I’m all for manned space exploration and colonization, but if we plan to go to the moon, or mars, I ask three things:
Let’s get a new shuttle designed, built and deployed.
let’s get the ISS completed.
If we go, let’s actually stay, not take some pictures and leave for another 30 years.
I find myself largely in agreement with friend Brutus. I have to go lie down now.
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.
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.
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.
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
Or diiiid they?:eek:
Be careful which astronaut you say that too unless your clock is dirty.
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.
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
While admittedly speaking more to the idea of the space station than to missions to the moon and mars, this and this 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.
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.
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.
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.
sure we could go live on the moon, or live on mars, but…why?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.