"And in the eyes of many, NASA's job right now should be building better survellience satellites and space-based weapon systems..."
They really should have put something about "science" and "exploration" into NASA's title, so they wouldn't have to bother w/ crap like that.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
As regards the national security issue, all they have to do is prove that those caves and the rocky terrain in Bin Laden's videos actually show he's on Mars, and Bjorn Stronginthearm's your uncle.
So the ice is there- unconfirmed rumour that NASA'll 'commit to a timetable'.
If they do though it'll be the best news for a long while... ...and to all those who say we need to sort out problems on Earth first, well maybe this will help; an international mission will help unite humanity. Hopefully.
[ May 28, 2002, 07:05: Message edited by: Wraith ]
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Of course. But when a multi-BILLION dollar national (or international) effort is hanging in the balance, I'd sure as hell want proof before committing to spending that money.
Yeah, I firmly believe that we need to get to Mars. But NASA is probably right too, in doing it carefully. (But they're also probably dragging their feet, too...)
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Congress drags NASA's feet a lot more than NASA does.
It's all about the funding, baby.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Alpha Centauri
Usually seen somewhere in the Southern skies
Member # 338
posted
Some hard data here: estimates for mission costs range from $60 billion to $800 billion. The cheapest alternative foresees in only one visit by one crew, while the more expensive variants include the establishment of a small colony and a series of multiple missions.
-------------------- Signature.
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Reagan spent 1.2 trillion on the Star Wars program in his eight years in office. Personally, I don't see what the big deal about spending 800 billion on a mission to mars is, comparatively.
It's not like anybody is going to see a red cent of that money anyway.
But I'm not a fool. I know the space program is always the first thing to be cut by congress. They'd rather fund studies on ketchup viscosity.
Speaking of the Chinese, it's pretty likely that they will build a space station. Much of the R&D has already been done. The technology is thirty years old. They already have some lower end boosters that can reach near earth orbit.
I think the state department is probably a bit more concerned about this than we think they are. Men, after all, are not the only thing you can put inside of those boosters. You can also put warheads on them.
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
quote:Reagan spent 1.2 trillion on the Star Wars program in his eight years in office. Personally, I don't see what the big deal about spending 800 billion on a mission to mars is, comparatively.
The big deal is that you can't use a Mars-mission to shoot eeeeeevil Commies.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Much as I love the space sciences and all, I don't think you can call half a trillion dollars chump change just because greater amounts have been mis-spent in the past. The US Congress isn't "wasting" potential Mars money on ketchup-viscosity studies, it's spending public money on a variety of things with a variety of usefulness. 70 billion in agricultural subsidies, 2/3rds of which go to the wealthiest 10% of agribusiness? Waste. Writing off third world debts? Probably a hell of a lot more worthwhile.
Rock #4 will still be around for the exploring in a century, if we really need to take that long to get our affairs in order on Rock #3. Let's go to Mars, sure. But Edmund Hillary logic shouldn't work when we're talking about enough money to feed billions people for their lifetimes.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
OnToMars
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
posted
I'm hurt. Almost to a third page and nobody's even mentioned me.
I'm not getting my hopes up. Announcing definitive plans for a manned mission to Mars would be such a paradigm shift at this point that it would be extremely suprising.
What's more likely is that if they anounce anything at all, it will be along the lines of reaffirming that a manned mission to Mars within twenty years or something like that. And then the matter will be promptly dropped. Anybody remember a few months ago the Russians announced they intended on landing humans within twenty years and a week later, NASA did the same thing.
Oh, and China would have absolutely NO motivation to make it an international mission. There would be no benefit for them doing so. They're actually the only spacefaring viable nation that wouldn't be pressed or could ignore urgings to make it international.
-------------------- If God didn't want us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
And of course there's the farm subsidies that are an honored tradition in our country...
Really, if Congress is paying almost $200 BILLION in order to get people to NOT do any farming, then what is the problem with sending a manned mission to Mars?
I don't see the logic here...
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Think about it... people are going hungry, and the government is paying farmers NOT to grow food.
Doesn't this tie in to something I've been saying on the Flameboard?
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
