# Bush Administration to Fund Nuclear Mars Rocket **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 18, 2003, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-administration-to-fund-nuclear-mars-rocket/149440 "2003-01-18T08:01:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Alien2022](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e19adc/32.png) [@Alien2022](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alien2022)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2003, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-administration-to-fund-nuclear-mars-rocket/149440/101 "2003-01-21T01:23:26Z")
500 Billion dollars using Chemical Rockets… Yes… It could probably be done for 1/2 of that cost or less using NPR technology and current advances in the fields of rocket travel. Hell, even using Ion Drives is better than using Chemical Rockets. I think what Bush does, is announce a huge increase in NASA’s spending. Some goes to Prometheus, some goes to an orbital elevator project, which the government controls, so that we rake in huge, huge, profits from this thing. While we build the orbital elevator, which ultimately will be used to ferry the Mars rocket up, we experiment with NPR, send them to the moon etc. Send more men to the moon and start building stuff there. Soon, we could have people living there. The, once the NPR is tried and true, we use the functioning orbital elevator to start building the Manned Mission to Mars. That’s what I’d like to see happen. That way, we take baby steps, and then one big leap. Plus, we create a ton of infrastructure for return trips, and we make space travel economical. After all, travelling through space isn’t what makes it so costly. It’s getting off Earth, that makes space travel insanely expensive. Orbital elevator would mean that we would be able to send up satellites for mere 2 or 3 million dollars. Nothing compared to todays outlandish costs of 200 million dollars. ---
**Author:** ![GOM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f9b8f/32.png) [@GOM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GOM)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2003, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-administration-to-fund-nuclear-mars-rocket/149440/102 "2003-01-21T01:35:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Alien2022 \* > \*\* > I think what Bush does, is announce a huge increase in NASA’s spending. Some goes to Prometheus, some goes to an orbital elevator project, which the government controls, so that we rake in huge, huge, profits from this thing. \*\* We can always hope… However, I’m afraid that space is on the back burner. We have terrorism and a huge budget deficit to deal with right now. Not trying to be a pessimist, just a realist. I’ll watch the address with interest. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2003, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-administration-to-fund-nuclear-mars-rocket/149440/103 "2003-01-21T03:10:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tuckerfan \* > First of all, there have been more unmanned missions than manned missions, so it’s only natural that more spin-off developments would come from there. Well, if you are doing a **cost** -benefit analysis, you have to look at the relative costs not the relative number of missions. Each manned mission is way more costly than each unmanned mission. > [@](#): > > Secondly, the manned and unmanned mission technologies are so intertwined with one another that it’s nearly impossible to limit the developments to one area. For example, electronics tend to operate best in the same kind of environment humans like (though electronics can tolerate _colder_ conditions than humans), so the technology needed to cool a space craft is the same for electronics as it is for humans. Sorry, but you ain’t gonna convince me that it is not a lot more complicated and expensive when human lives are involved. > [@](#): > > Third, the _need_ to develop minature electronics wouldn’t be so great if humans weren’t along for the ride…Electronics need none of this, so space isn’t at a premium with an unmanned probe to the extent that it is with humans along for the ride. This argument seems to amount to an argument that humans make things much more difficult and therefore that’s good because they force you to do a better job of miniaturizing everything else. Well, hell, why don’t we just make a rule that the rockets have to carry up a lot of dead weight and space. It will be a much cheaper way to get the same results. > [@](#): > > Fourth, until we can come up with robots as cute and cuddly as R2-D2 and C-3PO, humans aren’t going to be as entralled with unmanned exploration as they are with bold, human-based explorations, so if people like Robert Park want _unmanned_ exploration to continue, they’re going to have to put up with humans mucking up their beautiful vacuum of space, because we don’t give a shit when the next communication satellite is launched, but we _do_ give a shit when the space shuttle is launched. So, what you are saying is that in order to do what we want to do, we have to spend like 10X as much money on advertising?!? ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2003, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-administration-to-fund-nuclear-mars-rocket/149440/104 "2003-01-21T04:25:51Z")
**jshore** , I’m not claiming that manned flight is cheaper than unmanned flight. I’m simply pointing out that trying to say we got benefit X _solely_ from the unmanned program is a load of fetid dingoes kidneys. While electronics don’t need to breathe oxygen or eat, they _do_ need to be protected from radiation just as humans do. And certainly it _is_ more expensive to send humans into space than it is robot probes, but if humans don’t set wade into the cosmic ocean, then _what good is any of this?_ One can argue that it would have been cheaper for Columbus to stay home, but he didn’t. Not only that, he never even found what he was looking for! But look at what he _did_ find! Two entire continents which contained a wider variety of food than the rest of the world combined. Sure, we can send a little robot car to Mars for roughly $200 million dollars, while its going to cost at least $20 billion (and no doubt much more) to send humans to Mars, but we’ll _learn_ more from the humans than we did from _Mars Sojourner_. That little robot did an amazing job, but her range was severely limited, and she could only look at what the folks on the ground pointed her at. During her “downtime” she couldn’t stare out the window and say, “Hey! There’s something sparkly over there!” And no doubt we could dump a massive automated labratory onto Mars which could do all kinds of amazing experiments and send back pretty pictures from Mars, but are those robots going to inspire little kids sitting in front of the TV at home, watching the images come back into wanting to be a scientist? Yeah, some, but not as many as if they watch human beings bounce around on Mars. Whatever case you can make about exploring using unmanned is irrelevant since we _don’t_ go exploring to build better robots, we go exploring to satisfy human curiosity. Even the most technologically advanced robot can’t satisfy that. All a robot probe can do is to whet our appetite for more. For instance, take [this](http://msnbc.com/news/861771.asp?cp1=1) news story. The science teachers in it built a small satellite, which is ultimately designed to _encourage_ human interaction with it. All it is, is a giant disco ball with a radio transmitter in it that’s designed to burn up spectacularly upon re-entry. Why? Not because the kids will be gaining a hell of a lot of knowledge from it, though they will gain some, but because if they can _interact_ with it. They will have touched something that’s going into space, they’ll know that people all over the world will have looked up at it and seen it twinkling in the night and watched it’s firery re-entry into Earth’s atmosphere. Limiting space to robots is like limiting history to the history books. Why do we need to build replicas of trebuchets? We’ve got the historical accounts! Heck! Why even keep anything that’s remotely obsolete? Let’s just trash it all! We’ve got pictures of the Mona Lisa, who cares what happens to the original! Are you so soulless that you can’t grasp the concept that it’s more important to send humans into space than robots? Even as a non-believer, I can stand before Christian churches and be moved by what went into them and the emotions which they were designed to evoke. Sure, that money could have been spent on things such as helping the poor and downtrodden, but the folks who paid to have that church built (many of them poor and downtrodden themselves) _didn’t_ want the money spent that way, they knew that there was something greater than themselves out there. Robots can’t know that, but humans can. > [@](#): > > So, what you are saying is that in order to do what we want to do, we have to spend like 10X as much money on advertising?!? Not exactly, but I won’t protest if someone does. Check out the second link in my sig and you’ll see what I mean. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2003, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-administration-to-fund-nuclear-mars-rocket/149440/105 "2003-01-21T11:22:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Harmonix \* > **Clearly it’s possible we could have contaminated mars, but if we were to find _living_ specimens we’d pack em up and ship em to a [Biosafety level 4 lab](http://www-dateline.ucdavis.edu/121302/dl_biosafety.html) where we’d breed and study the living hell out of it. On a biochemical level I doubt martian life would be similar to earth. Differences in metabolism for example would greatly support an exterterrestrial origin(This is because some processes like glycolysis, or the triplet-based genetic code are evolutionary conserved in 99.99999999999999999% of all living organisms.)** But how will you know that it isn’t merely a terrestrial organism that has adapted to the Martian environment? That’s what natural selection is all about, isn’t it? Adaptation? ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2003, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-administration-to-fund-nuclear-mars-rocket/149440/106 "2003-01-21T11:58:17Z")
For those would love more information on potential mission profiles to Mars, I’ll suggest Robert Zubrin’s “The Case for Mars”. In it describes how a low cost mission 10-20 billion would be possible by using current technology and Martian resources (i.e. Ship hydrogen to the planet, use the CO2 and produce Methane for the return flight.). Heck **Libertarian** he even has a section on funding: public, public/private, prize competition. Space flight will open up vast frontiers that will allow people to establish their own worlds. Libertarias could be attempted. We could have actual examples of if and how they work. ---
**Author:** ![GOM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f9b8f/32.png) [@GOM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GOM)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2003, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-administration-to-fund-nuclear-mars-rocket/149440/107 "2003-01-21T16:15:23Z")
This thread reminded me of another good board I hadn’t been to in a long time: [http://www.newmars.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi](http://www.newmars.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi) ---
**Author:** ![dalovindj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/65b543/32.png) [@dalovindj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalovindj)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2003, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-administration-to-fund-nuclear-mars-rocket/149440/108 "2003-01-21T22:03:53Z")
I’ll believe it when I see it, but if this is true it will be one of the greatest things humans have ever done. Reading this thread, I have actually shed a tear. A tear of joy and hope thinking of the promise and possibilities that seem to lie within our grasp. I’d like to address the reasons to go to Mars specifically, the general reasons to explore our solar system and beyond, the realities of the technologies and costs involved, and the dangers and risks that we must face and anticipate to the best of our ability. I may be repeating some things others have said here, but bear with me, I love this stuff. As this post will illustrate, this issue covers an incredible amount of ground: Ecology, Theology, Paleontology, Politics, History, Ethics, Economics, Philosophy, Safety, Survival of the Species, and those greatest of human traits: Hope and Imagination. **MANNED MARS MISSIONS: WHY?** **1. The Search For Life** I would have to say, that for the short term, this is the main reason to put humans on Mars. A team of humans with the proper tools could do far more to solve this question then 100 robotic probes (at least _current_ robotic probes). A human team could make on the fly decisions and could follow leads wherever they may take them. We are fluid, adaptable, and we have a tool at our disposal that modern robots lack: Intuition. Why is this question so important? Because our species does not know why we are here, how we got here, or whether there is any purpose whatsoever to our existence (other than that which we choose to give it). Sure, one could find millions of people who claim to have the answers to these questions, but I suspect they are just fooling themselves. For thousands of years humans have dressed up their ignorance in superstition. Gods and demons are responsible for everything, or so they would have us believe, but the truth is more likely than not that the answers to these questions have never been known by any human . . . so far anyway. How life originates? Where? And, if possible, Why? These are the most compelling questions that I have ever encountered. Anything that furthers the pursuit of this knowledge is to me, the most important thing we as a collective species could do. **Lib** points out an interesting little question. Even if we find life there, how do we know we didn’t contaminate mars with this life with one of our earlier probes? Hell, that’s not even the half of it. You see, a Nasa space probe isn’t the only way that could have happened. [Panspermia](http://www.panspermia.org/) (and even more dramatic: Cosmic Ancestry) is the really interesting possibility here. What if life from Earth or Mars was transferred from one to the other when rocks, which contained bacteria, were blasted into space by meteor/comet crashes? What if this happens all of the time? What if the origin isn’t in our Solar System? What if space in general is filled with the seeds of life? As recent studies hint, we may be bombarded by alien bacteria daily. If this is true, there are a couple of interesting possibilities. One, it is a random and unintelligent process as described above. The other is that some other species somewhere in the universe decided that instead of (or in addition to) sending space ships around the universe, bombarding star systems with bacteria that has the ability to adapt and evolve was the way to go. If this turns out to be the case, then perhaps we can track the origin of this bacteria and find our “parents”. A grand puzzle which will undoubtedly paint an awe inspiring story however it ends up fitting together. Either way, humans on Mars could look for fossils, which is the main answer to **Lib** ’s question. Humans are much better equipped to do this then robots. If we found ancient fossils of life on Mars, it would show that our technology didn’t bring it there, but as I pointed out, it would not prove it did not come for Earth. This great puzzle to me seems a solvable one, and we just need to reach out with human hands and put our tools and resources on the pieces to start really putting it together. Our job is to find meaning in our existence. If after we have looked under every rock and in every star in our universe, we fail to find that which we seek, then it becomes our job to create it. The next best place to start looking for the answers is Mars. **2. Eggs in one Basket** Everything is relative. Our planet’s ecosystem is tough and resilient, but also fragile. We may destroy every trace of our knowledge and existence any day. The same could happen without us doing anything at all. The dinosaurs should teach us a valuable lesson. Our rock is in danger of being smashed. It happens. It will happen again. We have suffered too much, we have shed too much blood, too many people have died, too many people have given their lives for knowledge, art, and love. To lose all of that progress, to lose all of that history, to forever banish the beauty, achieved at such a painful price, from any awareness or memory is the greatest for tragedy humanity could suffer. The things we’ve learned and earned must be protected. Colonies on the moon, Mars, asteroids, Venus, all through the Solar System, and eventually out into the Galaxy and beyond is our only real hope of preserving this history and our achievements. I for one hope that the backs of the giants that we stand on are never erased. I want them to be there until this universe winks out of existence. Again, it’s not a question of the Earth is doomed, just a question of when. “In our obscurity – in all this vastness – there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. It is up to us.” - Carl Sagan **3. Population Growth & Technology Development** Plain and simple. The Earth has a maximum holding capacity. The actual number is debatable, but surely there is one. To allow more humans to exist, we’re going to need a place to put them. The moon is colonizable. Mars is our best bet for terraforming. Venus comes next. Without intergalactic travel, we have to look to the planets in our neighborhood to provide homes for future generations. To do this, we need to be able to get to these places cheaply and routinely. Going to Mars will help us learn how to successfully pull this off. We will develop the procedures and technology required to allow humanity to continue to grow and evolve into something better - the best we can hope for. Nevermind the fact that science (genomics, organ cloning, proteomics) seems poised to greatly enhance our lifespans - perhaps to hundreds of years or more. **SOLAR SYSTEM EXPLORATION: WHY?** **1. Industry & Wealth** As well as the reasons I gave for exploring Mars (which in many ways apply to the Solar System in general - ie the search for life, our quest for knowledge, technology creation/mastering, new habitats), a major reason to put money into space launch and propulsion technologies is the tremendous wealth that will be generated in the case of success. From [this](http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/neo/resource.html) website: > [@](#): > > It has been estimated that the mineral wealth resident in the belt of asteroids between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter would be equivalent to about 100 billion dollars for every person on Earth today. And that is just considering the materials we use today. Who knows what new processes or materials (Dilithium!) may be found that add to human wealth and help to allieviate our suffering. Then there is tourism to consider. With cheap access to space, and mobility once we get there, whole new industries and markets will spring into existence. **THE TECHNOLOGY: IS IT THERE?** **1. Space Elevators** It seems to me, as stated by others here, to realize our Solar System’s true potential requires space elevators, fast ships, and the human touch. A very [interesting thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=106131) exists on this board dedicated to the realities of a Space Elevator (projected by some to be achievable in 15 years). It seems the main obstacles to the construction are the quantity of Carbon Nanotubes able to be produced (which is quickly becoming a non-problem) and the ability to weave a cable out of these tubes. If we could make such a cable out of this material which we already can create, it should have the strength to support such an endeavor. **2. Nuclear Powered Manned Vehicles** As far as I know, the technology to create such ships is there, it just needs to be put together. That is what Prometheus and this thread are all about really. It will take a ton of cash to design, test, and build such ships, but none of it requires new discoveries, just solid design and testing. The tech is all there. **3. Habitats** This will be a tricky part. There have been several attempts to create fully enclosed self-supporting biospheres here on earth, but all of them have ultimately needed outside help to stay in order as best as I can tell. Colonies and bases will need to be designed differently depending on where you want to put them. Mars habitats will have different needs then a moon habitat which will be different then what is needed to create a habitat on an asteroid. Everything from inflatable structures to buried bunkers will need to be considered. I am skeptical that we have reached the point where we can create a self-supporting colony, so continual outside help will be needed. **4. Cargo Routes** Supplies and cargo will need to be received from Earth, at least at first, by any manned outposts. Eventually, this will help to create a Solar System wide economy. Ships that never land on any planet or asteroid but make round trips between the target and Earth will be needed. They will need to be able to carry people and/or supplies crucial to maintaining the shelters we will build. Ships will dock with them as they arrive and unload the cargo, reload what they wish to send back, and then repeat. The word for this is infrastructure, and it will be greatly needed to maintain a significant human presence off planet. The cost for the industrialization and colonization of space will be tremendous up front, but if successful, it will pay for itself 1000 fold or more in the long run. I believe the proper term is investment. 1. Terraforming This is longer term thinking, and the tech involved is theoretical. It is true we have trouble maintaining an ideal habitat (Earth), but that involves fine tuning. There are many competing ideas about how to achieve such a thing, but it will take time, and a much deeper understanding of planets and ecology then we currently have. The cost is hard to judge and this step will not come until we have a firm infrastructure in place. It’s exciting to think about, but I think this is a long way off. Centuries at least. **RISKS, DANGERS, AND ETHICS** **1. Erroneous/Deceitful Budgeting Practices** As the ISS has shown us, Nasa has a way of ballooning costs and shrinking benefits from initial ambitious predictions. Careless mistakes (such as failing to convert to/from the metric system - idiots) have led to huge losses. Wink-Wink-Nod-Nod type of agreements between politicians and contractors are a real danger. I do not put it past corporations nor politicians to use the hopes and dreams of citizens to line their own pockets. Unbiased 3rd party groups (if such a thing is even possible) need to monitor spending and hiring to protect against useless and foolish spending. Safeguards, checks, and balances need to be put into place to keep the process honest and efficient. This will be no easy task, and the ugly side of human nature - greed and laziness - will be our enemies. There is no easy way to do this given the complexity and scope of such projects. This is a real concern to me. \*\*2. **The Environment** Launching nuclear material into space presents certain dangers. A nuclear explosion (even a “merely” dirty one) in the upper atmosphere could be disastrous. Radioactive material could be spread for thousands of miles and affect the health of millions of people. These reactors need to be able to withstand a total meltdown-explosion-style without fucking everyone below it up. I am confident that such safeguards can be put into place, but folks screaming about this danger are justified. This is not an area to be reckless. Caution and safety must be a top priority. A space elevator will have a tremendously long cable and an asteroid at the top of it. We need to plan for complete disaster. If the cable breaks it needs to be in such a way that it falls with minimal damage to populated areas. An asteroid in orbit creates serious dinosaur killer types of possibilities, and any such move needs to be carefully planned and skillfully executed. Human casualties need to be minimalized as much as possible. There will always be some risk, but when disaster strikes, I would rather lose 1, 10, or 100 people who knew the dangers involved with being involved with something so ambitious, then thousands or millions just living their lives on Earth. The other danger to the environment is the “Andromeda Strain” scenario where a species from space contaminates and kills humans. We do not know what we will encounter out there, and unintended consequences can be a real bitch. Rigorous detection and sterilization procedures will need to be developed and implemented. **3. Ethics** What if we find life? Should we have a prime directive? Should we stay off of the planet? Should we decide that a place to live for humans is more important then a native bacteria? Should we bring the life to our planet? Should we reshape the solar system as we see fit? What about nationality? What happens when colonies decide they want to be independent and self governing? Kim Stanley Robinson covers this issue in a most interesting tale in his Mars Trilogy. Can we avoid war and hatred in Space even though we seem incapable of doing so here on Earth? These questions have no easy answer, and there will need to be global discourse to come up with guidelines to ensure that ethics go with us out into space, and violence, destruction, and disease stay at home. No easy task, but it must be considered. **CONCLUSIONS** In the end, our species must reach as far and as high as possible. We must push our own limits and learn all which is learnable. Knowledge allows progress, and if there is a purpose to our existence, it just may be that all we need to figure it out is within our ability to grasp. We must reach out and try. We must look for it within and without. We must spread awareness through the universe and if we find no others, and no purpose, then it is our responsibility to create it. Otherwise, to me, our pain, our death, our discovery, our hope, our wondering, our very being - it was all for nothing. Space represents the continuing journey of humanity. A journey that is amazing to behold, and one whose boundaries are not yet within view. We must live up to that potential to bring in the next chapter of our species with dignity, daring, and responsibility. DaLovin’ Dj ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2003, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-administration-to-fund-nuclear-mars-rocket/149440/109 "2003-01-21T22:53:40Z")
You forgot this one: > [@](#): > > the best place to put computerized asteroid-charting space-telescopes would be co-located in the orbit of Mars—far enough out to give PLENTY of warning time and available to management/supervision from a human-based establishment on one of Mars’ moons (Phobos or Demos), or even on Mars, itself. -Sea Sorbust [Impact of Asteroid Defence](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=83928&highlight=phobos+AND+asteroid) 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2003, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-administration-to-fund-nuclear-mars-rocket/149440/110 "2003-01-21T23:31:19Z")
You know, one huge expedition, put together in orbit over time. It just needs dramatic music. [sub]We could have emergency return rockets.[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2003, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-administration-to-fund-nuclear-mars-rocket/149440/111 "2003-01-21T23:42:17Z")
[Terraforming](http://www.howstuffworks.com/terraforming.htm) > [@](#): > > The process of transforming the Martian atmosphere to create a more habitable living environment is called terraforming. In this edition of How Stuff Will Work, you will find out why **Mars is the ideal candidate for colonization** , and how we plan to terraform the red planet for human habitation. For one thing, location. Venus isn’t looking so nice. [Terraforming requirements.](http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~mfogg/zubrin.htm) > [@](#): > > Greenhousing Mars via the manufacture of halocarbon gases on the planet’s surface may well be the most practical option. Total surface power requirements to drive planetary warming using this method are calculated and found to be on the order of 1000 MWe, and the required times scale for climate and atmosphere modification is on the order of 50 years. > > \*\*It is concluded that a drastic modification of Martian conditions can be achieved using 21st century technology. The Mars so produced will closely resemble the conditions existing on the primitive Mars. Humans operating on the surface of such a Mars would require breathing gear, but pressure suits would be unnecessary. \*\* With outside atmospheric pressures raised, it will be possible to create large dwelling areas by means of very large inflatable structures. Average temperatures could be above the freezing point of water for significant regions during portions of the year, enabling the growth of plant life in the open. The spread of plants could produce enough oxygen to make Mars habitable for animals in several millennia. **More rapid oxygenation would require engineering efforts supported by multi-terrawatt power sources. It is speculated that the desire to speed the terraforming of Mars will be a driver for developing such technologies, which in turn will define a leap in human power over nature as dramatic as that which accompanied the creation of post-Renaissance industrial civilization.** Let’s get started. ---
**Author:** ![Harmonix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Harmonix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harmonix)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2003, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-administration-to-fund-nuclear-mars-rocket/149440/112 "2003-01-22T00:57:08Z")
> [@](#): > > But how will you know that it isn’t merely a terrestrial organism that has adapted to the Martian environment? That’s what natural selection is all about, isn’t it? Adaptation? I agree. It is certainly possible that adaption could occur, but there are some things that are so fundamental that in order to change them you’d need to change half the other systems in an organism. A DNA-less organism, or an organism with a radically different genetic code. Maybe they use 50 amino acids instead of 20. Maybe it uses 5 base-pairs as a codon. Perhaps it uses glycolysis but the enzymes involved are radically different. Should we find organisms that differ in these sorts of radical ways we can be _almost_ ensured that they are not terrestrial. But again, it is certainly possible that life has simply adapted. Btw, I’m gonna use this to plug the movie Adaptation. WATCH IT! Such a great movie. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2003, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-administration-to-fund-nuclear-mars-rocket/149440/113 "2003-01-22T02:22:07Z")
> [@](#): > > **the best place to put computerized asteroid-charting space-telescopes would be co-located in the orbit of Mars—far enough out to give PLENTY of warning time** While I’m all for a Mars project, this particular reason is ridiculous. For the cost of launching a 1-ton telescope to Mars you could easily put a 15-ton space telescope in a high earth orbit. And an incoming asteroid doesn’t have to pass by Mars to get to Earth, so there’s no point in doing it on Mars. ---
**Author:** ![Alien2022](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e19adc/32.png) [@Alien2022](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alien2022)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2003, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-administration-to-fund-nuclear-mars-rocket/149440/114 "2003-01-22T03:55:27Z")
As I’ve already said. Do whatever it takes to stimulate the space program, so that I won’t have to do it when I get into the White House. (Granted that I do get into the White House… It is possible I suppose) Space is the final frontier. Either we go now or later, but the more we prolong it, the more our civilization stagnates. BTW, I read somewhere that Prometheus might not be about a trip to mars at all. Rather something called a breathable nuclear rocket, that would allow us to launch much more cheaply. But this isn’t the solution. Building a new rocket is stupid. We know how to get to space fast enough. We can do it in 15 years. Do we do it? No. How stupid is that. Let’s consume as much resources as possible. I’m fairly convinced by now, that the future of our space exploration is too fragile to be placed in the government’s hands. It must be regrettably left to the private sector. Therefore, proponents of the Orbital elevator should seek investors. I would invest even as little as $20. Think about the huge returns. This would be huge. I would guarantee you that if a private company successfully put one of these up, that NASA would lose all it’s gainsay over space. No longer would NASA have the monopoly it has over space travel. But, the NASA program would be antequated, and unfeasible to run, because there would no longer be a need to launch rockets. We have to do it this way. The private sector MUST take responsibility if the government refuses. As much as I hate to say it, that’s the only course left, because the beaurocrats in Washington refuse to cooperate. All they are concerned about is the next election, which BTW, isn’t what our government is supposed to be about, but I guess it is now… So much for ethics. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2003, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-administration-to-fund-nuclear-mars-rocket/149440/115 "2003-01-22T04:14:03Z")
Robert Park’s latest announcement is one of sheer, unadulterated brilliance, I think he and **chumpsky** must be related. According to Park’s the US has conspired to trick the Chinese into going to the Moon for the sole purpose of bankrupting the Chinese economy (since we all know that’s what caused the Soviet Union to collapse :rolleyes: ) but don’t take my word on it, let the man speak for himself > [@](#): > > To compete in human space flight, China will have to shift energy and resources from its military adventures to Taikonauts, which will have little or no military or economic payoff. At least we’re now playing on a level field. Toss in plans (for) the space shuttle and we could cripple China without firing a shot. [Cite.](http://www.space.com/news/china_cooperation_030121.html) Park is correct, of course, since the Soviet Union collapsed after embarking on a massive space program to equal the US in space. The US, meanwhile, suffered its worst economic depression during the years 1960 to 1972 when the push for a manned space program was at it’s highest. Oh, wait, that’s not what happened at all, is it? ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2003, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-administration-to-fund-nuclear-mars-rocket/149440/116 "2003-01-22T06:16:16Z")
We’ve BEEN launching nuclear powered rockets into space. Every time we do, the public kicks and screams, then forgets about it 20 seconds after it leaves the atmosphere, giving no nevermind to the fact that the rockets shoot out over the Atlantic and the same technology is used reguarly by, say, the military. As for Challenger, I would bet that there isn’t ONE astronaut that would really blink an eye at the possibility he or she might die on the mission. First of all, they are Air Force. Second of all, it is something so incomprehenisble that I don’t think any living person can really envision the day mankind steps foot on Mars. Apollo had the world transfixed, and this is a hundredfold - a thousandfold - larger. I doubt it’ll happen, though. Call me pessimistic. :-p ---
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2003, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-administration-to-fund-nuclear-mars-rocket/149440/117 "2003-01-22T06:31:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zagadka \* > \*\*We’ve BEEN launching nuclear powered rockets into space. Every time we do, the public kicks and screams, then forgets about it 20 seconds after it leaves the atmosphere, giving no nevermind to the fact that the rockets shoot out over the Atlantic and the same technology is used reguarly by, say, the military. > \*\* cite? ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2003, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-administration-to-fund-nuclear-mars-rocket/149440/118 "2003-01-22T06:39:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ben \* > \*\*cite? \*\* From [http://nuclear.gov/space/space-history.html](http://nuclear.gov/space/space-history.html) > [@](#): > > In all, DOE has provided a total of 44 RTGs and more than 240 heater units for 26 missions since 1961. DOE continues to maintain the capability to provide power and heater systems to NASA for further missions. RTG stands for Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator. It uses the heat from radioactive isotopes to generate electricity. “Heater” in the above context means radioactive material carried for the sole purpose of heating a spacecraft, or more commonly, a vital component of a spacecraft that can be damaged by low temperature. ---
**Author:** ![XPav](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/b77776/32.png) [@XPav](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XPav)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2003, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-administration-to-fund-nuclear-mars-rocket/149440/119 "2003-01-22T06:59:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF \* > I’m truly not disparaging the Navy, but two nuclear powered ships were lost at sea in 49 years. Who knows how many rockets could go bad in 49 years? > \*\* 2 nuclear powered ships were lost for reasons most likely having nothing to do with their plants. Admiral Rickover knew that nuclear power was a hard sell – why do you think every single captain sailing a sub under his watch was a nuclear engineer? ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2003, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-administration-to-fund-nuclear-mars-rocket/149440/120 "2003-01-22T07:04:11Z")
Where the hell is **Bad Astronomer** when you need him? Esprix [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-administration-to-fund-nuclear-mars-rocket/149440.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-administration-to-fund-nuclear-mars-rocket/149440.md?page=7)