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.

 

 

[RightWhale]

Are we going to be subjected to articles with these kind of titles for the next 20 years?

Hoagland, I think it was him, said that the program will move forward quietly now so as to not alarm anyone. It will be under the radar as far as politicians are concerned.

[The_Republican]

Yes - Next Question!

[Cagey]

Does anyone actually believe this hyperbole?

Yes, it's all true. Without NASA we'd still be watching black and white TV, listening to 45 rpm records, patching the knees in our blue jeans, etc...

I get down on my knees every day and thank them for bringing us Tang.

You're right to point the hyperbole out. It's all part of a PR game they play and most of the items on your list are developed for profit and not for space exploration.

[Bobsat]

Yes, and for the reason he alludes to: spin off technologies.

They're inevitible whenever somebody sets out to do something new.

I'd sure rather see public money spent trying to get to Mars than spent on welfare and entitlements. The money IS going to be spent. Might as well spend it on something that will have some value down the road.

[ambrose]

I thought Hoagland was one of those who claimed we've already had manned missions to Mars, but the government has kept the results secret lest the public be shocked out of their senses. Then again, I may be confusing him with someone else....

[Professional Engineer]

Money spent getting to Mars is better spent than money spent supporting a million welfare brood mares

Bump

[brooklin]

You are absolutely correct. Even if we took all of the space agencies money and put it toward poor people, we would still have poor people. Let's do something useful with it.

[Mark was here]

Might as well spend it on something that will have some value down the road.

Why let people who earn the money spend it and not send it to the government to be spent?

Are your taxes so low you need to come up with new reasons to increase the size of the government?

Are you just talking about taxing other folks?

[RightWhale]

Hoagland has been saying there are things on the moon and Mars that need checked out on the ground. Whether he has been claiming secret flights to the moon I don't know. Don't think so. Certainly not Mars. But that we might be originally from Mars a long time ago he has mentioned. Who knows, anything is possible. He has done more to stimulate interest in Mars than anyone with his Face and the City and various remnants and ruins he has spotted in published Mars images. Can't say that I see any of that myself.

[ambrose]

Why stop there? Hell, as long as we're spending money we don't have, let's go to Venus, or Jupitor...

I'd *love* to go to Venus and Jupiter, but let's make it to Mars first. Venus is 800 degrees all year long, and it is going to be a while before we have the technology necessary to withstand such heat. The Soviets sent several probes to Venus, and they all went offline shortly have landing on the surface. Jupiter presents even more complex issues.

Titan, on the other hand, should be our next destination after Mars. There's some evidence of an Earth-like atmosphere there.

[solitas]

Does anyone actually believe this hyperbole?

I had a posting a while back about nasa and the products attributed to it and got royally flamed for it. I still maintain that, without nasa or the space program, most if not all of these products would still have been developed due to the natural progression of need and technology - if they didn't do it someone else would have.

I still find it a bit hard to believe that some of the items were nasa-developed or offshoots of the space program - no one should just create such a list of items and processes without substantiating their claim.

Is it worth it to set foot on mars? No - not until there has been a fully-debugged lunar base in place for a while and the technology and systems reliability proven in real conditions (i.e. on the Moon - NOT in the Arizona desert like some are trying to accomplish now). Otherwise you will only find (or they will develop for themselves) brave fools and idiots willing to take such a chance only for the glory of having done it on other people's (read: our) money - not to mention the cherry life benefits that will be demanded (by the proles/hero worshippers) for their survivors should the endeavour fail.

[ambrose]

But that we might be originally from Mars a long time ago he has mentioned.

Bet the enviro-whackos would have a field day if it were proven that the Martians migrated to the Earth due to global warming.

[bulldogs]

"Can't this money be better spent on ......?" Please, no."

Let me guess, the children.

[ambrose]

I'd sure rather see public money spent trying to get to Mars than spent on welfare and entitlements. The money IS going to be spent. Might as well spend it on something that will have some value down the road.

Ding ding ding!!! We have a winner.

People act like if we kill the scientists, burn down the museums, and shut NASA's doors, it will somehow lead to smaller government. No, Sherlock, the "saved" money will go towards more benefits for illegal aliens, AIDS in Africa, etc.

[southernnorthcarolina]

No NASA, no

[ambrose]

I'd suggest that is overly cautious and the wrong approach. It certainly isn't the approach used in the 60s. I favor immediate colonization of Mars.

The biggest sticking point to going to Mars is the inablity to return back to Earth. Problem solved when we turn this into a colonization mission.

[HitmanLV]

It's an exaggeration, but not entirely hyperbole. The space programas contributed a lot to the development of a lot of technologies (NASA used to (and still may) publish a wonderful quarterly magazine, Spinoff, dedicated to the technological advancements that worked its way into consumer life as a direct by-product of the space program.

To say that they would 'not exist' without the space program is unfair, though. Many would have likely been developed in the private/consumer sector anyway. The space program may have 'fasttracked' them, to be sure, and of course, it may have 'slowtracked' others.

On balance, the space propgram almost certainly contributed to the development of these items. To think that somehow these things would not exist but for the space program, is silly.

[Cagey]

I still find it a bit hard to believe that some of the items were nasa-developed or offshoots of the space program - no one should just create such a list of items and processes without substantiating their claim.

Oh, they do all the time. How you could be flamed for having such common sense is beyond me. You don't have to go far in that list to see the "hyperbole", as an earlier poster described it. Winter Tires? As if the R&D departments at Goodrich and the other tire companies would not have developed them?

Thank God for Capitalism because that is what drives development, and not government agencies. I'm all for science and exploration but for NASA to PR us to death with this nonsense is ridiculous.

[Travis McGee]

At 100 robots per human, I say stick to robots.