Is it worth the money to step foot on Mars?

Mountain Reporter ^ | 1-21-04 | Steven Stiefel

[ambrose]

Sand Mountain Reporter
http://sandmountainreporter.com

Copyright © 2004 Sand Mountain Reporter

Is it worth the money to step foot on Mars?

By Steven Stiefel
Sand Mountain Reporter

Published January 22, 2004

Should we return to the moon and step foot on Mars?

That?s the agenda set by President George W. Bush in hopes of winning re-election. Certainly, that would have a huge impact on Marshall County citizens who work for NASA in Huntsville.

Some might argue we have plenty of urgent needs here at home, that we should make sure no child goes without a textbook before spending billions to reach for the stars.

I believe in the benefits of space exploration: inspiring those children to learn math and science, propelling human imagination as surely as the actual rocketships. I believe in the human drive to learn more about the universe and our role in it. I believe in the future of mankind, my future descendants colonizing the galaxy just as my predecessors carved a great nation out of wilderness.

Many benefits of America?s space program are tangible enough to see and take for granted every day.

Among the products we use today that would not have been without the U.S. Space program: satellites, fire-resistant materials, sewage treatment, wireless communications, firefighter air tanks, winter tires, engine coatings, lightweight cutters to free accident victims, computer chips used for digital imaging breast biopsies, ultrasound scanners, insulin pumps, MRIs, radiation insulation, hydroponics, aerodynamically-efficient corporate jets, safer bridges, emission testing, electric cars, auto design, new semiconductors, structural analysis used by auto manufacturers, air quality monitors, virtual reality, global positioning systems used in navigation, microcomputers, enriched baby foods, water purification systems, scratch-resistant lenses, pool purification technology, energy-saving air conditioning, competition swimsuits, golf ball aerodynamics, portable coolers/warmers, cardiovascular sports training, athletic shoes, Dustbuster, shock-absorbing helmets, home security systems, smoke detectors, flat panel TVs, high-density batteries, trash compactors, food packaging and freeze-dried technology, sports bras, weather forecasting technology, laser angioplasty, microlasers for precision welding, and interactive computer training.

Have these inventions been worth the money we have invested as taxpayers? Just think of the lives saved and the efficiency measures that allow American companies to remain competitive internationally.

Out of a $1.5 trillion budget, less than 1 percent is spent on the entire space program.

Conservative estimates are for every dollar the U.S. government spends on the space proram, it receives $7 back in the form of corporate and personal income taxes from increased jobs and economic growth.

There will be those who say it is foolish to look at that big rock in the night sky, but future wonders await us. Just think what new minerals might be waiting elsewhere, allowing us to build stronger equipment or providing links that lead to solving diseases here on Earth.

We?ll never know unless we go. Tell your congressmen you support space exploration.

 

 

[hopespringseternal]

"National presitge" at a trillion bucks a pop? Not worth it.

Remember that there was a genuine national security concern behind going to the moon. There is no such concern for going to Mars. We've had the technology to do it for a long time, it is just that every year we wait it gets cheaper and less risky.

But as far as colonists pushing civilization behind NASA, that hasn't happened because unlike North America, no one has ever found a use for living in space. (Neither has mankind found a reason to colonize the ocean floor or surface, but visits both all the time nevertheless.)

One reason why we can't find a use for space is that the cost of getting there puts it out of the realm of nearly all human activity. I can drill the ocean floor for oil, but if an asteroid of pure gold entered low earth orbit, we couldn't bring it down and make a profit. And with the way NASA does things, the cost of getting to space is actually rising quite dramatically.

NASA is funded by lawyers who assume a static, zero-sum universe. They can't see or appreciate how or why growth happens, and so they can only understand meeting apparent needs, not providing opportunity.

[RightWhale]

Dream on

Do you know enough about the universe so we can stop now?

[Mark was here]

But then, your reasoning has the people at Mayo, JPL, etc. in the same line with the crack hookers.

Bingo!

They are all lined up to suck money out of my wallet.

Did you know the University of Michigan has to have someone on staff to clean bubble gum out of library books?

So called higher education, the space program, or crack whores are all at the till.

[Mark was here]

If their opinion wasn't heaping scorn on invention, exploration, progress, while rehashing disingenuous Luddite philosophies, there might be less ridicule.

First off the tax and spend folks, protecting their sacred cow, NASA, resort to name calling in referring to their opponents as Luddites.

No one opposing this scheme is "heaping scorn on invention" , that is quite silly. I think NASA deserves scorn more than it deserves another dip in the public trough.

The latest crash of the shuttle proves they are not interested in getting the job done. They failed to use the best insulating material to insulate some tanks, so the material fell on the wing breaking it. They choose to use sub-par materials inorder to be politically correct.

Get it? They choose political correctness over getting the job done, because they really don't care about getting the job done.

[Mark was here]

Do you consider yourself a conservative?

Yep. I just thought it was funny to use socialist type rhetoric, to talk about a socialist type make work project!

[BobS]

If the Mars Rover has been stripped for parts by illegal aliens already, NO!

[Mark was here]

War on Terror? New border security to stem illegals? Sorry - read the sign - NO new programs of any kind. What? New planes and guns for the military? But we have perfectly good WWII surplus still....

Lookie here, I still have some net pay ... well the government can have it as long as they spend it on something new!

There are legitimate things for the government to do, and some not so legitimate things, should not get sacred cows confused with legitimate.

[Ophiucus]

They choose to use sub-par materials inorder to be politically correct. Get it? They choose political correctness over getting the job done, because they really don't care about getting the job done.

Try again. NASA was forced to change by the Clinton administration at Algore's direct insistance that they change to the enviro-safe foam.

Get your fact right's when you heap scorn and refrain from degrading people who suffered in that tragedy. NASA works astonishingly hard to maintain safety in the face of budget cuts from narrow minded opinions who don't see the value in the future.

To accuse those men and women of allowing that accident to occur because they didn't want to get the job done is OBSCENE

You are disgusting. Shame on you.

[Mark was here]

To accuse those men and women of allowing that accident to occur because they didn't want to get the job done is OBSCENE

You are disgusting. Shame on you.

Call me names all you want, I hope it makes you feel better.

Now answer weather this is a true or false statement:

They failed to use the best insulating material to insulate some tanks.

Being the disgusting one as you put it I would venture to say the statement is true.

Why, because the best material does not fall off and crack the shuttle.

Who installed the sub-par material?

Being the disgusting one as you put it I would venture to say the men and women of NASA did.

Why, because they were in charge.

Why did the people in charge, continue to use a material that breaks off and falls on the shuttle?

Because they did not want to make Al Gore unhappy according to Ophiucus.

It really is not a stretch to say that the men and women of NASA were more interested in keeping Al Gore happy than using the best material available to get the job done.

Why, because this is exactly what they did.

And you call me disgusting! That's ok, because I know that people resort to insults when logic fails.

Have a nice day!

[Mark was here]

And finally to kill this thread off.. I think a mission to Mars is unfeasible and unaffordable and therefore the money that would be spent is best spent by the people who actually earned it and not sent to Washington in the first place.

The culture of NASA is not up to the task. Allowing Al Gore to make engineering decisions says it all. NASA is not going to change, and as the budget gets tighter, NASA will be under more pressure to appease the Al Gores of the world, making the goals even more unattainable.

Best to nip this beastly idea in the bud, not because one is against innovation, but because one is for some budgetary sanity.