The Moon? Mars? Forget About It!

MichNews.com ^ | 12/01/04 | Alan Cruba

[PeaceBeWithYou]

Here's a partial list produced by Jim Lovell, printed in the Houston Chronical several years ago. Why have a space program?

[pepperdog]

Perhaps this gentleman would prefer the government spend it's $$ on the flavored and colored condoms mentioned in a previous article this evening. Personally I prefer the vaccum of space for our $$ even if we never find anything or benefit in any manner. Or maybe we could find little green men---I know, it's a bad joke.

[LauraleeBraswell]

nonukenazis? What do you mean, I thought nuclear power was extremely unstable and dangerous.

[SwankyC]

Space Shuttles that have to be rebuilt from scratch every time they fly

That's a crock.

[XBob]

1 - "Very short sighted ...."

Sorry, I must disagree. Going to the moon or mars with rockets does not make sense. The money wasted should be spent on exploring new methods of propulusion which harness energy efficiently.

With a trillion dollar investment, we could invent a workable fusion reactor. We could invent new propulsion systems which would revolutionize economics of transportation, including space transportation.

Men Going to Mars with rockets is a bad investment. How about (to use an old catch phrase) invest in new methods for making buggy whips more efficiently?

[hopespringseternal]

“A quick NASA calculation,” noted Tucker, “revealed that the Mars effort would cost nearly $500 billion over 30 years.”

This number has been debunked 500 billion times.

Sooner or later, space industry will catch on. Someone this century is going to be the Bill Gates of space and start the Microsoft of space transportation.

They will come up with a successful system for getting humans and cargo into low earth orbit and they will make billions.

[TomSmedley]

It's called "nuclear power." Problem is that the nonukenazis will never permit it.

Project Orion could have landed a 1,000 ton installation on the moon 40 years ago.

[tm22721]

I agree put $1 trillon into energy development (fusion, plasma, antimatter, etc) and we will have a near-light-speed hyper-drive for safer, cheaper space travel.

Plus a bonus of energy independence here on earth.

BUMP

[Walkin Man]

As Tucker points out, the experiments on the long-term effects of life in zero gravity demonstrate that humans do not belong in space. “The news has not been good. Muscles atrophy quickly and—for reasons yet unknown—the human body does not manufacture bone tissue in space.”

I totally agree with this article.

Man requires gravity to survive and not just any old gravity, it has to be exactly the same force as on the Earth.

A manned space voyage to Mars is a planned suicide mission for the crew not to mention a huge money sink.

I love Star Trek but its a modern fairy tale. Face it, man was made for Earth and there is no other planet close by like it.

[KevinDavis]

Look at Burt Rutan...

[KevinDavis]

I know.. Some people just like to bash NASA, however , when it comes to overall spending, we have spent more on social programs than on NASA in the past 30 years.

[KevinDavis]

Naw it is easy to bash NASA and the space program..

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

Money not spent for scientific endeavors gets flushed down the black hole of social welfare.

Scientific projects at this scale always bring with them scientific advances that help us all.

Sad to say, the only way to reign in spending on the black hole of social welfare is to spend it on projects other than those directed towards the black hole of social welfare.

[kanawa]

Humans are neither designed, nor intended to function in outer space

Redesign with upgrades /jk

[Tallguy]

A college friend who understands the shuttle far better than I explained that the integrity of Shuttle Program was compromised from almost from its inception. In an attempt to keep the budget in line with forecasts the designers were forced to add the solid-fuel, strap-on boosters to get the extra thrust needed. Solid fuel boosters have some benefits, but there are also some drawback -- like you can't "throttle" them. Plus, there is the real possibility of a catastrophic explosion if there are any voids in the solid fuel. When the Russians designed their shuttle they dispensed with the solid boosters.

Bottom line: NASA expanded the amount of risk that they considered "acceptable" in order to keep the bucks down.

[BigCinBigD]

"Sea-Fever"

I must down to the seas again, to the lonely sea and the sky,
And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by,
And the wheel's kick and the wind's song and the white sail's shaking,
And a grey mist on the sea's face, and a grey dawn breaking.

I must down to the seas again, for the call of the running tide
Is a wild call and a clear call that may not be denied;
And all I ask is a windy day with the white clouds flying,
And the flung spray and the blown spume, and the sea-gulls crying.

I must down to the seas again, to the vagrant gypsy life,
To the gull's way and the whale's way where the wind's like a whetted knife;
And all I ask is a merry yarn from a laughing fellow-rover
And quiet sleep and a sweet dream when the long trick's over.

By John Masefield (1878-1967).
(English Poet Laureate, 1930-1967.)
Mankind's destiny lies in the stars.

[stacytec]

Agreed. Until we can manufacture artifical gravity, long term space travel is best suited for the robots. Besides, robots are cheap to build and can work non-stop. Thats not to say that humans shouldn't explore the other planets, its just admitting that we don't have all the answers yet.

[sr4402]

Agreed. Until we can manufacture artificial gravity, long term space travel is best suited for the robots.

It's called a centrifuge. The movie 2010 showed one very well. It was an area on a spaceship in which people live on the inside of a moving circle. It was also described in the book "Ringworld" in which the ring is so many miles wide that it is hard to see the ring unless you look.

There are many reasons to push toward a manned mission to mars that would benefit us greatly:

Suspended Animation - If we could suspend victims of wrecks and other catastrophes until they get to surgery and treatment, the prognosis may be far better, possibly saving lives.

Fungal and Bacterial management - Long term fungal and bacterial invasions are a real problem in long term enclosed spaces. Research on how these are managed in our present environment may lead to medical breakthroughs as well as make it possible to live in space.

Propulsion - Current technologies are based upon reaction drives. Rockets or Nuclear fission drives which spew out mass for propulsion in space. Research into new forms of propulsion may find means that are not based on reaction, perhaps giving us nonpolluting means of transportation, not only in space, but on earth.

Food- How to feed people for long periods of time. Todays food technology depends on nature and storage, but long term storage of foods as in a Mars mission may not be adequate. Means of producing food without earths supportive environment will be critical to Space Stations as well as new colonies. Designing plants and animals to provide food in new environments for colonization will be essential and tell us much about the current designs.

No- I think a mission to Mars is exactly the way to go for the United States. Breakthroughs in technology are required for us to stay completive in a global economy. Just as JFKs mission to the moon drove technology and our nation as the leader in many ways, President is right to set a goal post into the future. John F. Kennedy was not wrong in setting the goal post high.

[stacytec]

Thats why I said " its just admitting that we don't have all the answers yet." Ion propulsion is still in its infancy (and, IMO, the future of all interplanetary travel). No manned space craft currently uses artificial gravity to maintain earth-like conditions for its crew. Pointing to Arthur C. Clarke novels as to the way things should be is great, but we can't escape the reality of the way things are right now. And watching the xprize folks take flight this year, I'm beginning to wonder if the serious advances in human space exploration will be private ones ( as Clark alluded to). I'm optimistic about the possibility of future human planetary exploration, but at the moment - robots answer questions at a fraction of the cost with no risk to human life. When we have workable, low cost solutions for human planetary exploration, I'll be 100% behind it. That implies a lot of project development such as getting propulsion technology in place and figuring out how to maintain contained ecosystems. And , of course, keeping the cost down for us taxpayers. A "solution" with an astronomical price tag is something that should be avoided as long as the project is publicly funded - especially if current alternatives satisfy mission objectives at a fraction of the price. In my view, human longterm travel and colonization in space is not the objective right now. When the technology catches up, the objectives can be revised.