The right manned space program

We should send men to mars. We need to spread out in order to increase
the survival chances of the human race long term.
But like all Bush projects his mars project is nonsense.
Our current goal should be to keep a small crew in orbit for about 1.5 years
without any support from the earth, followed up by a similar flight of
about 2.5 year duration. (And the crew must return in good physical
condition.)
Our second goal should be to develop a nuclear powered stage capable of
the trip to mars orbit and back. This stage could be tested with a robotic
mission to mars and a manned mission without landing.
These give us reasonable shorter term objectives. Once completed we
could then plan for a manned landing.

----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email

writes:

We should send men to mars. We need to spread out in order to increase
the survival chances of the human race long term.

OK, but when? And how?

But like all Bush projects his mars project is nonsense.

Please tell us what it is. I think you don't know what it is. Or
care. I think it amounts to "let's start thinking seriously about it
and in the meantime start on an earlier Moon project". Seems
reasonable to me, whether or not it's my favorite plan.

Our current goal should be to keep a small crew in orbit for about 1.5 years
without any support from the earth, followed up by a similar flight of
about 2.5 year duration. (And the crew must return in good physical
condition.)

In which orbit? If your goal is as said at the top, then it would
make more sense to orbit the Earth or Moon, as it's safer and you'll
learn as much. We already know how to do interplanetary flying.

Our second goal should be to develop a nuclear powered stage capable of
the trip to mars orbit and back. This stage could be tested with a robotic
mission to mars and a manned mission without landing.

Same deal. These technologies are better developed near the Earth, if
your goal is to have people living on Mars. You can exercise
propulsion all you want flying around the Earth in various
trajectories.

These give us reasonable shorter term objectives. Once completed we
could then plan for a manned landing.

You'd need to do a lot more technology and infrastructure developement
than that, for your manned landing to help you achieve your goal.
It would still be a one-time or few-time dog-and-pony show. It would
be cheaper to develop the beginnings of a permanent base, and make
that the first manned landing.


But none of that will happen. It would take a long time and the
Public won't pay for it. The Public needs frequent dog-and-pony shows
and Bush/NASA wants to give them one on the Moon about 2020. Seems
reasonable to me. (Mars will come much later, unless the Public
changes its mood.) Note that Congress is the Public's representive in
these matters, with the President and NASA just being advisors.

In article , wrote:

We should send men to mars.

After we've established a good, successful base on the Moon, yes.

We need to spread out in order to increase
the survival chances of the human race long term.

True. That's why we need a Moon base (ideally 30 years ago).

But like all Bush projects his mars project is nonsense.

He doesn't have a "mars project." Did you even watch his speech? He
hardly mentioned Mars, except as a nebulous
things-to-do-after-the-moon-base reference. Which is as it should be.

Our current goal should be to keep a small crew in orbit for about 1.5 years
without any support from the earth, followed up by a similar flight of
about 2.5 year duration. (And the crew must return in good physical
condition.)

No, we've done plenty of whizzing around the Earth. Our next goal
should be to establish a base on the Moon.

Our second goal should be to develop a nuclear powered stage capable of
the trip to mars orbit and back. This stage could be tested with a robotic
mission to mars and a manned mission without landing.

That'd be nice.

These give us reasonable shorter term objectives. Once completed we
could then plan for a manned landing.

No, those aren't reasonable short-term objectives. A reasonable
short-term objective is to return to the moon, for increasingly long
stays (building up to continuous human presence).

Cheers,
- Joe

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

In article ,
says...
writes:

We should send men to mars. We need to spread out in order to increase
the survival chances of the human race long term.

OK, but when?

That's dictated by the technology for life support and the progress that
robotic martian probes might make in finding interesting sites. We do
not need to adopt an artificial, cold-war mentality of rushing to mars
when we don't have the tested technology or even a good idea about what
we would do when we get there.


And how?

Well, for one thing, we shouldn't let a moron like Bush micromanage it
and act like he knows better than NASA how to get the job done. Bush has
essentially forced a moon first and then mars approach here, when it's
quite clear that a mars direct approach would make more sense in every
single respect. However, if you want more specific details then I'd be
happy to discuss those too. I'll wait to see if you're still interested.




But like all Bush projects his mars project is nonsense.

Please tell us what it is.

That's Bush's job. He's modified it so many times already that it's hard
to tell what it really is any more. We only have a rough outline of it.
He is demanding incredibly expensive manned programs on a fairly short
time scale without any serious attention to where 99% of the funding will
come from. He is telling NASA that they have to rob pretty much all of
their other programs to finance a moon mission and "moon base" without
any real regard for the kinds of costs which will be incurred by such an
operation.


I think you don't know what it is.

I think I know as well as most people and that the information is easily
available at places like the NASA website. If you have a question then
you find the answer. We're not required to do your homework for you on
matters that are already part of the public record.


Or
care. I think it amounts to "let's start thinking seriously about it
and in the meantime start on an earlier Moon project".

No, it definitely doesn't involve serious thinking. There may or may not
be a robotic moon mission in the next few years. However, his primary
mission of a manned moon return and a base are quite bereft of any
intelligent planning. We need to research and develop technologies which
would make a moon base practical, rather than just mandating an obscenely
expensive boondoggle like this. We need to focus on a single goal,
rather than megalomaniacally trying to have it all, while refusing to
front serious money.


Seems
reasonable to me, whether or not it's my favorite plan.

Only, Bush is dictating far more and you know it. Bush is requiring a
manned mission to the moon whether there is any need for it or not in the
immediate future. He has ruled out something like a direct mars mission,
which would clearly make the most sense as a manned operation.

But none of that will happen. It would take a long time and the
Public won't pay for it.

They'd pay for continuing rovers to mars and the moon as well as a mars
direct approach.


The Public needs frequent dog-and-pony shows
and Bush/NASA wants to give them one on the Moon about 2020. Seems
reasonable to me.

Well it's not. The moon mission is just plain stupid and an unnecessary
distraction. Having a base on the moon will not seriously cheapen any
martian mission on any reasonable time scale. As usual, Bush doesn't
get it. Mars is the next great challenge. The moon may be an eventual
place of interest for human habitation, but a manned base there is
extremely premature. Perhaps a rover base would be ok, but we have
neither the technology nor the funding to have a permanent manned base
there.



(Mars will come much later, unless the Public
changes its mood.) Note that Congress is the Public's representive in
these matters, with the President and NASA just being advisors.

Ummm....no. Bush can to a great deal with NASA with no congressional
approval. NASA is not just an advisor, but the primary implementors of
the programs put in place. NASA itself has a certain amount of funding
discretion which is ceded to it by congress.





--
__________________________________________________ ___
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins

quibbler writes:

Well, for one thing, we shouldn't let a moron like Bush micromanage it
[...]
happy to discuss those too. I'll wait to see if you're still interested.

Let's see. Bush got a Bachelors degree and a Masters degree from an
Ivy League school. He was a military pilot. He ran an oil company.
He became a Governor and a President and ran a large State for several
years and the USA for two years. And you want us to believe you think
he's a moron? Nice try, but you've only exposed yourself as a Bush
Basher who we could have expected to bash Bush for not going to the
Moon first if he had proposed going to Mars first. No, I'm not still
interested in reading your discussion of anything. So save it, or
better yet, move it on back to "moveon.org".

In article ,
says...
quibbler writes:

Well, for one thing, we shouldn't let a moron like Bush micromanage it
[...]
happy to discuss those too. I'll wait to see if you're still interested.

Let's see.

You have to pull your head out of your ass to do that, so I doubt you
can see at the moment.


Bush got a Bachelors degree

I notice you say "got" rather than earned. Bush was academically
unqualified to enter any ivy league school and only got in on the
"affirmative action for rich, white guys" plan. Bush clearly graduated
from college with lower vocabulary or reading comprehension skills than
most public high school seniors. Want to place any bets on whether he
paid people to do his homework for him?


and a Masters degree from an
Ivy League school.

Yes and many of his teachers can't remember him or gave him a
"gentleman's C", which means that he did little or nothing in those
classes. Clearly Bush doesn't know the first thing about business. He
went out of business consistently until the bin laden family financed
some of his oil deals and his buddies bought a baseball team for him.
Bush as never earned an honest dime in his life, nor has he worked an
honest day in his life, especially as governor and president select.

He was a military pilot.

He had incredibly low aptitude scores and was suspended from flight
status.

He ran an oil company.

He ran it into the ground and lost a lot of other people's money if
that's what you mean.

He became a Governor and a President

If you think that being a governor, or an ivy league grad, or even
president guarrantees that a person is not a moron, then apparently
you're a moron too.

and ran a large State for several
years and the USA for two years.

The texas governor has less authority and responsibility than most other
governors. The legislature only meets every other year to begin with.

And you want us to believe you think
he's a moron?

Bush is a stuttering, stammering, dyslexic with a fifth grade vocabulary
and the flawed reasoning skills to match. He is the proverbial child who
was left behind.

Nice try, but you've only exposed yourself as a Bush
Basher

Bush deserves it. He started it and I'm finishing it. You ****ing
assholes bashed clinton for eight years and you've been bashing liberals
for decades, so you better damn well expect that you're gonna get paid
back. However, that being said, I'm being quite fair and honest about
describing that good-for-nothing retard George W. Bush.

who we could have expected to bash Bush for not going to the
Moon first if he had proposed going to Mars first.

LOL. We have no need to go to the moon at present, especially with a
manned mission. Heck, Bush hasn't had any interest in the moon or mars
for most of his term. In fact, in the aftermath of Columbia he vowed to
keep it flying, regardless of the risk or the expense. Now he proposing
some bizarre, re-election shinola that's strikingly similar to his
father's failed plan.

No, I'm not still
interested in reading your discussion of anything.


IOWs you have nothing intelligent to say. So shut your ignorant hole. I
accept your surrender, you filthy little coward. Now **** off and never
come back.

So save it, or
better yet, move it on back to "moveon.org".

moveon.org is a great organization that tells the truth about Bush. I
can see why an ignoramus like yourself would be repelled by such things.

--
__________________________________________________ ___
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins