A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 7th 03, 05:34 PM
Scott M. Kozel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
  #2  
Old September 7th 03, 10:37 PM
Rusty Barton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Lost in Space: NASA Badly Needs a Mission That's Worth Dying For

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-
  #3  
Old September 8th 03, 08:50 AM
Kent Betts
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Lost in Space: NASA Badly Needs a Mission That's Worth Dying For

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
  #4  
Old September 8th 03, 11:47 AM
Christopher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Lost in Space: NASA Badly Needs a Mission That's Worth Dying For

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
  #5  
Old September 8th 03, 11:52 AM
Mark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Lost in Space: NASA Badly Needs a Mission That's Worth Dying For

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
  #6  
Old September 8th 03, 01:04 PM
Sander Vesik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Lost in Space: NASA Badly Needs a Mission That's Worth Dying For

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 +++
  #7  
Old September 8th 03, 02:04 PM
TKalbfus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Lost in Space: NASA Badly Needs a Mission That's Worth Dying For

"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!"


Don't confuse the physical end product for the goal of the mission. Primarily
what a Mars mission does is bring back information, we get to find out about
the planet. Most of this information gets transmitted to Earth from Mars, only
some of this information takes the form of returned samples. If for example,
they astronauts find subsurface water, they are not going to return the
subsurface water to Earth. And it seems that you've at least trippled the cost
of a Mars mission. Everybody who does not like a Mars mission has a tendency to
inflate its costs. While your at it why don't you say that a Mars mission will
cost $10 trillion, and that its too expensive and shouldn't be undertaken. How
about improving the nation's electrical grid? Naw, it'll cost $10 trillion, and
its way too expensive, better to live with the occasional power outage. How
about hydrogen fuel cell vehicles? Naw, it'll cost $10 trillion, better just to
drill for more oil and keep the Arabs happy in the meantime.

Tom
  #8  
Old September 8th 03, 02:14 PM
Al Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Lost in Space: NASA Badly Needs a Mission That's Worth Dying For

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.
  #9  
Old September 8th 03, 02:19 PM
TKalbfus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Lost in Space: NASA Badly Needs a Mission That's Worth Dying For

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


How many missions does that price tag include? For $150 billion, we should be
able to find a cheaper way to get to Mars.

There is the old standby, you build a giant rocket and throw the payload to
Mars.

or

You could build a low-thrust high-efficiency, nuclear powered plasma rocket and
launch that into Earth orbit, this will lower the payload needed to be lifted
to low Earth orbit as the plasma rocket will need less reaction mass to get to
Mars. A Nerva rocket will do for the return vehicle, or at least to get back
into Mars orbit so the plasma rocket can take them back.

or

You build a cycling space station and launch it into Solar Orbit such that it
cycles between Earth and Mars continously. You just launch the astronauts in a
small capsule to dock with the Cycler. The space capsule is also a Mars lander
with empty fuel tanks and a nuclear reactor. Their is a Mars hab preposition on
the Mars Surface ready for its first occupants.

Tom
  #10  
Old September 8th 03, 05:39 PM
Sander Vesik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Lost in Space: NASA Badly Needs a Mission That's Worth Dying For

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 +++
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) Stuf4 Space Shuttle 150 July 28th 04 07:30 AM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 April 2nd 04 12:01 AM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 February 2nd 04 04:33 AM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 September 12th 03 01:37 AM
Lost in Space: NASA Badly Needs a Mission That's Worth Dying For Scott M. Kozel Space Shuttle 16 September 10th 03 10:32 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.