Lost in Space: NASA Badly Needs a Mission That's Worth Dying For

Lost in Space: NASA Badly Needs a Mission That's Worth Dying For
http://www.timesdispatch.com/editori...BBM3JA7KD.html

On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 12:34:33 -0400, "Scott M. Kozel"
wrote:



Lost in Space: NASA Badly Needs a Mission That's Worth Dying For
http://www.timesdispatch.com/editori...BBM3JA7KD.html


"150-billion dollars for a suitcase full of red dust! Think of all the
things that could be done here on earth with that money!"


That's what stands between NASA and a Mars mission.



--
Rusty Barton - Antelope, California | Free! Free!
E-mail - | A Trip To Mars,
Visit my Titan I ICBM website at: | For 900 Empty Jars!
http://www.geocities.com/titan_1_missile | -Burma Shave-

Rusty Barton wrote in message . ..
That's what stands between NASA and a Mars mission.

No, what stands between NASA and a Mars mission is a purpose. I
honestly don't see the point of paying $150,000,000,000 sending people
to Mars: it will be another one-off spectacular like Apollo and soon
we'll be back here saying 'if we can put people on Mars, why are we
still stuck in LEO ten years later?'

Mark

In sci.space.policy Mark wrote:
Rusty Barton wrote in message . ..
That's what stands between NASA and a Mars mission.

No, what stands between NASA and a Mars mission is a purpose. I
honestly don't see the point of paying $150,000,000,000 sending people
to Mars: it will be another one-off spectacular like Apollo and soon
we'll be back here saying 'if we can put people on Mars, why are we
still stuck in LEO ten years later?'

But most of the technology that would need to be tested and develop for
even a once-off (whetever such is carried through or not) would find
profitable uses in much less gargantuan undertakings than manned flight
to Mars. R&D spending would need to go for:
* long term life support systems
* human survival in extended low-g environments
* reliable long distance missions
* interplanetary return missions

which are all worthy in and on their own, but would otherwise miss even a
projected target


Mark

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Rusty Barton wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 12:34:33 -0400, "Scott M. Kozel"
wrote:



Lost in Space: NASA Badly Needs a Mission That's Worth Dying For
http://www.timesdispatch.com/editori...BBM3JA7KD.html

Interesting mention of Chaos Theory in this article. I have never
looked it up , but there must be a 'chaos theory' of Risk Analysis?
One recent feature Chaos Theory is that one can do a little
'controlling' of the chaos, but in the long run one is till left with
a horizon of predictability with you can't do anything about. The more
complex the system the more complicated prediction can be even in
deterministic chaos.

"Rusty Barton" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 12:34:33 -0400, "Scott M. Kozel"
wrote:



Lost in Space: NASA Badly Needs a Mission That's Worth Dying For
http://www.timesdispatch.com/editori...BBM3JA7KD.html


"150-billion dollars for a suitcase full of red dust! Think of all the
things that could be done here on earth with that money!"


That's what stands between NASA and a Mars mission.



Didnt stand in the way of dicking about in the desert leading to the death
of hundreds of tropps

Doug

Doug Ellison wrote:



"150-billion dollars for a suitcase full of red dust! Think of all the
things that could be done here on earth with that money!"


That's what stands between NASA and a Mars mission.



Didnt stand in the way of dicking about in the desert leading to the death
of hundreds of tropps

Doug

'Tropps?"

Anyway, as with some space projects, no one originally believed
*that* action would cost as much as it really did, either....

"150-billion dollars for a suitcase full of red dust! Think of all the
things that could be done here on earth with that money!"

Well all that money is spent here, generating well paying jobs, new technology,
and spin off technologies.

On 09 Sep 2003 22:49:45 GMT, (Hallerb) wrote:

"150-billion dollars for a suitcase full of red dust! Think of
all the
things that could be done here on earth with that money!"

Well all that money is spent here, generating well paying jobs, new
technology, and spin off technologies.

Of course all government money is spent on earth. We don't shoot it
into space (although there have been some silly suggestions of doing
that lately).

The question is, what do you get for the $ 150-billion dollars that is
taken
from the taxpayers and spent and what is needed most?

- War in Iraq, Korea, Iran?
- Mars mission?
- space station?
- Orbital Space Plane Project?
- Repairs and upgrades to the highway system?
- An upgraded electric grid?
- Food, shelter, health care, education for the poor & elderly?
- New weapons systems, maintenance on current weapons, salaries for
the Pentagon?
- Pork barrel projects for Congressional cronies?
- Research on new energy sources?
- Research on cures for cancer, aids, etc.
- High Speed Rail Transportation?

There are many worthy and unworthy projects competing for the money
and
Congress gets to divide up the spoils.


-Rusty Barton