|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |