Men on Mars

[Griff]

Bush floated his Mars initiative. My gut reaction to this is that I want humans in space, lots of them. I've heard some interesting reactions, the suddenly fically responsible Dems saying no. Some left wing enviromentalists say no because they don't want anyone escaping the apocolyptic catastrophe they believe is coming. Libertarian enviromentalists saying yes because of the potential development of resources off planet making fewer holes in the ground here. Anti-Capitalists want it done by the state, anti-Statists want it done by private industry. Everyone is re-focusing their ideology to try to fit this in. It is enormous. Now its my turn.

I'm worried about the Bush plan for a number of reasons. The first is the money. UT posted a paragraph by Andrew Sullivan in another thread and he makes a good point. We are leaving the next generation some awful financial liabilities and this is just one more. Another is this administrations affection for croney capitalism. Huge contracts will build the infrastructure for these projects and connected companies will get those contracts and quite possibly the infrastructure itself when all is said and done. That needs to be addressed. Will the government provide a bridge to space for humanity or will it act as gate keeper controlling access to space? Another worry is Cheneys stated goal of having military superiority in space. Defense is important but an arms race in space would divert funds from the goal of populating space and create more negative impressions of an increasingly militarized America. I like that Bush was willing to say out loud that we need to shut down the shuttle program (why not sell it off though?) and the International Space Station.

[Beestie]

We don't need humans on Mars. Why can't we design robots to do the job?

My reaction to Bush's Mars proposal was a big eye roll. I like Bush as a person and as a leader but his idea just reeked of "here's a grand idea from me and its BIG and BOLD and VISIONARY and Kennedy-like!"

Despite whatever merit the idea might have, I don't think now is the time and I really don't think we need to send humans to Mars yet. Consider, just for a moment, what would happen if we lost a crew on Mars. Are we ready for that risk? Not in my opinion.

[Griff]

I think that getting a breeding population of humans off planet is a biological necessity... I don't know that this is the way to go about it though.

Losing a Mars crew in a risk adverse society which sues over hot coffee...

[Griff]

Originally posted by Griff
...the suddenly fically responsible Dems...

Someone think of the ficus!

[headsplice]

I think instead of Mars, Bush should have pushed for the Moon first. Assuming that this isn't just '04 rhetoric (*coughbullshitcough*), the Moon is a hell of a lot closer, a hell of a lot easier to reach (who wants a space elevator? I DO!), and lots easier to rescue people from. Plus, if we really wanted to militarize, we could just set up a catapult on the Moon and drop rocks on folks (a la 'The Moon is Harsh Mistress').
Let's take baby steps (if you can c all 240K miles a baby step).
And Griff, keep your fical matter out of the threads

[SteveDallas]

Yeah, let's go with the space elevator!! Was that even mentioned???

Oh and I'm highly dubious on sending people to Mars. It just doesn't feel like the right time. But I'm definitely in favor of the part where they ditch the shuttles. Not only are they ancient technology, I see absolutely no benefits to futzing around in low earth orbit.

[Griff]

Originally posted by headsplice
I think instead of Mars, Bush should have pushed for the Moon first.

Actually, he did.

[Griff]

Space elevator not space modulator.

"In 15 years we could have a dozen cables running full steam putting 50 tons in space every day for even less, including upper middle class individuals wanting a joyride into space. Now I just need the $5 billion, Edwards added.

[FileNotFound]

We're going to Mars because we think thats where Bin Ladin and Iraqs weapons of mass destruction are.

Bush is on a crusade and will hunt down the evil followers of islam, and the terrorists to the end of the galaxy.

[dar512]

Originally posted by Beestie

Despite whatever merit the idea might have, I don't think now is the time and I really don't think we need to send humans to Mars yet. Consider, just for a moment, what would happen if we lost a crew on Mars. Are we ready for that risk? Not in my opinion.

circa 1490s Spain: Should we be sending people to the Orient over the ocean? What if they drop off the edge of the earth? Are we ready for that risk?

[Beestie]

dar512 wrote:

circa 1490s Spain: Should we be sending people to the Orient over the ocean? What if they drop off the edge of the earth? Are we ready for that risk?

If King Ferdinand/Queen Isabella could have sent a ship that could sail by itself at 1/20th the cost and accomplish the same thing (stealing gold from the Aztecs :-) I daresay they would have. The mission to "India" was to make international trade more efficient.

I don't get the sense that the purpose of a Mars mission is anything other than the "because its there" reason. Additionally, what can an astronaut do on Mars that a robot can't?

Griff suggests that we need to start laying the groundwork to get humans colonizing elsewhere. I fully support that. I also fully support the idea of exploring Mars for a number of scientific reasons. Part of my problem is that I'm not sure I trust NASA to be able to manage a project like that any more.

This isn't 1490±. We have alternatives. But, even in 1490, there was a cost/benefit/alternative feasibility study. At the time, setting sail was the correct answer. I don't see how that decision at that time under those circumstances binds us to make the exact same decision under completely different circumstances 500 years later.

Someday? Yes! Today? What are my choices?

[Kitsune]

Didn't Bush Sr. make this same promise during his term?

[tw]

Originally posted by Kitsune
Didn't Bush Sr. make this same promise during his term?

Too many presidents want to do what Kennedy did. Reagan wanted the hypersonic airplane and star wars. Now called myths. George Sr proposed missions to the moon. In each case, that president forgot to do what Kennedy did. First learn facts. Too many leaders want the 'big picture' - facts be damned (ie Iraq). So they find themselves an Oliver North or Edward Teller - and that constitutes an intelligent inquiry.

Yes, George Sr also made the same promise. Then real costs were discovered. At George Jr's $400 billion price tag (same price as liberating Iraqis), instead, estimate about $4 trillion. That in part because much technology needed is not being developed or is not found in America (such as rocket technology) - since capturing Saddam and building a military larger than the entire world combined is more important ... advances mankind [cough]. Also called testosterone based thinking. Science be damned.

In the meantime, Hubble Space Telescope will be scrapped to put men on the moon. Hubble was scheduled for upgrade next year. Most all the work having been done or being finished on earth. That would have made Hubble good for another 10 years. But instead, it is more important to think with emotion (as an MBA) rather than use logic (as science demands). Hubble is to be destroyed because an MBA president has emotional goals - science and logic be damned.

We cannot even get a space station working. Same management is so technically incompetant as to even stifle engineers who suspected Columbia was in danger. At $8billion, ISS still does not do any real science - and, now, is not even scheduled to do irrelevant science for many years. ISS now is operating without knowing even its air quality - which is also leaking at what may be a dangerous rate. Astronauts now burning an emergency oxygen generating candle every day because of air problems in ISS. All this money because science - such as the super collider - is not glorious enough for politicians who refuse to think as Kennedy did.

Kennedy first learned facts before making a decision. A complete reverse of what George Jr does. Kennedy spent major time interviewing virtually every relevant person before making his declaration. Decisions based upon existing realities? Such is not necessary to an MBA - such as George Jr. His mission to the moon is based first upon politics - not upon science and logic.

Hubble is dead. Long live Hubble. Assasinated by an MBA president who even lies about Iraq. His 'men on the moon' nonsense only demonstrates a thought process that, like an MBA, need only see a spread sheet.
No wonder he killed the Oslo Accords as predicated by Euroean foreign ministers. Oslo Accords were Clinton. Therefore they too must have been wrong. Realities and facts being irrelevant. MBA president knows everything. We realists just get in the way. The man on moon mission is silly when it undermines good and much less expensive science - such as Hubble.

[Griff]

Originally posted by tw


... Assasinated ...president ...he killed the ...Euroean foreign ministers. ...Clinton...too must have been wrong. MBA president ... just get in the way. The man ...undermines good...

Quick! Call the cops.

[xoxoxoBruce]

TW, isn't there a replacement for the Hubble scheduled?