Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Moon? Mars? Forget About It!
MichNews.com ^ | 12/01/04 | Alan Cruba

Posted on 12/01/2004 4:42:44 PM PST by KevinDavis

As entertainment, I have always particularly enjoyed any television show or movie about space voyage. There’s something compelling about a group of people, dependent on a space ship to carry them to or from danger. It is, as any Star Trek fan will tell you, “the final frontier.” It is also largely absurd. Particularly when it involves billions of dollars this nation can ill afford to throw at a space program that robots could perform better than people.



Recently, I read an article by William Tucker, “The Sober Realities of Manned Space Flight”, that was published in the December 2004 edition of The American Enterprise magazine. Tucker began by noting that President Bush’s suggestion of a 280 million-mile manned space flight to Mars was a good idea. It is, in fact, an astonishingly bad idea, but even Presidents have a right to have bad ideas. “A quick NASA calculation,” noted Tucker, “revealed that the Mars effort would cost nearly $500 billion over 30 years.” Now take that figure and double it. Any estimate like that which is provided by a government agency—any agency—is usually wrong by a factor of two, three or higher.

I was quickly reminded of the spectacular and tragic failures of two Space Shuttles, one when it was launched and the second when it was returning to Earth. “The Space Shuttle was originally supposed to break even and fly every two weeks,” said Greg Klerkx, the author of “Lost in Space”, a critique of NASA. Instead, “it ended up costing $500 million per launch, and flying four or five times a year.” You should think of the Space Shuttle as a very expensive truck used to ferry cargo to the International Space Station.

Even the space stations, first Skylab, then the Russian’s Salyut and Mir, failed to lead to the development of larger facilities manned by dozens of scientists and others who would learn what it would take to create entire space colonies. Nor, with good reason, did we ever return to the Moon.



Today’s International Space Station, conceived in 1984, cost taxpayers $11 billion by 1992 and was still on the drawing board! At that point, the Clinton administration brought in the Russians to help, scaled down the project, and by a single vote in 1993, the House threw another $13 billion at it. The first stage was lifted into orbit in 1995 and, as Tucker notes, “when completed, the ISS will hold six astronauts. The two in residence now spend 85 percent of their time on construction and maintenance. In essence, the US is spending billions so that two astronauts can build a space shed.” By the time it’s finished, it will cost an estimated $150 billion.



Why didn’t we return to the Moon? Why aren’t there huge space stations? 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.” Moreover, the Moon “is a barren oxygen-less desert.” Want to see a desert? We have them right here on Earth.



Humans returning from any extended time in space have the consistency of Jell-O. They are virtually helpless and take days to recover from the experience. Now think about the suggestion by President Bush that we send astronauts on an 18-month journey to Mars. Not only would their bodies suffer ill effects, they would be exposed to huge doses of cosmic radiation. We’ve already managed to kill two Space Shuttle crews, how many more times do we have to do this before we decide to abandon this bad and very expensive idea?

Much of what is required to launch and maintain those machines we send into Earth orbit can be and is done without using Space Shuttles. They have become the equivalent of trolley cars. Trolleys are useful on the sharp inclines of San Francisco streets and picturesque in New Orleans. I’ve been on both. They’re slow and most people still drive their own cars around these cities.



It is the unmanned probes that have been the most successful ventures of NASA and therein lay several simple truths. (1) Humans are neither designed, nor intended to function in outer space and (2) technology permits us to do all the exploration we need to at this point in time. (3) Space probes are far less costly than Space Shuttles that have to be rebuilt from scratch every time they fly. (4) They are far less expensive. (5) No one gets killed.



At this point, I am sure there are those who want to speak poetically of the need to explore outer space by sending manned expeditions “because it is there” or on the chance that there is intelligent life “out there” with which we might come in contact. If it is intelligent, it already knows that the Earth runs red with the blood of its habitants every day as humans kill one another for political or religious reasons and we animals eat one another. Moreover, despite some lovely beaches and spectacular mountain ranges, large areas of the Earth are not the most hospitable places for the humans and other creatures that inhabit it.



So let me suggest that we not waste more billions on NASA’s Space Shuttles and International Space Station. Let’s not go to the Moon again or even think about going to Mars. It’s a really dumb idea. Those privately funded space vehicles will cost you $200,000 a seat to float around for a few minutes or look out the window and see the Earth floating and spinning.



Like we say in New Jersey, forget about it. What I really want is an automobile that will run on salt water. We have plenty of that.


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: mars; moon; space
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 next last
To: TalBlack
Here's a partial list produced by Jim Lovell, printed in the Houston Chronical several years ago. Why have a space program?
61 posted on 12/01/2004 7:25:17 PM PST by PeaceBeWithYou (De Oppresso Liber! (50 million and counting in Afganistan and Iraq))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: KevinDavis

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.


62 posted on 12/01/2004 7:40:18 PM PST by pepperdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Great Prophet Zarquon
nonukenazis? What do you mean, I thought nuclear power was extremely unstable and dangerous.
63 posted on 12/01/2004 7:43:20 PM PST by LauraleeBraswell (See and decide for yourself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

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

That's a crock.

64 posted on 12/01/2004 7:50:09 PM PST by SwankyC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #65 Removed by Moderator

To: KevinDavis

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?


66 posted on 12/01/2004 8:46:45 PM PST by XBob (Free-traitors steal our jobs for their profit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KevinDavis
“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.

67 posted on 12/01/2004 8:59:38 PM PST by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Great Prophet Zarquon
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.

68 posted on 12/02/2004 2:40:27 AM PST by TomSmedley (Calvinist, optimist, home schooling dad, exuberant husband, technical writer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: KevinDavis
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

69 posted on 12/02/2004 2:47:04 AM PST by tm22721 (In fac they)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KevinDavis
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.

70 posted on 12/02/2004 3:00:20 AM PST by Walkin Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hopespringseternal; All

Look at Burt Rutan...


71 posted on 12/02/2004 5:35:07 AM PST by KevinDavis (Let the meek inherit the Earth, the rest of us will explore the stars!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: hopespringseternal; All

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.


72 posted on 12/02/2004 5:36:42 AM PST by KevinDavis (Let the meek inherit the Earth, the rest of us will explore the stars!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: RJL; All

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


73 posted on 12/02/2004 5:38:01 AM PST by KevinDavis (Let the meek inherit the Earth, the rest of us will explore the stars!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: KevinDavis

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.


74 posted on 12/02/2004 5:43:48 AM PST by Dont_Tread_On_Me_888 (John Kerry--three fake Purple Hearts. George Bush--one real heart of gold.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

Redesign with upgrades /jk

75 posted on 12/02/2004 5:50:37 AM PST by kanawa (Only losers look for exit strategies. Winners figure out how to win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SwankyC
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.

76 posted on 12/02/2004 6:31:51 AM PST by Tallguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: KevinDavis
"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.
77 posted on 12/02/2004 6:45:00 AM PST by BigCinBigD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Walkin Man

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.


78 posted on 12/02/2004 6:45:11 AM PST by stacytec
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: stacytec
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.

79 posted on 12/02/2004 7:33:52 AM PST by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: sr4402
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.
80 posted on 12/02/2004 12:45:55 PM PST by stacytec
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson