Ah, grandiose presidential plans for the space program... *cough*Star Wars*cough* (and not the kind this site is based around ;p)

I did not say bush's plan was idiotic, indeed I support space exploration. And Im sure his proposal will be written with at least one NASA advisor. Returning to the moon/mars are great ideas, but NOW IS NOT TO TIME TO AIM FOR SPACE! That is what makes the proposition idiotic more than anything elce... Sure space will improve the economy, but I think it sill will simply cover some of the existing problems in the US, and the world in general leaving them to worsen. Combine that with several other actions Bush has been pushing, and what will you find, he is pushing for re-election... As for Bush being an idiot, That is an opinion that might be wrong, but Given his actions I certainly dont think that is the case...

The time will come for man to reach for the stars, this is not that day...


------------------
"Well, if I am not drunk, I am mad, but I trust I can behave like a gentleman in either
condition."... G. K. Chesterton

“questions are a burden to others; answers a prison for oneself”

That reminds me of a statement made by someone prior to the turn of the 20th century, that amounted to "we have discovered all that there is to discover."



Then when will it be? I often hear people whine about solving problems on Earth before we commit to space. Common sense asks, why? When will it be the "right" time to venture into space?


-Fox

The "right" time is debateable, of course. But I think most will agree when we will *have* to go to space.

BTW, I hate to break the flow of discussion, but what's the hotkey to toggle overtype?

Fox, I'm not saying that we've discovered it all. I'm saying we don't need to discover anything else. It's not a necessity. It's a desire.

------------------
Baby Mama's Drama

.... I refer back to my original statement.


-Fox

Zuljin and I discussed this in #TACC a few days ago. It appears he thinks desire is bad.

------------------
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.

IMHO, The right time to venture into space is any time the nation is economically, socially, and internationally sound enough to support such an undertaking to its entirety without compromise or unnecessary risk to ANYONE. I fear that right now we meet none of the criteria. The sooner we get into space the better, agreed, but I fear a full attempt at inter-stellar space flight could prove to be hazards to this nation at this time, especially under the current administration (and I am not just talking about Bush here...) As for solving ALL of the problems on earth, no, I dont think that is necessary, as some have said, the very space program itself will help yield the answers, but there are issues yet to be resolved more important at this time...

PS. Fox, don’t take any of this personally, ive wanted to be an astronaut all my child hood (like most of the people here im sure), and I still hold the greatest respect for manned flight, but I just cannot stress enough that this is not a good idea…


------------------
"Well, if I am not drunk, I am mad, but I trust I can behave like a gentleman in either
condition."... G. K. Chesterton

“questions are a burden to others; answers a prison for oneself”

In other words, we'll never go to space? You'll never have all of the above at all, let alone at the same time. The closest may have been under Clinton, but even that was iffy.


-Fox

MOON BASE! MOON BASE!

Hey...Why not? But thats a butt load of money...

------------------

"Bantha's are filthy animals.......I don't eat filthy animals."

"Laugh it up Fuzzball!"
-Han Solo

Perhaps... but here is where I am coming from:

Given our current economic position, both internally and internationally, the new space program would be a tremendous undertaking spanning nearly every field and industry, and it only takes one to falter to prevent the entire project from failing to come to completion. Additionally, if you cannot guarantee the workmanship of every nut and bolt that will go into this project then all efforts might be for naught as the space program literally blows up on the launching pad. I don’t know about you, but our current economy leans allot towards trendy ness (motivated mainly by the stock market), and as such the support for any given industry could suddenly disappear for little or no reason. Also, I dont know about you, but overall the craftsmanship in America is s***, a very small portion of people actually take pride in their work, while most as simply fishing for paychecks and to cover their a**. I personally know of situations where a known defective product was sent out simply because no one cared, do you really want that kind of work going into the new space program?

Next up, society and social structure... America has become terribly unbalanced, with an over inflated middle class that does an miniscule amount of actual work (IE management), while America may have the worlds highest GNP, how much of it is actually usable in a project such as this? Also, look at cooperate and government leadership, can you trust your leaders not to make known bad decisions simply to forward their own goals? Can you trust your senator not to push for a contract to go to a certain company even though he knows they cut corners, just because he will get kickback? OR can you trust the contract companies not to double, or even triple their estimates for cost just because they know they are dealing with the government and can get away with it? Can you trust your leaders not to lie, cheat, and steal to further their own purposes?

And finally, international: No nation can truly even think about such an undertaking without some serious support from other nations, as large as America is, it still does not hold enough resources, economic or otherwise to accomplish this task. Instead America will rely on other nations to further our own goals, even to the point of extortion, something we have done for a long time, and are now beginning to see the effects of (9-11? Iraq?) Can we trust other nations to support us, even if it is not always profitable for them? Can we trust our own leaders not to extort other nations if they do give us that trust?

Think about all of this, and imagine if you will, the potential failures that could occur simply because of how LARGE this project is. When I speak of Hazards and risks, i am not talking about the life of the pilot and crew, they know what they are doing when they step onto that ship. But what about the people, the workers, and the citizens of the world who have little to no say in something they dont even really know about?

When any nation can undertake a space program with minimal fear of any of these failures, then it will be time for man to reach into space... And in the past this has happened, many of the greatest moments in history have occurred when a group of people meet these circumstances, and then create, but this program requires more people than anything before, and I dont think we are ready for it...

------------------
"Well, if I am not drunk, I am mad, but I trust I can behave like a gentleman in either
condition."... G. K. Chesterton

“questions are a burden to others; answers a prison for oneself”

I'll back the proposition because it could very likely give me a job in 5 years.

------------------
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right." -Isaac Asimov

Never tickle the third foot!

Yet we almost didn't go to the Moon because of the Apollo One fire. Even then, people didn't want to take the risks to achieve human spaceflight.

It wasn't simply an acceptance of the risk that got us to the Moon (which exists today, considering how many people are still eager to travel to space in lieu of the Columbia accident). It was politics.


-Fox

What sort of economic stability ar eyou looking for ? I don't see GM or AOL or whatever going out of business any time soon, there's /plenty/ of economic stability, it's just weighted to the top and disinformation about a poor economy is trickled-down as it were so people don't think there's a cut for them to be in on.

Edit: And realistically, if we didn't spend this money on NASA, how big a chance is there that it'd automatically go to feeding clothing and housing for poor people. Yeah.. that's what i thought. Carry on.

------------------
[Blue Mink Bifocals !] [fsck -Rf /world/usr/] [<!-- kalimonster -->] [Capite Terram]
Applecore scowled. "What does that mean, 'real'? Amn't I real, you? If you cut me, do I not bleed? If you piss me off, will I not kick you up the arse?" -War of the Flowers
NPC.Interact::PressButton($'Submit');

[This message has been edited by Dormouse (edited January 09, 2004).]

I've got to agree with one of my uni lecturer's who said once that perestroika was pretty much the death-knell for the US space program.

Fortunately the ESA, china and japan are further ahead now, not exactly up there with NASA, but some competition is better than none.

How? What evidence does he use to support this argument?


-Fox

He's was making a strawman fallacy in the hopes I would post it on this forum.

Whatever. Sounds like campaign grandstanding to me.

Though it would be great news if he followed through on it.

------------------
Shut up. I'm GOING to do this whether you like it or not.

Insert I think. Above delete. (Stupid place for it..)

------------------
MadQuack on Military school: Pro's: I get to shoot a gun. Con's: Everything else.
"I'm going to beat you until the laws of physics are violated!!" ! Maeve's Warcry

RIP -MaDaVentor-. You will be missed.

I see a lot of people refering to this as a "waste" of money. Okay, so the USA might not have half a trillion dollars lying around. BUT WHO SAYS IT WAS GOING TO COST THAT MUCH??? The only thing that the article said was that George Bush Sr.'s plan for space development would be that expensive. There are three things with this plan that were entirely ludicrous.

1. It was expected that the Internation Space Station would be a base for constructing ships to go to Mars.
2. It was assumed that the ships would go into orbit around the moon, where they would be refueled.
3. These ships were going to carry all the fuel needed for a whole round trip to Mars and back.

First off, the Space Station is utterly useless as a space construction station. It would cost several tens of billions of dollars to expand the space station in order to accomodate workers, fuel for the ships, parts, etc. Also, constructing ships in space means that all the materials have to be ferried up from the earth's surface, which is no small task.

Secondly, the delta V needed to go to the moon is almost the same as the delta V needed to go to Mars! So even if there was an infinite amount of free fuel available on the surface of the moon, it would be of no advantage to go there as a stopover before going to Mars. Of course, the situation is much worse. There are not infinite amounts of free fuel on the moon, and to produce fuel on the moon on the scale needed for this type of mission to Mars would need a fully staffed moon base with a large refinery and a whole ****load of power. Then again, its debatable whether the moon even has the correct materials to facilitate making rocket fuel. Sure, there's plenty of oxygen, locked in the rocks, but there isn't much in the way of hydrogen.

Thirdly, unlike the moon, Mars has the necessary materials to make rocket fuel. In fact, it is possible to make enough rocket fuel for a return to earth in a 2-year period by a small chemical plant powered by a 100 kW nuclear reactor. This small chemical plant + a nuclear reactor, as well as a whole ship for returning to earth, enough food and water to return to earth, and a couple of unpressurized rovers, are light enough to be launched DIRECTLY FROM EARTH on a medium-sized rocket booster. Therefore, you can land that and make your fuel, and send out another ship with no return engines on it that is only designed to land, with only two launches from earth. AN ENTIRE MARS MISSION CAN BE DONE USING TWO MEDIUM-SIZED ROCKET BOOSTERS. NO SPACE STATION. NO MOONBASE.

This is all from a book called "The Case For Mars" by Robert Zubrin. In it, he estimates that a mission to Mars, done this way, would cost $30 billion, maximum. Now I know that's still a lot of money. But it is an entire order of magnitude below the 500 billion. A continued program of Mars exploration, Zubrin estimates, should cost anywhere between 8 - 12 % of NASA's budget. That's not all that much, when you think about it.

Anyways, I'm ranting on about Mars, but I'm not even sure if Bush's goal is a mission to Mars, or a moonbase. It seems like he has no idea what his goal is either. Which doesn't really surprise me. If his goal is a base on the moon, fine. If his goal is a mission to Mars, fine. But the mistake that he, and many other people make is that one is the prerequisite of the other.

Anyways, go read "The Case For Mars".

------------------
Death to all who oppose me!

Which is a lie. The ISS was always intended to be a scientific outpost and a means for other nations to cooperate with one another in space (really no different than the way Antarctica is managed).

The plan for utilizing a manned space station for construction projects in space died along with Space Station Freedom.

Other than that, I still believe it's a sound idea to utilize the ISS once it's finished for the mission it was intended. Sending missions to the Moon would be an excellent opportunity to gain experience before going to Mars, as well. Because of the long transit time to Mars, experience on the ISS will prove incredibly beneficial towards understanding how such a mission could be pulled off.


-Fox

oh yeah, and that whole sun thing going supernova in what, oh a billion years, possibly more. but thats not so important.


------------------
"In the memory you'll find me. Eyes burning up.
The darkness holding me tightly.
Untill the sun rises up."

Oh and, To those who say we don't need a moonbase:


We could save ALLOT of money by building ships there and launching from there, using allot less fuel and allot less parts, because we have to escape earth's gravitational field and such, and that uses ALLOT of fuel and power.

------------------
"In the memory you'll find me. Eyes burning up.
The darkness holding me tightly.
Untill the sun rises up."

No, living in harmony with Earth should be our primary goal, but it seems society cant be arzed to make any effort on that front.

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

Sadly, I long ago gave up any hope of that We'll use this planet's resources up sooner than it can replenish, that is basically a certainty.....so let's hope we can make it to the stars in time....and repeat the process there, good times!

------------------
Cantina Cloud | BCF | The Massassian 1 & 2 | Gonkmeg
Corrupting the kiddies since '97

Achieving that goal is much more distant than achieving a colony in space. I would go as far to say that achieving harmony is impossible on this planet.

I don't exactly want to say that colonizing planets for mankind's future is a brilliant idea. When people are exposed to different gravity, climate and atmoshere, changes to the body may appear in generations to come.

------------------
Snail racing: (500 posts per line)
----@%

In generations to come? Astronaughts' bodies adapt to low gravity environments over the course of just a few days. It generally changes muscle and bone structure in a few months.

------------------
Roach - Steal acceptance, lend denial.

0 of 14.

And why not? Amid this space exploration conversation you may have forgotten that progress is being made also in other sciences. By the time we might be ready to actually colonize other planets, the scientific development might have given us two possibilities: To either try to make the planet's conditions suitable for us (that's what we could think to do now) or make us compatible with the prevailing conditions via genetic engineering. That sounds almost unimaginable right now, but remember that it won't be us doing those decisions but the future generations.

------------------
This day we fight

I didn't read it all. I scanned most of it.

As long as there is capitalism, there will be poor people. That means there will be starving and diseased people. That is what capitalism is all about. That is what the US government is all about.
That said, they should spend some of that money that they won't give to feed the country's hungry on space. That's where future capatalism is. There is no risk because the people that do the job and go into space know well the risk they are taking. You can ask them. They will tell you.

Those 2 FACTS stated, (they are facts btw), all the arguments against spending money and taking the risk are null and void.

We must go into space. We as people, for numerous reasons, don't have a choice. If we don't go now, we will in 50, 100, 500 1000 years. The same arguments for and against will be made.

------------------
To artificial life, all reality is virtual.

Actually, it would be *more* expensive, considering it isn't so much a matter of reaching escape velocity, as it is orbital mechanics. Adding the additional complication of launching from a satellite orbiting a planet, to reach another planet, makes things rather difficult.

Direct ascent from Earth to Mars would be far more preferable, and boosters have been conceptualized (or even flown) that could be used towards that end.


-Fox

Thank you!

Since it is actually easier to get to Mars than the moon, the Saturn V rocket (or an upgraded Energia) could launch the entire mission with one launch. Alternatively, two launches of a Titan booster could accomplish the same thing.

The main problem with a moon base is not the rockets needed, however. The problem, as using it for a mission to Mars, is the enormous amount of money and time it would take to build one.

*Due to an interesting bit of orbital mechanics, it's easier to get to the moon from Mars than it is from Earth, which is rather interesting.

------------------
Death to all who oppose me!

It would still be necessary, just as an outpost in low-Earth orbit is necessary. It's baby steps, and there really is no way around it. We've been making them since the Mercury program.


-Fox

Having a moon base would also be really cool.

------------------
Ω of 14
Half-Life 2 Central: your definitive source for everything HL2!