazil, Japan, and just today, Europe...are announcing similar programs.

I think partially because of the way Bush proposed things it came off as more election-year politics than anything else. Not that I don't mind - anything to get us truly back into space and when I look at Moon/Mars missions versus a lot of the pork that is in the budget (like $50 million for a rainforest education center in Podunk, Iowa ) I would rather see us going to the Moon/Mars.

Bush's mandate/proposal is pretty flimsy as well - it puts the onus on administrations past 2008.

You just have to read it to understand what I mean, but basically not much is going to be done over the next four years, other than a reorganization (which is already happening) and speeding up a few programs and finally ditching the Shuttle (which has been a hinderance to NASA) and doing things proper, all of which should have been done after Challenger. I think some are under the impression that we will be sending men to the Moon before the end of the decade.

[Terpfen]

You know, if those sites turn out to be the ruins of old civilizations, we're never going to know anything about them: the archaeology won't start until after our lifetimes.

And I'm 19.

[greenwolf]

You know, if those sites turn out to be the ruins of old civilizations, we're never going to know anything about them: the archaeology won't start until after our lifetimes.

And I'm 19.

If the dems win in 04, you're right. Bush wins, I'd say about five years.

[Terpfen]

Even if Bush wins this year, I think it would take a little longer to get Alan Grant over to Mars, to create the science of astro-archaeology, and all that. Just imagine having to invent tools for hand-digging in Martian gravity--in those bulky space suits, even!

If Bush wins, and if he privatizes the effort... okay, maybe 10 years after the initiative is announced, we'll be able to launch an archaeologistnaut off into space.

Sometimes I wonder when they're going to invent faster-than-light travel.

[unibrowshift9b20]

hopespringseternal wrote: "The only real breakthrough is managerial. Technically, there is no real reason why launches should cost what they do. It is a chicken or egg problem both ways, for government and the private sector. A moon base has potential for breaking the logjam, but if congress doesn't balk and cut things short it will be the first time."

Certainly it all depends on Congress, but there are also physical reasons that it costs a lot to launch a rocket. The main issue is that its such a brutally wasteful way of going some place. its as if you had to build a car with all of the gas for its lifetime built in. This means an enormous fuel tank, lets say several times the size of the car. Thats extra weight, wind resistance, bigger, heavier engine, etc. thats the issue with rockets, fortunately, they can stage it and drop off the dead weight later in flight. The vast majority of the fuel is spent moving the fuel higher, and not so much in moving the ship itself, and since no better way has yet been built, we have to use that.

hopespringseternal wrote: "So far there are no firm plans for exactly what this outpost will be. It will of course have to be bigger than a LEM, but the minimum possible size isn't much bigger. The space station will probably look roomy and well populated next to a moon base."

Hm, I never thought of it in comparison to ISS. Hm, the main difference I guess is you need radiation protection, which you can get from mooncrete. You might as well put a nuclear reactor in if your ship is nuclear, that would be a bit more mass too. And also you need bigger rockets to take all that out of LEO. Other than that, it would basically be the size of ISS. --EXCEPT- you have to expand it. What Bush is doing is much more serious and permanent than apollo or ISS. For it to be really useful, you need mining facilities, mass drivers perhaps, telescopes, processing stuff for electrolysis. And, as Rightwhale points out, some really advanced robot rovers.

Initially, it is comparable to previous space programs, but to make it what we all meant for space to be, it will be a lot more money. And don't let that dissuade you: money is a tool with which to do things that must be done. I think 5000 years from now, spaceflight may just be America's greatest heritage to civilization.

[hopespringseternal]

But the fuel costs are lost in the noise. It is about a 20 to 1 ratio of fuel to payload, but you can use such mundane fuels as liquid oxygen and kerosene. Both are cheap. The fuel costs of getting to orbit are about $10/lb.

Throwing away hardware is far, far more expensive, and developing hardware like the shuttle than needs a vast army of minions is even more expensive still.

Boeing isn't going to address that problem because they make lots of money selling new hardware and NASA/DOD picking up the tab for the salaries.

[unibrowshift9b20]

hopespringseternal wrote: "But the fuel costs are lost in the noise. It is about a 20 to 1 ratio of fuel to payload, but you can use such mundane fuels as liquid oxygen and kerosene. Both are cheap. The fuel costs of getting to orbit are about $10/lb."

Wait are you saying that $10 of fuel will put a pound of payload in orbit?

[Doc On The Bay]

Having "Lived Through" the First Moon Landings, I FULLY EXPECT us to "Go Back" before the end of the Decade--I'm getting too old to wait much longer for us to establish a "Moon Base."

Either we "Get Serious about this Project" or we abandon it. I choose to believe that Pres. Bush "Meant What He Said..."(as he has so many times before).

I believe we will be Landing on the Moon before the end of his second (potential) term in office.

The greatest asset for a return to the Moon are Those of Us who witnessed the first Moon Landings--& we're getting old!

Our BEST SHOT at a publically supported Moon Landing is while the previous generation of "Moon Landing Witnesses" are still around.

Doc

[XBob]

56 - currently it costs about $16,000 to put 1 pound in orbit using the shuttle, and a 30k payload.

[XBob]

34 - "I forget the number for the entire Apollo program in today's dollars, but it is nowhere near that much."

The total cost of the Apollo program was $24 billion. (I don't know in what $, but that was about 1975-80).

You must remember that was before the contractors and NASA learned how to make the space program into a cash cow and charge exhorbitant prices for everything. I do, however, remember that the crawler cost $7.5 million - for two of them.