Posted on 07/17/2005 9:08:08 AM PDT by demlosers
Named for the Roman god of war, Mars is a relatively small, unprepossessing space rock, except for one fact: there used to be water on its surface, which makes it a good place to look for signs of extraterrestrial life and a fine place for humans to visit.
President Bush said as much on Jan. 14, 2004, in a speech at NASA headquarters that set out a new "Vision for Space Exploration" that makes the return to shuttle flight after the Columbia disaster the first link in a chain of events leading toward Mars.
"Today we set a new course for America's space program," Bush said then. "We will build new ships to carry man forward into the universe, to gain a new foothold on the moon, and to prepare for new journeys to worlds beyond our own ... We will then be ready to take the next steps of space exploration: human missions to Mars and to worlds beyond."
Bush drew applause from the NASA audience, and his "vision" was taken as a blueprint for fixing systemic problems at the U.S. space agency at a time when the shuttle fleet was sidelined and the International Space Station operating with a skeleton crew of two, reached only by Russian vehicles.
Since then, though, Bush has scarcely mentioned his moon-Mars plan. While still a central mission at NASA, human exploration of Mars has been largely absent from public discourse in the aftermath of the 2003 shuttle Columbia accident that killed seven astronauts and grounded the three remaining shuttles.
For decades, NASA has sent robotic spacecraft to examine Mars, starting with Mariner 4 in 1965. Two Viking craft landed on the martian surface in 1976, followed by an exploration gap that ended in 1997 with the July 4 landing of Mars Pathfinder, which sent a rolling robot to take pictures.
Robotic rovers on Mars
Two Mars expedition rovers named Spirit and Opportunity landed on Mars in 2004, sending back data and images. These two are still operating, along with three Mars orbiters: Mars Global Surveyor, Mars Odyssey and Mars Express.
With all this machinery on and around Mars, is a human mission really necessary? NASA's new administrator, Michael Griffin, sees it as essential after American astronauts have been confined to low-Earth orbit for more than three decades.
"Beyond low-Earth orbit, the next places that we can go are the moon, Mars and the near-Earth asteroids," Griffin told the U.S. House of Representatives Science Committee on June 28. "If we don't go there, eventually other nations will, and 'eventually' may not be too long."
In remarks reminiscent of NASA's Cold War space race with the Soviet Union, Griffin noted that Russia and China have sent humans into space since Columbia disintegrated over Texas.
"I do not find that acceptable," he said. "Space will be explored and exploited by humans. The question is: Which humans, from where and what language will they speak? It is my goal that Americans will be always among them."
The shuttles' return to flight -- starting with the Discovery's planned launch on Wednesday -- seems an unlikely first move toward Mars, but that is what the Bush vision calls for. Shuttles are to get flying again, finish building the International Space Station by 2010, and then retire.
At that point they will be replaced by an as-yet-unknown Crew Exploration Vehicle, which, it is hoped, will ultimately carry humans to the moon by 2020. The schedule for the first human Mars mission is unspecified.
This long-duration timetable was based on NASA's limited budget and the inherent risks of space travel, but it frustrates Robert Zubrin, president of the Mars Society, which promotes exploration and eventual settlement of Mars.
"Basically, the plan as written proposed such an extended schedule -- it was going so slow it was almost going backwards," Zubrin said by telephone. Zubrin acknowledged that the plan was put together under NASA's previous chief, Sean O'Keefe, and credited Griffin with amending it to hasten development of the shuttle's replacement, and possibly, the eventual trip to the moon and Mars.
Member of the Hoaxland cult I suppose...
You are kidding......aren't you?
America is still wide open to losing the space race, and losing in a permanent way that will affect its economic position and security on earth. Other countries are ahead now and moving farther ahead in education. Space is still America's baliwick, but at the rate things are going it won't be so much longer. Other nations will go there, it won't take all that long, and other nations may start claiming some resources. The 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty has the single objective of stopping America's private sector from developing space resources. Stopped cold.
However, Cydonia is one of the more interesting places to visit first and it should be a priority.
Inscription: It's ours. We'll get around to using it whenever we feel like it.
The article is silly. The moon and Mars vision is still on-schedule, and it seems like it's what Griffin is focused on. Should Bush be out rah-rah-ing a Mars mission while we're having trouble even getting people into orbit at the moment? The CEV design hasn't even been chosen yet. Let's take things one step at a time, WashPost. Just because you haven't been getting press releases doesn't mean no work is being done.
All of those pictures are NASA photos. Hoagland is not manufacturing them with Photopaint.
We have to withdraw from the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty first. Why are we still in that Treaty?
He certainly encourages the miseducation and hallucinations of the ignorant, however.
Those are natural features. It is natural to see 'things' in natural features, but then a closer look makes the 'things' disappear.
I'll go - I'll even through in $37.76. I do need a zipper on my space suit though 'cause I take 2 diuretics.
Karl Rove's great-grandfather emigrated from the Martian megalithic city in the mid-19th century. The records are available in the Ellis Island archives.
So, what about the Treaty?
Nonetheless, the IR images of Cydonia do have tantalizing patterns to go along with the other "natural" looking structures. Nobody knows for sure what's there, but it does make enough of a compelling case to visit Cydonia first when we do get the chance.
Let me not be the last to say: "You're a kook".
Judging from the qualities of the barrens where they have placed their landers so far, driving a Rover around Cydonia couldn't possibly be less productive of scientific data than past missions and would at least quiet some of the speculation.
I say we should go ahead and declare our preemptive claims "just in case" (kinda like how it is with Antarctica).
We got this rock covered, now let's go ahead and pin down Mars. Someone should be forging a titanium flag that can withstand Venusian surface conditions as well. =)
Right.
In 2009, when NASA starts to send nuclear powered rovers to Mars, they should plan to send one to Cydonia. The more NASA shy away from interesting places, the more speculation they create. If they want to shut up Hoagland and et al, then investigate Cydonia. It's only going to get worse in the future.
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.