So i just read this about a Russian proposal for a joint manned mission to Mars. Funny thing is that this is the exact mission plan and cost that has been floating around a JPL for a decade. It's shameful enough that Nixon cancelled our deep space programs -- we were supposed to have men on Mars 20 years ago -- and that we have a ridiculously overbudget and eminently useless international space station taking all of NASA's energy and money, but to have the Russian government propose our own plan because we haven't done anything about it for ten years? Embarrassing.
What a joke. Our space program is shameful.
- Thread starter Scipionix
- Start date
What space program? There hasn't been one for 25 years and it doesn't look likely to be changing anytime soon. Sad really.
My point exactly. It's not even a budget issue, although more money would help. It's a focus, motivation, and leadership issue. Ultimately the blame lies with Congress and the President, and mostly but certainly not exclusively with the Democrats. Just a few sentences like Kennedy's challenge to get to the Moon and we'd have men on Mars in 10 years. It wouldn't cost half as much as that infernal ISS.
Right. And why do we need to go to Mars again? What (aside from Tang) did the "moon challenge" do for us? (serious question)
For starters, it advanced our technical skill, proved our scientific expertise to the world, provided a sense of purpose and a national goal, gave us new knowledge about our surroundings, and fulfilled the human need to explore, learn, and grow. Taken to the logical conclusion, you ask why we should do any basic scientific research, build any monumental structure, waste any time and money with art, etc.
I agree with what everyone has said but I think that learning more about the effects of long term zero-grav exposure/radiation is a worthwhile goal of the ISS. This seems like a logical step before starting a "deep space" program. That being said, there should be at least an interim goal of establishing a permanent moon settlement - should be less expensive than ISS? A moon site seems like good practice for Mars.
I guess space isn't "sexy" with all the wonderful things we are doing in the world now.
I guess space isn't "sexy" with all the wonderful things we are doing in the world now.
There's nothing new on the Moon. We've been there. Mars has many more secrets and far more interesting ones too. Plus, why should we go to the Moon when we have the technology right now to go to Mars?Originally posted by: Kindjal
I agree with what everyone has said but I think that learning more about the effects of long term zero-grav exposure/radiation is a worthwhile goal of the ISS. This seems like a logical step before starting a "deep space" program. That being said, there should be at least an interim goal of establishing a permanent moon settlement - should be less expensive than ISS? A moon site seems like good practice for Mars.
I guess space isn't "sexy" with all the wonderful things we are doing in the world now.
A lot of technology has come about due to the space program. Solely due to the aforementioned reason, I will say 'YES' to space exploration. 
actually, on second thought, I guess a mission to Mars might prove useful for the theory involving Mars being once hospitable for microbes
I got 1 word for all of you. Enterprise. We need to construct the Enterprise and head out there to find the Klingons and Vulcans and to kick some alien butt.
Miramonti
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2000
- 28,653
- 100
- 106
We don't need to waste money to 'prove scientific expertise' to anyone, and we already have plenty of national goals. We're still trying to put up the US flag in every region of this world, why worry about putting it up in places no one even exists. If we need something like this to gain pride, we're a pretty sorry nation, which isn't the case.
What a waste of money for resources that can be applied to a much more constructive goal. Sure technology often comes for NASA technology, but for the billions and billions of dollars that it uses it better. Money like that can be applied to the private sector in a much more applicable, if not competetive environment where the results can be used more immediately and benefitting more people. Hey, why don't we try to feed a few more starving mouths while were at it, or is that digressing from our 'national goals' too far.
we were supposed to have men on Mars 20 years ago
uh according to who, or what timeline? That was NEVER a realistic goal, and you know what, I think sending a manned mission to Mars in 1982 would have been a death sentence.
On the whole subject of space exploration and Mars, I've decided that anything that Dr. Robert Zubrin says is what I agree with. THat dude is the smartest f'er in the world.
Read his books, if you want to really learn some interesting things.
uh according to who, or what timeline? That was NEVER a realistic goal, and you know what, I think sending a manned mission to Mars in 1982 would have been a death sentence.
On the whole subject of space exploration and Mars, I've decided that anything that Dr. Robert Zubrin says is what I agree with. THat dude is the smartest f'er in the world.
Read his books, if you want to really learn some interesting things.
NASA budget for this year takes about 50 bucks out of each person's pocket.
You want to bitch about how our money should go to "earthly pursuits" you are barking up the wrong tree.
You want to bitch about how our money should go to "earthly pursuits" you are barking up the wrong tree.
Are you sure we ever made it to the moon?
Hopefully we will have less expensive approaches to space travel like the newer designed spaceships that Boeing, Lockhead, etc are proposing. With these ships hopefully spacetravel will be less expensive and take less time to prepare before each mission. Also you have to think about the consequences that long term space travel has, especially on the astronouts that are taking the flight.
Hopefully we will have less expensive approaches to space travel like the newer designed spaceships that Boeing, Lockhead, etc are proposing. With these ships hopefully spacetravel will be less expensive and take less time to prepare before each mission. Also you have to think about the consequences that long term space travel has, especially on the astronouts that are taking the flight.
couldn't they use some kind of giant spinning ring like the space station in 2001 to simulate gravity?
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Originally posted by: Gulzakar
actually, on second thought, I guess a mission to Mars might prove useful for the theory involving Mars being once hospitable for microbes
Perhaps we can prove that microbes still exist by bring back a few
Oh and AaronP- smartest guy I ever met was John Wheeler. Something about him in Discover magazine this month. Interesting popular science type article.
NASA does much more than space stuff. They are also a primary research organization for aeronautical research and aviation safety.
You'd need a tableful of Chicago-sized phonebooks to list all the technology that is directly or indirectly tied to NASA programs.
With the budget cuts, and the need to maintain good PR to keep the little bit of money they have now, things have had to slow down. I agree, it's truely a pity (IMHO) that the feds (reacting to the public's apathy) have decided it's not worth the money or effort.
All that money in the private sector wouldn't work.....they'd just get sued for being a monopoly and all the money'd go to the lawyers. Some things just gotta be run by the government, and IMO, space research and aviation safety fall into that category. Much of NASA's research budget comes from the private sector, or universities who pay to have their experiments run in microgravity. Even IMAX pays big bucks for the space crews to shoot some video.....
On the other hand, think of how much better you'd be healthwise; jogging or biking with 50 pounds of radio and batteries strapped to your body.
Feed the starving? Here? In the US? When was the last time you contributed to, or helped out at, a food bank, or worked a soup kitchen? Or do you just want everyone to dump in some cash (via taxes) so that SOMEONE ELSE can do the work.... like one of the other (less-than-steller-efficiencywise) government agencies?
Try some time in the third world, see what starvation and poverty look like. Hint: Poverty is NOT when you have only one TV, an old VCR, a microwave with no turntable, and a car that's more than 6 years old. Many of the "poor" in this country would look like JP Morgan in some other places.
AND...BTW: NASA has been conducting agricultural experiments for decades, with benefits to the terrestrial agro community ...more crops, cheaper crops, more surplus to help feed the hungry.
With the possible exception of the Military / Defense Industries, NASA has done more to improve living (with technology / research) than any other branch of the government, and probably the private sector as well.
JM.02
Scott
You'd need a tableful of Chicago-sized phonebooks to list all the technology that is directly or indirectly tied to NASA programs.
With the budget cuts, and the need to maintain good PR to keep the little bit of money they have now, things have had to slow down. I agree, it's truely a pity (IMHO) that the feds (reacting to the public's apathy) have decided it's not worth the money or effort.
All that money in the private sector wouldn't work.....they'd just get sued for being a monopoly and all the money'd go to the lawyers. Some things just gotta be run by the government, and IMO, space research and aviation safety fall into that category. Much of NASA's research budget comes from the private sector, or universities who pay to have their experiments run in microgravity. Even IMAX pays big bucks for the space crews to shoot some video.....
On the other hand, think of how much better you'd be healthwise; jogging or biking with 50 pounds of radio and batteries strapped to your body.
Feed the starving? Here? In the US? When was the last time you contributed to, or helped out at, a food bank, or worked a soup kitchen? Or do you just want everyone to dump in some cash (via taxes) so that SOMEONE ELSE can do the work.... like one of the other (less-than-steller-efficiencywise) government agencies?
Try some time in the third world, see what starvation and poverty look like. Hint: Poverty is NOT when you have only one TV, an old VCR, a microwave with no turntable, and a car that's more than 6 years old. Many of the "poor" in this country would look like JP Morgan in some other places.
AND...BTW: NASA has been conducting agricultural experiments for decades, with benefits to the terrestrial agro community ...more crops, cheaper crops, more surplus to help feed the hungry.
With the possible exception of the Military / Defense Industries, NASA has done more to improve living (with technology / research) than any other branch of the government, and probably the private sector as well.
JM.02
Scott
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter