|
Bush to Announce Mission to Mars, Moon (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by failsafe
I'd arge that. In 1954 the space race didn't exist. You're at least a decade off as a minimum figure. |
Rocketry my good friend. Getting to space was built off of past accomplishments. But I suppose if you want to get nit picky, the "race" (not efforts to get there, that happened even earlier) began on October 4, 1957 when Sputnik was launched.
| quote: |
Man has gone only once to the moon ( supposedly ).
|
First of all don't go there unless you have something to back up your claims. I have made it my personal mission to dispel that silly myth so unless you would like to go into it ...
Now into your arguments :)
| quote: |
- Well, some technology might be there, but the technology available, its not good enough.-Take for instance the Space Station. The technology is there right?!?!.. then lets finish that project up. Theres been so many problems with it, and the estimates of its costs have tremendously surpased the amount thought.- Man has gone only once to the moon ( supposedly ).. but like I said, and as you said, theres no luxury now to invest such a humongous amount of money now. I would agree with MrOpous with that this probably IS a distraction thing, and for the president to show the nation that he has a different vision that sounds agressive, and that he wont be that normal president that would take hold of office, but thats another subjet. I would rather stick around sending more robots to mars instead ( even though that too would cost $$$ ).. but that I would agree to some extend instead of just throwing money of on visions that havent been studied.
|
The international space station is the biggest screw up that NASA ever committed to. Between the petty squabbling between nations about who's going to pay for what, delays in construction between the 10 nations or so, and the design flaws that have limited its scientific capability, it has become nothing but a huge burden on space exploration. I wouldn't confuse our capability to accomplish something with the mistakes made in decision to do something. Don't let the issue become politicized by those who do not know what they're talking about. Although I think this is the improper time to embark on such an undertaking, it IS a feasible goal under the right conditions in as little as a few years:
| quote: |
Commentary: The Reasonable Cost of Putting Humans on the Moon and Mars
By Robert Roy Britt
Senior Science Writer
posted: 06:00 am ET
13 January 2004
President Bush's trial balloon for sending humans back to the Moon and on to Mars is, naturally, becoming politicized. Critics question whether America can afford a bold new space initiative at a time of fiscal disarray back home.
"It is not worth bankrupting the country," said Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean.
Of course it isn't. And it need not.
Setting up a permanent base on the Moon -- Bush is expected to call for a return in about 10-15 years -- and then reaching for Mars does not require any outlandish hike in NASA's budget.
Beyond a modest 5 percent increase that Bush will reportedly announce Wednesday, getting people beyond Earth orbit means shifting the existing budget from arguably ineffective and unpopular programs -- crippled shuttles and a leaking space station -- into building a new generation of space taxis and otherworldly habitats.
Severe change needed
To be successful, the reorganization plan should be swift and severe.
Instead of spending billions each year to circle the Earth, Bush should quickly redirect the same billions to an effort singularly focused on getting to Mars, with the Moon as an important step.
Unfounded fears of a money pit abound. An editorial in the Washington Post, for example, faults Bush for thinking of ambitious spaceflight plans at a time when there are serious social and economic concerns.
But comparing the value of human spaceflight to the need for jobs or improved healthcare looks at the whole issue of how to spend federal money from an absurd perspective. It's like asking whether schools should offer sports programs or focus entirely on reading, writing and math.
The question of whether to put humans on the Moon and Mars should be viewed strictly in terms of how best to spend a reasonable chunk of science and exploration dollars, not in comparison to other important government programs. All the while NASA's budget must remain reasonable -- not much more than the tiny fraction of overall federal spending that it is today.
The money is there
The 2004 federal budget is $2.2 trillion. NASA's is $15.5 billion. Reasonable estimates suggest the space agency's share of the pie would need to rise gradually to $20 billion within a few years if footprints are to be made in Martian dust within a generation.
First, Bush aides say, the plan will call for a return to the Moon, in part so new technology critical to a Mars mission can be tested.
In 1995, NASA scientists and engineers developed a plan to put astronauts back on the Moon by 2001 for $3 billion or less. Other estimates nowadays put the cost at around $15 billion over five years.
That's $3 billion a year. NASA has the money.
About half of the agency's budget is already spent directly on human spaceflight. Nearly $4 billion is earmarked annually for the shuttle program. The cost of the space station is elusive, but it exceeds $1 billion each year. Another $2 billion or more goes to supporting research and maintaining the infrastructure needed for all human spaceflight activity.
Drop the ISS
Bush's new plan reportedly will phase out the shuttle program in favor of a new Orbital Space Plane over the next decade.
The fate of the space station is less clear, but remaining planned components would apparently be delivered before costs would drop. The sooner the better. Like the Edsel, the orbiting outpost might be a technologically wonderful machine, but it is not worth the minor science return or lack of inspiration it provides. How many people can name a single member of the eight crews that have lived there? And who can name a single discovery that's resulted from its science operations?
Good science is not necessarily popular science, but NASA knows better than any institution that it doesn't hurt when you are working with public funds.
Bush's exact plans aren't known. But many experts hope the space station will ultimately be supplanted by a new one that would sit about 80 percent of the way toward the Moon, in a gravitationally balanced spot called a LaGrangian point. Getting to and from that station -- and onto the Moon or Mars -- would be cheaper than using bigger rockets to make direct flights.
Reasons to go
"There's no real rationale for colonization of the Moon, so it's hard not to be cynical and conclude this is the space-age equivalent of bread and circuses," Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a Democratic research group, said in The New York Times the other day.
Marshall's criticism is either uninformed or patently political, or both. Scientists and space visionaries can quickly tick off several practical reasons:
Solar energy could be collected on the atmosphere-free Moon from properly located sites 24/7, then beamed to Earth. Some advocates say all the world's power needs could be met. Realistically, it could at least augment strained energy resources for many countries, both industrialized and developing.
Lunar minerals could be mined and shipped back to Earth or used for Moon-based manufacturing of lunar hotels and science facilities. A whole new economy would support scientists, colonists and lunar tourists.
Huge telescopes on the Moon would offer an unprecedented view of the cosmos, unhampered by atmosphere or light pollution. Think Hubble on steroids.
The Moon contains rocks that were blasted from Earth billions of years ago by asteroid impacts. Things don't weather much on the Moon, so these rocks hold the only available clues to Earth's earliest geologic history.
Share the cost
NASA does not have to foot the entire bill for setting up a Moon base. Other nations will want to play, and they will pay. As an additional benefit, some space policy analysts note, such a cooperative international effort could bring nations together as never before. China, with its own lunar ambitions, is an obvious target for cooperation.
And it can be a public-private project in which corporations pony up in exchange for access to lunar minerals and the chance to beam power back to Earth, or to build the first extraterrestrial Hilton.
Private citizens with the means would pay dearly for tickets to the Moon.
Sir Martin Rees, the eminent theoretical astrophysicists and space visionary, recently pointed out that the commercialization of space is already underway. It now needs a governmental nudge to get beyond the realm of satellites.
"Space is already commercially exploited for telecommunications and other applications. But the 'glamorous' aspects of space -- science, planetary exploration, and of course astronauts -- have in the U.S. been the prerogative of NASA. It is time for the private sector to expand its role here too."
On to Mars
Continuing on to Mars will be more dangerous and more costly, with the tangible rewards less evident. Yet in the final cost-benefit analysis, we should not shortchange our souls.
"The moment we land on Mars, all the people of the world will weep with joy," science fiction writer Ray Bradbury said last week.
He's probably close to being right. But what might worldwide rapture cost?
Estimates vary greatly. Many analysts say a manned mission to Mars would cost anywhere from $50 billion to $250 billion. Others, like Robert Zubrin of the Mars Society advocacy group, think it could be done for as little as $30 billion if bureaucracy is limited.
If one assumes a NASA-led $100 billion effort and a launch target of 2024, that would be $5 billion per year if we start funding the project now. That's one-third of NASA's present annual budget. Not outlandish, not impossible, and not with any significant impact on other governmental programs.
Again, other countries will be willing to share the cost of the grandest mission ever, if we ask them to.
Pain for gain
Going to Mars, and even getting back to the Moon efficiently, will mean painful reorganization at NASA.
Programs will be cut, offices closed. Humans might be completely absent from space for a few years as momentum is built for loftier pursuits -- though there is no indication the White House will suggest this route. Robotic space exploration might see flat budgets. Perhaps some NASA employees will be laid off. Yet others would be hired as goals are radically shifted.
Do all this and young, bright minds will view the new NASA as a place where they can do great things. School children would see a reason to study hard, a chance to be the first human to visit and explore another planet.
Bush's plan needs to be business-like, rather than business as usual.
NASA is steeped in innovation, but its human spaceflight program is as stale as a sweat-stained Apollo suit. Nothing short of a clear, long-term and tremendously challenging goal can give its human spaceflight program the vitality and relevancy obvious in its robotic pursuits.
A trip to Mars must also promise practical rewards. These are several to expect.
The technology that would be developed over the next 20 years, in preparation, along with the medical knowledge gleaned from long-term low-gravity living and exposure to high levels of radiation, will have unknown but surely significant benefits to those who remain on this planet. In medicine alone, NASA spinoff technology has a solid track record, having given us MRI and CAT scanners, among many other benefits.
Finally, putting humans on Mars -- especially geologists and biologists -- could quickly answer the ultimate question in science: Are we alone? If there is or ever was microbial life on Mars -- and many scientists believe only a human mission will determine the answer -- then everything we humans think about ourselves, our world, about science and religion, will be viewed in a new light.
No small pursuit.
And no small risk. Human spaceflight is very, very dangerous.
You don't need to tell that to the current astronaut corps, who recently lost seven of their own. These brave adventurers know that more will die if NASA is given a directive to go to Mars. And they are itching to get in line.
http://space.com/news/commentary_bush-plan_040113.html
|
Asides from the potential benefits in colonizing the moon in aiding our resource needs, our culture is rife with benefits gained from technological investments by NASA.
http://vesuvius.jsc.nasa.gov/er/seh/spinoff.html
http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html
http://technology.ksc.nasa.gov/spinoffs/spinoffs.html
To name a few that I've googled in all of 2 minutes.
I've been a strong advocate for a large-scale increase in NASA's budget since the beginning of Clinton's term, and my views haven't changed since. |
|
|
| ShawnGBR |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
I don't believe so. Everybody stole from the Germans who were years ahead... |
The truth is stranger than fiction. The chief architect of NASA's drive to the moon was one Wernher von Braun. Inventor of the V2 rocket that smacked London so unexpectedly that many thought the explosions were gas leaks.
So the first nation on the moon was the USA, courtesy of the Third Reich.
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academ...n/vonBraun.html is NASA's page, and it's quite a read.
I wonder if Bush will use Iraqi 'WMD scientists' to get us to Mars? I wonder if we'll find those Iraqi WMDs there into the bargain? :haha: |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| We can talk about the Russians, Chinese, Japanese, Americans whomever else your fancy may choose but the bottom line is that any space research requires money and lots of it. I hope America cuts back on military spending that way there will be plenty to go to Nasa without a sweat being broken. I have seen people refer to Nasa's space program as stagnated well last time I checked Nasa has one Rover on Mars and another will hopefully touch down in a few weeks, is anyone else doing this that I don't know about. Getting back to that money thing the Beagle hasn't been seen or heard since Christmas and many lament that extensive testing may not have been performed by the ESA in order to save money. The space game is one that requires expensive, extensive commitment without necessarily being rewarded, not too many can afford that gamble ask the ESA about Beagle. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| Personally I believe that NASA should ditch the Space Shuttle program in favor of a Moon/Mars program. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| I believe the key to space exploration today is in giving government incentives for private space research and development. If the government were to give tax breaks or rewards for certain "mile stones" or promise the use of resources found either in space development or in space itself, the private sector could fuel America's next space "adventure." Call me a pessimist, but I am not a strong believer in the current state of government and its overwhelming beaurocracy and inefficiencies in being able to conduct space research and development in a speedy and cost effective way. So, I say let capitalism fuel our explorations. NASA's budget will have to be increased, but with private companies doing the bulk of the work at their own cost and expense, it will not have to be set as high as many people would find unacceptable. |
|
|
| ShawnGBR |
| quote: | | Originally posted by NeoPhono If the government were to give tax breaks or rewards for certain "mile stones" or promise the use of resources found either in space development or in space itself, the private sector could fuel America's next space "adventure." Call me a pessimist, but I am not a strong believer in the current state of government and its overwhelming beaurocracy and inefficiencies in being able to conduct space research and development in a speedy and cost effective way. So, I say let capitalism fuel our explorations. NASA's budget will have to be increased, but with private companies doing the bulk of the work at their own cost and expense, it will not have to be set as high as many people would find unacceptable. |
Capitalism is already on the case with the X Prize. http://www.xprize.org/ is their website, and they'll pay US$10 million to the first team that:
* Privately finances, builds & launches a vehicle, able to carry three people to an altitude of 100 kilometers (62.5 miles)
* Returns safely to Earth
* Repeats the launch with the same ship within 2 weeks.
Time to get cracking... there are 26 teams working on it and one team recently achieved Mach 1... the first manned supersonic flight by an aircraft developed by a small company's private, non-government effort. |
|
|
| occrider |
I'm starting to like Bush's proposal more and more. Key points:
- an increase in Nasa's budget by $1 billion over 5 years. That seems quite feasible to me, hopefully it can come out of defense spending or something of the sort.
- A shift of over $11 billion dollars from other Nasa programs to extra-orbital efforts.
- Use the existing shuttles to finish work on the ISS then retire them in favor of more effecient space vehicles.
| quote: |
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush spurred Americans to "continue the journey" Wednesday, proposing a new spacecraft to return to the moon by 2015, and to eventually use a base there to send a manned mission to Mars.
"The desire to explore and understand is part of our character and that quest has brought tangible benefits that have improved our lives in countless ways," Bush said, during his speech at NASA headquarters, a few blocks from the White House.
"Much remains for us to explore and to learn. ... It is time for America to take the next steps."
Bush asked Congress to increase funding for NASA by $1 billion over five years, while radically transforming the space agency's manned space flight goals -- from low-Earth orbit to audacious missions to the moon and, ultimately, Mars.
Bush also asked NASA to shift an additional $11 billion from other programs to focus on his proposal. The White House's nine-page executive policy directive offered a detailed blueprint to lead NASA from its focus on the space shuttle and the International Space Station to a new class of rockets and spacecraft that will carry humans on exploratory journeys much longer and farther than the shuttle can travel.
"I think what the president has touched on is an important aspect of what is part of our human makeup -- which is to be explorers," said NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe in an exclusive interview with CNN.
Space shuttles are limited to low Earth orbit -- no higher than about 300 miles above the surface -- and can stay in space for slightly longer than two weeks. The International Space Station orbits the Earth at an altitude of about 240 miles.
The space agency will use its first injection of new funding to begin work immediately on a "Crew Exploration Vehicle" designed to carry small crews of people -- not cargo -- into deep space. The CEV may or may not be a reusable craft as the shuttle is.
"It is going to look totally different than what the space shuttle looks like today," said O'Keefe. "So we have to get about the business of developing that capability right away."
The Bush plan calls for NASA to fulfill its obligation to 15 other partner nations to complete the International Space Station in the next five to six years.
As it turns out, those station assembly and resupply sorties will be the final missions for the space shuttle fleet, which first flew in 1981 and is currently grounded in the wake of the Columbia tragedy a year ago.
As part of its investigation into that accident, which killed the seven-member crew, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board has told NASA it must re-certify the space shuttle fleet for flight if it wishes to continue using the fleet beyond 2010.
The Bush administration has decided not to initiate this onerous, expensive task, thus sealing the fate for the remaining shuttles -- Atlantis, Discovery and Endeavour.
NASA projects a new CEV might be ready for a mission to the moon between 2015 and 2020. The space agency would like to establish a base on the surface of the moon -- as a test bed and way station for a manned Mars expedition.
"The human thirst for knowledge ultimately cannot be satisfied by even the most vivid pictures or the most detailed measurements," Bush said. "We need to see and examine and touch for ourselves. And only human beings are capable of adapting to the inevitable uncertainties posed by space travel."
There is congressional concern that the lofty goals in the Bush initiative may far exceed the proposed budget.
"The first year after [President John] Kennedy announced the Apollo program, the NASA budget was doubled," said Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Florida, the only current member of Congress who has flown in space.
"And in the second year it was doubled again. That's not realistic today. But five percent a year increases are not going to get us to the moon."
NASA administrator O'Keefe said the funding requested by the Bush administration is more akin to seed money for development, which will more precisely frame the debate for more funding in the future.
O'Keefe hopes NASA can develop a robust, modular system for space travel that will allow policy makers to make "a la carte" decisions on destinations.
"Each of the individual milestones or objectives is to be priced out," said O'Keefe. "It depends on which option you choose. But between now and then, the objective is to try to find the means to make any of those debates possible."
NASA said it will use money from the space shuttle and space station programs' budgets as they wind down to further fund the new space effort as it progresses.
If all goes according to plan, it appears likely there will be at least a three-year period beginning in 2010 when the United States will not have a vehicle capable of carrying humans to space.
While not unprecedented -- nearly six years elapsed between the last Apollo mission in 1975 and the first space shuttle flight in 1981-- it is an issue that is causing some concern among space advocates.
"There's going to be great concern in Congress and in NASA that you're going to have that period of time with no human space flight actual, no humans actually flying from the United States. We'll be dependent on the Russians for Soyuz," said Marc Schlather, president of ProSpace, a grass-roots space lobbying group.
The seed of this bold idea was planted in the summer of 2002, during O'Keefe's first months as NASA administrator.
In discussions with President Bush, O'Keefe shared his surprise that the agency had no plans to explore beyond low Earth orbit and began discussing a bolder vision for NASA. The president was immediately supportive, according to O'Keefe.
The idea was percolating within the administration when Columbia disintegrated over Texas on February 1.
In a tragic twist of irony, the loss of the orbiter and crew added new urgency and focus to the administration's big plans for NASA.
"Columbia's crew did not turn away from the challenge, and neither will we," Bush said.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/...pace/index.html
|
I'm actually a fan of his proposal. He pretty much adopted the strategies proposed by the senior science writer of space magazine. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| I'm almost starting to like Bush when I saw him announce this plan. |
|
|
| Galapidate |
| Does anyone else see the problem for itself? Does anyone see that Bush tries to divert the American peoples' mindsets with these things whenever something is wrong with the country? |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by Galapidate
Does anyone else see the problem for itself? Does anyone see that Bush tries to divert the American peoples' mindsets with these things whenever something is wrong with the country? |
hehe it is funny I was just thinking the same thing today,when I saw his speach,I hope see what this guy is doing,he cant fool me with all this space stuff!!:p |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Galapidate
Does anyone else see the problem for itself? Does anyone see that Bush tries to divert the American peoples' mindsets with these things whenever something is wrong with the country? |
Well I don't think anybody is going to be disillusioned into forgetting Iraq :rolleyes:. And once again, it's far too early for it to be any kind of election bid. It's a good plan that doesn't necessarily have to be associated with anything else other than national pride/scientific endeavor. |
|
|
|
|
