Getting Man on Mars will need more than just rhetoric.

Spacedaily.com, Marsdaily.com ^ | Jan 10, 2004 | Unknown, PARIS (AFP)

[tricky_k_1972]

I,ve seen estimates ranging from 4 months to 2 weeks one way depending on the Type of propulsion used: Longest to shortest Chemical, Ion, Nuclear, Nuclear explosive.

If the CIC is thinking the way I am thinking he is, you use trips from LEO to the moon to develope the tech for the longer duration Mars trips. If you have a ship building and fueling on the moon you don't have the problems that you have with production on Earth with the added cost of movig all the materials to LEO.

[Support Free Republic]

Did you ever dance with the Devil by the pale moonlight?

Make the angry doctor even madder! Make a donation to Free Republic!

[Always Right]

I have never seen the point in sending a man to mars. You couldn't pay me to go, even if it was completely safe. I realize the space program has lead a ton of technological advancements, but you get to the point of diminishing returns. To me, it is not worth it.

[bonesmccoy]

That's ok... you stay here and I'll go.

[tricky_k_1972]

I understand your point, and even agree with it in part.

I would say that the main objective is not a flags and foot prints show like some would say that the Apollo mission's were. I think that the CIC's idea here is to put us out there to stay, an incremental approach that develops the tech for a permanent presence in space.

[discostu]

There's two possible reasons, the good one and the fun one.

Good reason: The eventual goal of space exploration is some form of colonization, expanding our sphere of influence and survival rate. If you can't put one guy on Mars you sure won't be able to put a colony.

Fun reason: Mt Rushmore, some things are to be done just because we can. It's a dramatic human ahievement and a finger in the eye to anybody that wants to talk our nation down.

[dr_who_2]

Gee, I almost took this article seriously until I read the last line.

[gitmo]

There's no way to know if it's worth it without doing it. People probably said the same thing about exploring the New World.

[LibKill]

What is needed is engineers. Good ones. Preferably young engineers who don't know the meaning of "It Can't Be Done".

Also, accountants. Preferably old Ebeneezer Scrouge type accountants. To keep the engineers in-budget.

[tricky_k_1972]

I don't think it is such a wild idea. We have factoris right now that rely heavily on robotics to build eveything from toys to cars. We have robot on Mars now that relies heavily on its own programing for decisions relating to its daily tasks. Where is the technological leep that it would have to take to make this dream land.

Remember the Wright brothers flew when papers just weeks before said it would take decades.

[dr_who_2]

Spending 30 bill--whoops-100 billio--whoops--half a trillion dollars of money that the government technically doesn't have in the first place is a good way of really messing up both the US and the world economy. If that happens, there won't be any more space missions for quite a while.

[discostu]

Well it's not like they just smoke the money. It turns into jobs and technological advancements. Running in a deficit didn't seem to do bad things in the 80s or the 90s or even when they were borrowing money from SS to pretend they were running in a surplus. I'd much rather the government run in deficit, a government sitting around with extra money in it's proverbial pocket is the most dangerous thing I can imagine.

[DoughtyOne]

I'm with you on that one.

[dr_who_2]

Sure, but deploying (completely?) automated factories at the unprecedented (to say the least) scale required to a dusty, airless, rock some 385,000 km away from any contractors, power stations, water plants, etc. would be kind of expensive. Furthermore, I've yet to see a factory that can build itself.

[tricky_k_1972]

From all the reports I have heard the President is not suggesting writing a huge lump sum check for this project. In fact he plans on cuting ou the space shuttle boon dogle and using exsiting tech for the main portions of heavy lift I.E. the proven rockets such as the ne Deltas also there are othe money savers in the works:

The new space exploration blueprint was drawn up by Vice President Dick Cheney, NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe and representatives from the Defense Department and other government agencies, NASA officials said.

They said the plan calls for retiring the ageing space shuttle fleet by 2010 and scaling back US involvement in the International Space Station after it is completed by 2013.

NASA would develop an orbital space plane to ferry crews and cargo to the ISS -- a prototype could be ready by 2008, which could be later adapted for longer voyages to the Moon and Mars, NASA officials said.

During the period in between scrapping the shuttle fleet and developing the orbital space plane, NASA could use Russian Soyuz vehicles for its flights to the ISS, the officials added.

The sources could not estimate the cost projections for the new space program, but said it would be more than the 15.5 billion dollars the White House has requested for NASA in the 2004 budget awaiting approval by Congress.

McClellan moved Friday to calm fears about the impact of an ambitious space plan on the US budget.

"The president is strongly committed to the exploration of space," McClellan told reporters adding "the president is someone who will, again, put forth a responsible budget that meets our highest priorities while working to hold the line on spending elsewhere in the budget."

The Washington Times Friday quoted government officials as saying NASA planned to pay for the new space exploration program with the money left after it retires the space shuttle fleet, which now costs 3.5 billion dollars annually to maintain and run.

[Moonman62]

The phaseout of the discredited shuttles and cash-burning ISS will cause many scientists to heave sighs of relief.

We'll go from burning cash in low earth orbit to burning cash on Mars. We're just rearranging the deck chairs so Republicans can have a larger government.

[Moonman62]

I'd much rather the government run in deficit, a government sitting around with extra money in it's proverbial pocket is the most dangerous thing I can imagine.

I agree, except the money should be returned to the people who earned it.

[dr_who_2]

Remember the Wright brothers flew when papers just weeks before said it would take decades.

You can get yourself into the air with canvas, wood, a propeller or two, and a gasoline engine. But you can't get to the moon that way. As for newspaper editors, few of them have a science background and even fewer of them ever have to really know what they're talking about.

[tricky_k_1972]

I've never heard anyone suggest a completely automated facility, in fact all the plans that this relates to throughout the whole article call for a human presence on the moon.