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
"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.

"Steven D. Litvintchouk" wrote in message link.net...

As the International Space Station (ISS) has shown, the U.S. isn't
averse to spending billions of dollars on a space project, even one of
dubious value like the ISS, so long as there is a perceived political
payoff.

In the case of the ISS, the Clinton administration cared less about it
being a space station than about it being an international
something-or-other. It became a demonstration of international
cooperation in space, and a way to flatter Yeltsin, and a way to employ
all those Russian engineers who we feared might make weapons instead.
So we not only went ahead with the ISS, we carried along the Russians
even though they had many delays and problems with their own part of the
project.

Well, I feel that working with the Russians is not a bad thing. Their
govt and scientists have shown an interest in launching space probes
to do pure research, at great cost, and there are not many countries
that do that. If we "helped" them with the goal of pursuing
exploration rather than the old routine of competing on political
ideology, then I am for it.

We spent roughly $300B per year for 40 years on defense...that is
$12,000 billion dollars vs $150B for a Mars mission. Both are a lot
of cash. That is why I would like to see a Mars orbital mission as an
interim step. It would familiarize the public with the concept of
extra-planetary flight and would of course involve NASA, RSA, and ESA
in longer-term flights. And it would cost a small fraction of a
lander mission which would occur around 2050, assuming the US is still
solvent financially at that time, and with the material and technical
aid of RSA, ESA and China as well.

by first going to the U.N

I don't see the UN as a motivating factor.

KB

On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 23:20:56 GMT, "Steven D. Litvintchouk"
wrote:



Rusty Barton wrote:

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.

As the International Space Station (ISS) has shown, the U.S. isn't
averse to spending billions of dollars on a space project, even one of
dubious value like the ISS, so long as there is a perceived political
payoff.

In the case of the ISS, the Clinton administration cared less about it
being a space station than about it being an international
something-or-other. It became a demonstration of international
cooperation in space, and a way to flatter Yeltsin, and a way to employ
all those Russian engineers who we feared might make weapons instead.
So we not only went ahead with the ISS, we carried along the Russians
even though they had many delays and problems with their own part of the
project.

Therefore, one way to get a Mars mission started is for some President
to do an end-run around the Congress by first going to the U.N. and
lobbying the U.N. to authorize a Mars mission under U.N. auspices. Once
the U.N. is committed to going to Mars, Congress will go along rather
than be seen as dissing the U.N.. That ploy has worked before for
several U.S. presidents.

Unfortunatly the UN consists of 200 countries, and for a UN Mars
mission which countrys national is going to have the honour of being
the first person to step onto the martian surface? You could ignore
the wishes of the smaller nations, but the permanent members of the
security council and none menbers consist of richers and more powerful
countries i.e. Would America allow a French astronaut to be the first
or vice versa.


Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

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 Christopher wrote:

Unfortunatly the UN consists of 200 countries, and for a UN Mars
mission which countrys national is going to have the honour of being
the first person to step onto the martian surface? You could ignore
the wishes of the smaller nations, but the permanent members of the
security council and none menbers consist of richers and more powerful
countries i.e. Would America allow a French astronaut to be the first
or vice versa.


You assume most of the 200 would care about competing who would be the
first to set the foot on Mars. Thats silly - most of them won't and
many probably couldn't care less if they even participated.


Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

"Hallerb" wrote replying to god knows who because he always snips the attributions ...
No what we need is a spectuclar near earth asteroid to have a glancing but
frightening blow with another scheduled in say 12 years.

Practically speaking a 'near miss' is much, much, much, much* more likely than a
'glancing blow' (which I take to mean an asteroid that scrapes atmosphere but not
turf).

What's the closest observed pass to date of a 'substantial'** sized asteroid, BTW?

* Just keep typing here ;-)

** Say at least 1km diameter ( http://impact.arc.nasa.gov/torino/NASApress.html )

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.

In article , Paul Blay wrote:
"Hallerb" wrote replying to god knows who because he always snips the attributions ...
No what we need is a spectuclar near earth asteroid to have a glancing but
frightening blow with another scheduled in say 12 years.

Practically speaking a 'near miss' is much, much, much, much* more
likely than a 'glancing blow' (which I take to mean an asteroid that
scrapes atmosphere but not turf).

Aerobrakes but doesn't lithobrake :-)

What's the closest observed pass to date of a 'substantial'** sized
asteroid, BTW?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2175837.stm - just outside lunar
distance, about 550k.km

There was one last year which came within 120k.km, but it doesn't meet
your definition of "substantial" - a mere hundred-metre job. The
disturbing thing about that one is that we noticed it on the way
*out*...

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=8713

--
-Andrew Gray

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 +++