That's why this kind of leadership can only come from the POTUS.Originally posted by: ElFenix
long term? theres only one kind of term length as far as the house is concerned, and thats 2 years, which isn't very long. you must be thinking senate.
Sending people to mars is a bad idea until we get better propulsion. When we can make it Mars and back in under a months time, then is the time to start planning a trip. As long as we are using chemical rockets, we are better off sending probes.
I'm sorry but I refuse to believe that. Six months in space and half their skeleton is gone? No way. I know there's a bone loss problem associated with being in space, but your figure is way way too high, IMO. Please provide a link.
if i recall correctly, the lack of gravity causes calcium loss at a rate of just under 1% a week according to the discovery channel, but that if u lose just 10% of calcium u will be all brittle on earth and couldnt walk.
of course who needs 6 months to get to mars when u can just use the black hole generator, just steal it from Stroggos
of course who needs 6 months to get to mars when u can just use the black hole generator, just steal it from Stroggos
If you want to challenge yourself, enter a decathalon or something. There are many ways you can combat your own sense of complacency. You're a fool if you think a manned Mars mission could be done on...$40 billion? hahahah!
But I was wrong, the Apollo program was not nearly a trillion dollars, only a quarter of a trillion dollars.
Although Kennedy's initial proposal was committed at $20 billion, the costs were indeed much higher because not only did the actual decision to send a man to the moon come well after Kennedy's initial proposal, but the whole program promised to yield great military assets as well, and so many costs were 'hidden' in the military and DOD budget. As with every major new government venture, initial estimated costs prove to be wildly conservative. The Apollo program wound up costing roughly $50 billion, or about $250 billion today.
But let's look at WHY we went to the moon...
Kennedy ramped-up our space program purely for political reasons. After winning a razor-thin election and fearing political fall-out over the failed attempt to oust Castro, Kennedy desperately needed to hit a Grand Slam with the American people. There was no better way to do that at the time than to answer Russian space accomplishments with something big - really big. So massive resources of the United States government were used to create an ad hoc 'Committee to Re-elect Kennedy', in a manner of speaking.
Even if you strain to downplay Kennedy's political motive, what you cannot deny is that the reason Kennedy envisioned the Apollo program as having the potential to pay such attractive dividends like bragging rights was largely motivated by ideological competition. We were telling the world, our own population especially, that the Soviet system sucked and we were great.
Which was true, the average Soviet citizen enjoyed a standard of living that was 50 years behind the average American and the fabled Soviet Collective Farm was proving to be an unmitigated disaster despite the Politburo's desire to hide it. But the Bible Belt was still checking under their beds for Communists every night before bed-time and we needed a way to thumb our nose at the Russians in way that would make people all but forget the Russians had beat us into space - a few times.
However, even in its time, Apollo was far from popular. From Spacepolicy.org:
You see, nobody wanted to go to the moon, spare of a few thousand nerds who saw a good chance of obtaining gainful federal employment. The moon was never an accomplishment whose worth was self-evident, it was a means to another end - bragging rights and Kennedy's re-election.
Today, as then, nobody wants to go to Mars, spare of a few thousand nerds who find something celebratory in donning latex Klingon masks and Vulcan ears for the annual Star Trek Convention. Going to Mars would yield little scientific or useful return in comparison to the costs, maybe we'll get some nifty new pen out of the deal!
Americans rightly decided long ago that our space program should be primarily limited to USEFUL things that promise REAL benefits to the average American, not for just a few geeks who are disposed to allowing their imaginations about 'what's out there' run wild, and current funding for space endeavors are a reflection of that.
Surely you're joking. So the Chinese are exactly where we were nearly FOURTY (40) YEARS ago? And you think this means the Chinese are nipping at our heals? lol!
Greater return? Return of what??
I hear barcodes was due to our space program, neat way to keep everything in order and identify things.
But then, some of us dont even explore outside our homes, since we are in front of the TV and computer all day.
But then, some of us dont even explore outside our homes, since we are in front of the TV and computer all day.
Well that's gotta be worth at least $200 million. Surely there is no way such a revolutionary technology would have ever been developed if it weren't for the space program. We would be using those old manual cash drawers even today!
I wonder who started that myth...
Honestly the Russians wouldn't be stupid enough to use pencils in space. The tips of pencils have the tendency to break off and the tips are conductive. That's no good if your life relies on the electronic systems around you.
$40 billion is actually a little low. That's a Zubrin figure and he probably put the cost lower to get people more excited about Mars. The plan NASA would use (Mars Semi-Direct) will probably cost around $60-70 billion. It CAN be done for $40 billion but not by the government.
Scipionix, the Russian Mars proposal is a horrible way to do it. They propose a six man mission with 3 people going to the surface and 3 staying in the capsule. Unless you have some artificial gravity those people in orbit aren't going to be walking again, not to mention the cancer they'll get. They also say it'll cost $20 billion which is weird because an article I read about it said $60 billion. At $60 billion the Russians couldn't afford 30% of it.
The best way to Mars is using Mars Direct with a nuclear engine (VASIMR being the best). Unfortunately people bitch and moan about launching nuclear materials into space.
"Earth is the cradle of mankind; but one cannot live in the cradle forever" -Constantin Tsiolkovsky-
Like it or not, Earth is doomed. Maybe not right now, maybe not tomorrow, but Earth is doomed. Sooner or later there will be massive catastrophy that will destroy human society here (war, either conventional, nuclear or biological. Or catastrophy, like collision with asteroid or comet). When that happens, I sure hope there are humans elsewhere besides Earth. Colonizing space is the only viable way to ensure the safety of mankind.Would you put all your eggs in one basket?
And, space-exploration has always brought good things to us. New propulsion-technologies, advances is computing, more scientific-knowledge, sense of purpose, a goal.
hehe, the final costs of the Big Dig in Boston will likely exceed $15 BILLION and you think we're going to Mars - manned - and back for $40 billion?
I've got some ocean-front property in Arizona you'll be very interested in. Make you a good deal on it.
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.
I've read that for every dollar put into the space program society gets 4 dollars back in technology and science advancements. Wasn't the microchip first developed for the space program?
Because there's no gravity, right? What if in the space ship they had some sort of spinning machine with a diameter of 12 feet that the crew slept in? It would spin fast enough to make 0.5G (I think 1G would just make them dizzy and sick from all the spinning, but I dunno) which could help stave off bone loss.
I doubt we'll solve any of our major problems in the next 50 years, probably even never. Now is as good of time as any to explore space.
That's not a good coparison. In fact, I agree with you that the extent of East Coast corruption and waste cannot be comprehended my mere mortal minds.
what's the exact cause of bone loss? lack of gravity?
I'd support it if other nations join... so we don't have to pay as much.
Yeah, $15 billion seems a little insane to me to build a highway that will be clogged in 5-10 years time. They could have taken that money and instead built one of those monorail projects I've heard about that are supposedly cheap to build and run one down every major street with a density big enough that nobody in the entire city would have to walk more than 200 feet to reach a station (and with high-speed lines going 200mph). If I had a link to one of those systems I'd post it, but maybe someone else has heard of this idea before. For $15 billion? I think something like that could have been built spanning the entire city. Would have made a hell of a lot more sense than a highway, too. People won't have to drive if they have better options.
Well, going back to the Mars thing, I came across this document, and it was a very interesting read.
silverpig
Lifer
- Jul 29, 2001
- 27,703
- 12
- 81
AFAIK, bone loss in space occurs because, well, we don't really need bones in space. It's sort of like how you'll get fat, weak and lose muscle mass if you lay in bed constantly, and the opposite of how you get large strong muscles by working out. Your body just adapts itself to it's environment. If you do a lot of hard manual labour all day long, your body will compensate to make the work easier by spending more of it's resources on muscle development. If you sit on your ass all day, there's no reason for your body to have any muscles, so it doesn't develop them.
It's the same in space and on earth. On earth, you have to support your own weight, and you need bones to do that. If we all lived on Jupiter (gravity > 2g), we'd have extremely strong bones. In orbit, you don't have to support your own weight very much, so all of the superfluous calcium is done away with. (note: it's not because of the lack of gravity at all; there is gravity in orbit, and actually, it's not that much weaker than the gravity we feel here on the surface. If you were in orbit, but were constantly being pulled down magnetically or by elastics, you'd lose less bone mass. In fact, astronauts do exercises that simulate surface-like gravitational effects.)
It's the same in space and on earth. On earth, you have to support your own weight, and you need bones to do that. If we all lived on Jupiter (gravity > 2g), we'd have extremely strong bones. In orbit, you don't have to support your own weight very much, so all of the superfluous calcium is done away with. (note: it's not because of the lack of gravity at all; there is gravity in orbit, and actually, it's not that much weaker than the gravity we feel here on the surface. If you were in orbit, but were constantly being pulled down magnetically or by elastics, you'd lose less bone mass. In fact, astronauts do exercises that simulate surface-like gravitational effects.)
I remember one study on bone loss where they had twins lying in a bed (on earth) that was at a 10 degree tilt, so their feet were slightly above their heads, to simulate weightlessness. They had one of them do exercise and the other didnt. The one that didnt loss more bone.
We should do some serious research so we can do some intergalactic space travel
We should do some serious research so we can do some intergalactic space travel
that being said.. go watch Space Station on IMAX very kewl space/weightless footage. ah sweet sweet detail
plenty of kewl footage, sh*t that just wouldn't be the same on a smaller screen
very kewl space/weightless footage. ah sweet sweet detail plenty of kewl footage, sh*t that just wouldn't be the same on a smaller screen
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