Human Exploration of Mars

Christopher ) wrote:
: On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:18:10 +0000 (UTC),
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
[...]
:
: : The US space program needs to reinvent itself and not just provide
: : employment to 20,000 pen pushers, and rely a $14 billion umbilical
: : cord full of public money.
:
: What do you propose?

: Starting fresh with sensible goals and no political agenda driving
: events.

The problem there is that when public funds are concerned there is politics. Heck
even private industry has politics.

: Do you question the $400+ billion that goes to the
: DOD?

: Yes, to much money is spent on keep the defence contractors happy
: producing weapons and equipment that cost to much and don't do what
: they are claimed to do.

Even if the did what they claimed to do blowing **** up seems quite unproductive
to me.

: Quite a small is the $15 billion that NASA gets as compared to what
: the DOD gets. Does the war machine to actually be THAT big?
:
: : My generation was too young to see men on the Moon and it will be nice
: : to see people on Mars, soon. Dreams!
:
: : So build you're own spacecraft and go to Mars as a private mission
: : then.
:
: Who would regulate that he built it in such a manner as to be safe for
: all?

: Well if the design was faulity he's never make it to Mars, who
: regulated the Write brothers Flyer 1?

Agreed. But look at the regulation in the aviation industry today. When the
Wrights flew no one knew what to expect. Add a few disasters later and we got
regulation.

: You free enterprise of space folks need a new schtick. If NASA got just 3%
: of the DOD budget (talk about a waste of US taxpayer funds), they could do
: a heck of a lot more.

: If NASA was free of political control they'd do a damn site more with
: what they have.

How is that possible? NASA is a govt. agency, by definition political.

Eric

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

Christopher ) wrote:
: On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 15:12:19 -0000, "Doug Ellison"
: wrote:

:
: That should comfort American's who are worried their jobs may go to
: China that their tax dollars are paying to go to Mars.
:
: Any tax $ spent on the space program in essence comes back to the country by
: paying for thousands of engineering and aerospace (and management scum) jobs

: And what about all the lower ranking pen pushers and assorted
: bureaucrats involved with the space program?


What about them? Someone has to oversee contractor work. Do you propose they go
away?

Eric

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

Christopher ) wrote:
: On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:22:33 +0000 (UTC),
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:

: Doug Ellison ) wrote:
:
: : That should comfort American's who are worried their jobs may go to
: : China that their tax dollars are paying to go to Mars.
:
: : Any tax $ spent on the space program in essence comes back to the country by
: : paying for thousands of engineering and aerospace (and management scum) jobs
:
: Not to mention the byproducts like velcro, teflon, solar batteries,
: calculators, computers, etc.

: Which are now made outside America, as labour costs are cheaper.

Thanks to Reagan granting China Nation Most Favored WRT trade back in 1984.
I suppose you support the US labor unions, then?

Eric

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

Michael Walsh ) wrote:


: Henry Spencer wrote:

: In article ,
: Paul F. Dietz wrote:
: Van Allen had the following to say (in 1986) about the Columbus analogy:
: ...
: ...There, of course, remain many matters of deep scientific interest on Mars
: but these matters can be addressed ... by automated ... missions."
:
: Translation: the scientific matters that James Van Allen cares about can
: be addressed by automated missions.
:
: Note that Van Allen is a "sky scientist", studying fields and particles in
: space, with little interest in planetary surfaces. It shows.
: --
: MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer
: pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. |

: I note that James Van Allen has been a consistent and vocal opponent of
: manned space flight for many years.

: He is one of the most noted of what Henry refers to as a "sky scientist",
: but I don't believe he put the Van Allen belt in orbit to deter
: manned space flight. :)

Yes, folks like Rand don't smile so the addition of a smiley is a must!

: I have found a better put a smiley after comments like my last or
: someone might take me seriously.

: Mike Walsh

Paul F. Dietz ) wrote:
: Michael Walsh wrote:

: I note that James Van Allen has been a consistent and vocal opponent of
: manned space flight for many years.

: I imagine he is feeling rather vindicated by how it has all turned out.

Vindicated? How so? Manned spaceflight is permanently grounded. Do you think that
the next return to flight by NASA will be anti-celebratory for Van Allen?

Eric

: Paul

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote in message ...
Michael Walsh wrote:

I note that James Van Allen has been a consistent and vocal opponent of
manned space flight for many years.

I imagine he is feeling rather vindicated by how it has all turned out.

Paul

James Van Allen opposes manned space flight because he mistakenly
thinks that exploration should be about gaining science. It's an
opinion society as a whole has very little sympathy for, because pure
science is what motivates only a very small percentage of society for
anything.

Tom Merkle

Dick Morris wrote:

Especially since he played a major role in making it turn out the way it
has.

That's sour grapes bull****, Dick. It turned out the way it did because
the idea of manned spaceflight has inherent flaws, not because Van Allen
had the audacity to point out this fact.

Paul

Eric Chomko wrote:

: I imagine he is feeling rather vindicated by how it has all turned out.

Vindicated? How so? Manned spaceflight is permanently grounded. Do you think that
the next return to flight by NASA will be anti-celebratory for Van Allen?

He pointed out it was idiotic. It has proved to be so. He was right,
his critics were wrong. Wouldn't you feel vindicated?

Yes, I imagine he would feel more vindicated if the shuttle went the way
of the dirigible, but you can't have everything.

Paul

Tom Merkle wrote:

James Van Allen opposes manned space flight because he mistakenly
thinks that exploration should be about gaining science. It's an
opinion society as a whole has very little sympathy for, because pure
science is what motivates only a very small percentage of society for
anything.

We can ask why government supports science at all. Presumably the
answer to that question is what justifies space science. If we assume
that space science is justified, we can then ask what justifies manned
spaceflight. Van Allen's position is that the latter cannot be
similarly justified. Others may conclude that neither can be justified.

Paul

In article ,
"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

Tom Merkle wrote:

James Van Allen opposes manned space flight because he mistakenly
thinks that exploration should be about gaining science. It's an
opinion society as a whole has very little sympathy for, because pure
science is what motivates only a very small percentage of society for
anything.

We can ask why government supports science at all. Presumably the
answer to that question is what justifies space science. If we assume
that space science is justified, we can then ask what justifies manned
spaceflight. Van Allen's position is that the latter cannot be
similarly justified. Others may conclude that neither can be justified.

Still others will conclude that manned space flight is justified on
grounds having nothing to do with science, while space science itself is
not justified.

Cheers,
- Joe

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