On to the Moon, and to Mars, via von Braun

New York Times ^ | January 14, 2004 | KENNETH CHANG

[OESY]

Prescient.

[ClearCase_guy]

Is this another Tom Lehrer thread? Yesterday's was fun.

[billorites]

In a related story, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay announced a new plan today for Martian redistricting.

[Paul Ross]

A more interesting article on the same subject is located here.

[PetroniDE]

SHEILA JACKSON-LEE. CONGRESSWOMAN FROM MARS.

She thinks the Apollo astronauts put a U.S. Flag there (no joke). Need a picture to post.

[ravingnutter]

What they forgot in the article you linked is that we will go back to the moon first. We can then use the moon as a base to go to Mars, significantly cutting the cost of that trip, as was explained yesterday by the man that wrote the original Bush I space plan. He also stated that one of the plans being considered involves building "collectors" to collect radiation and beaming it to collectors on earth via microwave technology. This could feasibly run electrical power for the whole nation and significantly reduce the dependence on foreign oil. Awsome....

[Salgak]

Solar Power Satellites have been a workable concept since the 1970s, AND the economics are compelling: payback of initial investment within 25 years AND generating a self-bootstrapping industrial structure in space.

It's a win-win situation all around.

I'll quote Dr. Jerry Pournelle on space investment:

"It's raining soup out there. Time to invest in making some bowls. . . "

[ikka]

In 1989, the first President George Bush announced plans for a permanent Moon base and sending astronauts to Mars. But the plans died after NASA estimated it would cost more than $400 billion to get to Mars.

To put this in perspective: this is less than what one year of the new "compassionate" Medicare bill would cost.

[Williams]

I'm 100% pro space exploration. The Moon is a puddle jump away. shuttle to and from sounds good. But I find it hard to believe that in 20 years or less we're going to be able to manufacture usable rocket fuel on Mars via robots. But then, I'm no rocket scientist.

[Moonman62]

What they forgot in the article you linked is that we will go back to the moon first. We can then use the moon as a base to go to Mars, significantly cutting the cost of that trip, as was explained yesterday by the man that wrote the original Bush I space plan.

I would think that the cost of the moon base plus the cost of a mars mission from there would be equal to or greater than the cost of a mars mission from earth.

I think some people are assuming that the moon base is free. I mean, why not, it's the government's money.

[theFIRMbss]

>Solar Power Satellites have been a workable concept ... "It's raining soup out there. Time to invest in making some bowls. . . "

Remember that scene
in Young Frankenstein, when the
blind guy pours hot soup

in the monster's lap?
Wait until you feel the heat
from the microwave

transfer beams when they
go off target a little...
Whole cities could die...

[Axenolith]

And Martian CPI stats showed a 4.8% increase in prices, but this decreased 0.01% after stripping out the volatile oxygen and water prices. Additionally, the Martian trade surplus balloned 380%, to 2.2 trillion dollars, after the towing of another recently captured mettalic asteroid to one of the Earth-moon lagrange points. Traders, fearing another repeat of the M-3 asteroid debacle which flooded markets with a surprise 28,400 tons of gold from a heavy inclusion, drove gold prices down further to a London close of $23.50...

[ClearCase_guy]

I find it hard to believe that in 20 years or less we're going to be able to manufacture usable rocket fuel on Mars via robots.

I'm sure the solution is quite easy. I mean, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to solve this problem ... oh ... well ... nevermind.

[Michael81Dus]

I´m wondering why there are so many space programs. Why do NASA, ESA, the Chinese, the Russians have programs for their own? Granted, I wouldn´t want to rely on China, but what about a further cooperation? Or is it all about politics and not the progress in science?

[PetroniDE]

I'm 100% pro space exploration. The Moon is a puddle jump away. shuttle to and from sounds good. But I find it hard to believe that in 20 years or less we're going to be able to manufacture usable rocket fuel on Mars via robots. But then, I'm no rocket scientist.

Some people had similar doubt about the moon after JFK's speech in 1961. I have my doubts, but time will tell.

[Salgak]

Sorry, that was thought about and solved three decades ago.

The microwave beam suggested to beam the power has a peak power density sufficient to raise the temperature of a bird flying completely though the densest part of the beam by about .1 degree centigrade.

A rectenna complex for a SPS is approximately 10-15 kilometers is diameter (it would be oval, due to angular considerations: SPS would be in geosynchronous orbit over the Equator, and since the rectenna, at least in the US and Canada, would be in higher northern latitudes, simple geometry determines the shape. . .).

Besides, if you want to zap cities, just drop big rocks on them from orbit. . . .

[Dead Dog]

Actually, we are moving away from Von Braun's blue print. Von Braun had the shuttle and the Station. Sounds like we are ditching those dead ends...not that their failure had anything to do with Von Braun, they would have worked had they been funded and given a clear mission.

[Aquinasfan]

Should we have a reason for spending a lot of money for a trip to Mars besides the fact that Werner von Braun thought it was a good idea?

[americanbychoice]

It is like new military weapons. Not too much cooperation there for fear that todays friends will be tomorrows enemies.
The red tape involved by the EU would also make it too expensive and we would never be able to get the job done. What's next , Put space under UN control?
Let's wait for beagle 15 and see what comes out of that?