# GWB to USA: Onward to Luna! Can it be done? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 4, 2003, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwb-to-usa-onward-to-luna-can-it-be-done/216840 "2003-12-04T01:58:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![HPL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3da27b/32.png) [@HPL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HPL)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwb-to-usa-onward-to-luna-can-it-be-done/216840/41 "2003-12-05T01:38:25Z")
I’m all for manned space exploration and colonization, but if we plan to go to the moon, or mars, I ask three things: 1. Let’s get a new shuttle designed, built and deployed. 2. let’s get the ISS completed. 3. If we go, let’s actually stay, not take some pictures and leave for another 30 years. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwb-to-usa-onward-to-luna-can-it-be-done/216840/42 "2003-12-05T01:52:51Z")
I find myself largely in agreement with friend **Brutus**. I have to go lie down now. ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwb-to-usa-onward-to-luna-can-it-be-done/216840/43 "2003-12-05T01:56:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xtisme \* > \*\*A serious question though…where will the money for this come from? \*\* One guess would be those people that spent 10 or 20 mil for floating around the ISS , and the dude from NSYNC that wanted to as well ,before the russians said nyet. With people that can dispose of that kind of income , for a small weeklong jaunt to the moon , its possible that a signifigant portion of the money can be raised privately. > [@](#): > > Obviously we are strapped atm. We are running at high deficits, no? We still have a huge amount of money that will be pouring into Iraq in the indefinite future. So…that means, IF we do this (something I’m not convinced we WILL…Bush makes his final decision on Dec. 17th bth) something will have to give. Where will the cuts come from? My bet is on Bush to do a Kennedy and name a time , ten years hence, that gives time for the economy to swallow any burps that the occupation is going to cause. > [@](#): > > How would we pay for even the (relatively) modest cost of a foot prints and photos trip to the moon?? Let alone plans to establish a perminent base there (btw, as I read it, the ‘base’ would be automated, not manned). I think it may be cheaper than you think , most of the data was collected back in the kennedy/johnson/nixon administrations, as for the cost of the base , just thinking of all those drop tanks that the shuttle program probably has floating around up there , just waiting to burn up , can be boosted up to a higher orbit , for trans lunar injection , drop em down on the ground ,and re-decorate as needed. Partially manned may be a better description , human ready in several hours , just add heat. > [@](#): > > I’m all for space exploration. I think we, as a SPECIES, should be doing much more. **But its wasteful and plain stupid for any one country to try and do this on its own…for its own prestiege.** I think lunar exploration is a good thing. Even setting up a research facility like the one in antartica is a good thing. \*\* However, I think a better way to go about this, from every angle (economic, political, technical), is NOT for AMERICA to do this…but for the US to partner with other countries and do such a far reaching mission jointly\*\*. Wouldn’t it generate some goodwill in the world if America partnered with many other countries, in a TRUE partnership for the exploration of the moon and the setting up of a research station there? Wouldn’t it defray the costs and allow us, as a species, to do so much more? Wouldn’t bring us closer together if MANY countries participated, be it in money, technical skills, labor, resources, etc?? Americans led the way into Flight in the first place , private venture at first , and then bringing flight to the masses, back when Kennedy first brought up the thought of going to the moon , people probably asked why ? , what could we spend the money on better , poor people , homeless , third world countrys , add your own fav cause here----------------------. That said , it takes a leader to do things cause they are hard , not cause they are easy , and thats pretty much what I think this is meant to recover. Other countries probably will pony up money , when the venture becomes real and monies from congress are allocated , the ability for research into vaccum pharmesuticals(sp) alone , to name one is too much to worry about whose flag flys from the site. Second , alot of countrys will be begging , borrowing influence to generate contracts for their own countrys industry , but one last thing , it may have been an american flag that flew from tranquility base back in 69 , but the whole world was watching humans making those steps , not americans , the same thing will happen again. Last thought , right now about 90 percent of the whole world is within range of american carrier aircraft and cruise missiles , now with the next generation of SDI weapons , everything that sees the moon is in sight 🙂 Declan ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwb-to-usa-onward-to-luna-can-it-be-done/216840/44 "2003-12-05T01:57:19Z")
> [@](#): > > Q Is the President, the White House planning a new space initiative that includes travel to the moon and to Mars? > > MR. McCLELLAN: Let me kind of go back and refresh your memory a little bit. Several months ago, the President initiated an interagency review of space exploration to determine the appropriate future course of United States based exploration activities. The President is strongly committed to the exploration of space. That review is ongoing at this point. It has been underway, and it continues, and it is ongoing. > > Q Would the President like to have a new initiative that goes to – > > MR. McCLELLAN: Well, look, I think as long as this review is underway, it would be premature to get into any speculation about our space policy that has been and continues to be under review. **There are no plans for any policy announcements in the immediate future, and that would include any upcoming speeches.** I’ve seen the reports you’re referring to – > > Q Are they wrong? [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031204-11.html](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031204-11.html) ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwb-to-usa-onward-to-luna-can-it-be-done/216840/45 "2003-12-05T02:28:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > So, Bush’s bold vision of America in space is to do something we already accomplished many decades ago? \*\* Or diiiid they?:eek: ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwb-to-usa-onward-to-luna-can-it-be-done/216840/46 "2003-12-05T02:39:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by msmith537 \* > \*\*Or diiiid they?:eek: \*\* Be careful which astronaut you say that too unless your clock is dirty.😃 ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwb-to-usa-onward-to-luna-can-it-be-done/216840/47 "2003-12-05T03:23:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by scotandrsn \* > \*\*The most efficient Mars mission will take three years: 6 months departing flight time, two years for the launch window to open again, and 6 months back. We know of no resources on which to survive there, so everything for three years has to be loaded on the ship. \*\* Just a quick nitpick. Given a reasonable power plant and some hydrogen you can get water, oxygen and methane (fuel) out of the Martian air. That leaves foodstuff, which I’ll grant you is not insignificant, but at least several tens of tones of material could be made in situ. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwb-to-usa-onward-to-luna-can-it-be-done/216840/48 "2003-12-05T03:51:47Z")
Well, whether or not there is water on the moon, there certainly is water on Mars. For all we know, dig down 20 feet and there are oceans of the stuff. We certainly know that there is water elsewhere. From what I understand, the main problem would be GETTING to Mars, with all the radiation and such. Afaik, we don’t have a good way to shield either the astronauts or the equipment properly without sacrificing a lot of weight to the design (thus driving up the cost). To do a real Mars mission though would cost, what? 50 billion? Maybe more? Even the multi-stage mission where we basically send the supplies, return vehicle, power plant, etc, separate (as well as the ‘factories’ to make all those nice things Grey mentioned) would cost billions. As I said, a nothing wrong with a moon mission IMO. But, I think the US should push for a real international mission. -XT ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwb-to-usa-onward-to-luna-can-it-be-done/216840/49 "2003-12-05T03:53:16Z")
While admittedly speaking more to the idea of the space station than to missions to the moon and mars, [this](http://www.house.gov/science/park_4-9.html) and [this](http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10831) link to testimony by Robert Park, a physicist who is (or was) the Director of Public Information for the American Physical Society, are fun reads and help deconstruct some of the myths about the scientific value of manned space missions. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwb-to-usa-onward-to-luna-can-it-be-done/216840/50 "2003-12-05T04:01:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by scotandrsn \* > Divide their roughly 14 billion dollars among 280 million Americans, the government spends about 50 space bucks a year on your personal behalf, and almost all of it goes to Americans (what, you thought they used the bills as kindling for the rockets?) Well, like they say, $14 billion here, $14 billion there…and pretty soon your talking real money. $14 billion a year could fund a lot of great science (and to be fair, the fraction of it…whatever it is… that goes to unmanned missions and to the other stuff besides manned missions does). For comparison, the National Science Foundation’s FY2003 budget request was $5 billion; the NIH budget in FY2003 was $28 billion. ---
**Author:** ![Ace\_Face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/858c86/32.png) [@Ace\_Face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ace_Face)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwb-to-usa-onward-to-luna-can-it-be-done/216840/51 "2003-12-05T05:55:40Z")
> [@](#): > > The need for energy conservation and new energy sources can be found in Moon colonies and Mars’s expeditions. I understand now. Gallagher _is_ funny. Seriously, how are we going to pay for any of these new manned space exploration ideas? Another tax cut? The administration damn well better explain how they will fund these ideas, and not by foisting the costs on future generations (like the Medicare debacle). I agree with the poster who called this a big distraction. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwb-to-usa-onward-to-luna-can-it-be-done/216840/52 "2003-12-05T06:22:34Z")
One suggestion I’d offer for a cheap way to fund massive amounts of research: government funding of ‘prizes’. Prizes have a great history for spurring development in science and technology, and especially in aeronautics and space. Lindberg crossed the Atlantic to win the Orteig prize. Human powered flight has been moved ahead greatly by prizes, and much of that research has made its way into other areas. The X-prize has spurred a bonanza in private space research. And prizes have a great multiplier effect. The X-prize is 10 million dollars, and I’d guess at least 20 times that much has been spent on research to win it. Rutan’s team alone has spent at least 17 million dollars, and perhaps more. Prizes have another big benefit - they get government bureaucracy out of the design business, and allow for many competing dessigns and ‘out of the box’ thinking. Finally, prizes have zero risk, because if the achievement doesn’t happen, the government isn’t out a nickel. So my suggestion would be for the government to establish a series of prizes for milestones that the nation deems important for a space infrastructure, or to help develop new technologies. For example: 100 million dollars for the first private company to achieve at least two manned orbits, and do it again with the same spacecraft within one month. 1 billion dollars for the first private manned flight around the moon. 10 billion dollars for the first private manned flight to Mars. 500 million dollars to the company that can fly an unmanned ship around the moon and back in the shortest time before 2010. (to develop new propulsion technologies). Look for gaps in technology, and offer prizes to companies that want to try to fill them. ---
**Author:** ![ekow2kn3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ecc23a/32.png) [@ekow2kn3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ekow2kn3)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwb-to-usa-onward-to-luna-can-it-be-done/216840/53 "2003-12-05T07:07:17Z")
sure we could go live on the moon, or live on mars, but…why? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwb-to-usa-onward-to-luna-can-it-be-done/216840/54 "2003-12-05T08:23:19Z")
For the same reason the human race has expanded into every corner of the globe: Because its’ in our nature to keep pushing, seeking, learning, and expanding our horizons. Eventually, mankind is going to expand throughout the solar system and further. We’re going to achieve great things, see new wonders, and gain a greater understanding of the universe and our place in it. That first step off is always going to be awkward. But every journey always starts with a first step. To me, the only question is the timing - when is the right time to make that leap. I am not sure if the long-term goal might be better served with more automated probes right now. But the rightness of the long-term vision is not in question with me. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwb-to-usa-onward-to-luna-can-it-be-done/216840/55 "2003-12-05T14:18:00Z")
I believe that terraforming Mars is a non-starter. It isn’t massive enough to retain an atmosphere that we can breath for starters. It’s too cold. Water can’t exist as a liquid. It has a magnetosphere 1/800th the strength of Earth’s. I’d like to see a base on the moon with telescopes on the far side or in orbit around the moon. It’s imperative that we find and colonise another Earth. If we’re going anywhere beyond the moon, I’d suggest Europa for its water. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwb-to-usa-onward-to-luna-can-it-be-done/216840/56 "2003-12-05T14:23:30Z")
The problem is that a space program is not exclusively for _science_. A space program is for exploiting space. Yes science is a major aspect of that program (surveys, cataloging, understanding phenomena) but at its root it’s about using space, much as we use forests, plains, and the oceans. To go into space is to force ourselves to learn and adapt to a new environment. To build and experiment with social structures, economic models, political systems unfettered by the literal old world way of living. Space is a chance to stretch ourselves beyond anything else we’ve done and light a green fire on the heavens. I tend to get carried away some time. Carry on. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwb-to-usa-onward-to-luna-can-it-be-done/216840/57 "2003-12-05T14:27:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by qts \* > \*\*I believe that terraforming Mars is a non-starter. It isn’t massive enough to retain an atmosphere that we can breath for starters. It’s too cold. Water can’t exist as a liquid. It has a magnetosphere 1/800th the strength of Earth’s. > > I’d like to see a base on the moon with telescopes on the far side or in orbit around the moon. It’s imperative that we find and colonise another Earth. > > If we’re going anywhere beyond the moon, I’d suggest Europa for its water. \*\* But Europa is blasted by Jupiter’s magnetosphere and is even colder and darker than Mars. 🙂 As for the Martian atmosphere, it never had a CFC greenhouse before, nor did it have humans actively building it. I’ll go digging for my cite (might have to get back home) but a breathable or at least livable Martian atmosphere is possible, it may only last 100,000 years. I’m ok with that. ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwb-to-usa-onward-to-luna-can-it-be-done/216840/58 "2003-12-05T15:09:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by qts \* > \*\*I believe that terraforming Mars is a non-starter. It isn’t massive enough to retain an atmosphere that we can breath for starters. \*\* It ain’t the _density_, it’s the _percentage of Oxygen_ that matters. We can breathe in the thinnest atmospheres, if we can recover enough Oxygen in each breath. ---
**Author:** ![Sofa\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58956e/32.png) [@Sofa\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofa_King)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwb-to-usa-onward-to-luna-can-it-be-done/216840/59 "2003-12-05T18:53:27Z")
I suppose I should clarify my earlier, uh, statement. This hype sounds familiar to this old-timer. I’m thinking way back to another anniversary, July 29, 1989, the 20th anniversary of the Apollo 11 lunar landing. On that day a kinder, gentler George Bush announced the stunningly unsuccessful [Space Exploration Initiative](http://www.fas.org/nuke/space/c07sei_1.htm): > [@](#): > > “First, for the coming decade - for the 1990s - [Space Station Freedom](http://www.astronautix.com/craft/spaeedom.htm) - the critical next step in all our space endeavors. And next - for the new century - [back to the Moon](http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep602/9301/node12.html). Back to the future. And this time, back to stay. And then - a journey into tomorrow - a journey to another planet - [a manned mission to Mars](http://galacticvoyager.com/mem/moonmars/sei.html).” I suggest you keep that in mind come December 17. Frankly, if it doesn’t fly by burning horseshit and Texas light crude, this proposal is going to be ancient history on November 3, 2004. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwb-to-usa-onward-to-luna-can-it-be-done/216840/60 "2003-12-05T19:03:37Z")
True but teh price tag then was $500 billion for a Battlestar Galactica type Mars mission. This seems to be scaled down from that dramatically. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwb-to-usa-onward-to-luna-can-it-be-done/216840.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwb-to-usa-onward-to-luna-can-it-be-done/216840.md?page=4)