Saturday, January 17, 2004
Mars
-President Bush has taken that first step in making us explorers again.-
No he has taken the first step in election year propaganda and distraction from other issues like the economy and foreign policy. It won't happen under Bush. His father promised the same thing back in 1989. Anyone old enough to remember that?
Here's a line from a song that was popular way back then, "don't believe the hype"
Bush will never seriosuly commit the United States to a manned mission to either the Moon or Mars. The whole conversation is distraction from what's wrong with American domestic and foreign policy as well as empty election year rhetoric.
I'm not against manned exploration at all, nor do I trvialize what has been done. But I don't think anyone should take this idea seriously because I don't believe the administration does. Just more fucking lies from the mouth of George W. Bush.
Don't be distracted.
- I wonder how much of the vitriol directed at President Bush’s Mars initiative, is because it’s President Bush’s Mars initiative.-
None at all. It's a flawed plan and will be tremendously expensive. The Moon base aspect is totally unnecessary and wasteful. It comes at the start of an election year and people see it for what it is, propaganda and distraction. It doesn't matter who's in the White House.
If FDR had initiated it, I would think it's not worth it. When Bush Sr proposed something similar in 1989 it was finally killed because the price tag was $400 Billion.
It has nothing to do with Bush and everything to do with PRACTICALITY.
-This may be true, but it takes a vastly *different* type of energy.
The fact is that the types of engines that will take us to Mars aren't capable of getting us out of the Earths Gravity. The types of engines that can get us out of Earths Gravity are too heavy to get us to Mars efficiently.
Using both is possible, but designing the vehicle to operate well in both the takeoff environment *and* the interplanetary environment is a huge complication.-
I am also talking about the money spent in constructing a Moon base just to get there. I am thinking of it in terms of cost anaylisis. How much money has to be invested for both plans (from the Moon vs from the Earth) and how much return on each investment. If the science we get back is the same no matter how we get there, and the Moon base aspect is much more expensive, then it's not practical to do it that way. For example, you not only have to constantly supply the Martian astronauts, but the Lunar ones as well. In the 50's and 60's Von Braun wanted to build a space station that would then be a lauching pad to Mars. It was ultimately rejected partly due to the price and inpracticality of launching to a space platform, then on to Mars. It really is a wasteful step and NASA I'm sure already knows that.
Read Zubrins The Case For Mars for more on the rocket energy required. I'm too fuzzy on the details right now (I'm at work) to get into the fuel efficiency aspect of the debate.
-You may be right, but the folks at NASA *are the ones saying that we need a launch point in space*, and no offense, but I'll take their opinion over yours in this matter.
The plan as I've read it is that you build the space station/moon base, then construct the interplanetary vehicle *in orbit* and launch from there. The reason being that it really is ridiculously impractical to get a vehicle designed to go to mars out of the earths gravity in the traditional way.
I shouldn't have to mention that decisions made in the 50's and 60's might not still make sense today. Technology has progressed *just a little bit* since then. Your desktop computer is many magnitudes more powerful then even the biggest mainframe or supercomputer was then.-
I would like to see your source for why it is more impractical to launch to Mars from Earth versus from a platform or Moon base. My source for my position is The Case For Mars by Robert Zubrin. Also This New Ocean, though I forget the authors name. Go buy them or check them out from a library. If you want an interesting history on Apollo, try A Man On The Moon by Howard Chaiken. (sp?)
NASA will say whatever they have to to get more funding of any kind IMHO. That includes claiming Bush's idea is solid. I haven't read that NASA likes the idea, so maybe point me to an article or NASA press release if you would be so kind. I believe it's possible but I would just like to see that for myself
As I said the problem has been looked at before and rejected by NASA, honestly. Sure the technology has improved but the basic rocket science is still the same. We still use launch vehicles designed from back then. The space shuttle is an example.
Maybe join marssociety.org and read their papers on solutions to these problems and others. This is a group that has devoted themselves to solving them. They have a lot of interesting ideas including eventually building a "cycler" that would perpetually orbit between Earth and Mars. We would just launch to it and hitch a ride.
I'm using a laptop, not a desktop.
-Isn't Mars basically just like winter in Minneapolis without a music scene?-
No, winter in Minneapolis is colder
-I know how much you guys like to bash bush and all, and I hate to interrupt that, but you *do know* that this has been on NASA's drawing board for years now right, and has pretty much nothing to do with bush (other than he obviously gave the go ahead).
They've had a plan filed for going to Mars in the year 2018 for at least three years now, if not more.-
They've actually had a plan since the 1950's. After Apollo 20 the next step was a space station and Moon base in the 70's and a manned mission to Mars in the 80's. It was all part of Von Braun's vision. Neither a space station nor a Moon base are necessary to go to Mars of course, as it would cost less to simply launch from Earth when adding in the costs of building and maintaining these bases.
Apollo was finally killed at 17 by Nixon and the space station degenerated into Skylab which was made from spare Apollo parts. Focus shifted to the shuttle and near Earth missions.
So you're correct, all Bush has to do with it is using it for election propaganda
No he has taken the first step in election year propaganda and distraction from other issues like the economy and foreign policy. It won't happen under Bush. His father promised the same thing back in 1989. Anyone old enough to remember that?
Here's a line from a song that was popular way back then, "don't believe the hype"
Bush will never seriosuly commit the United States to a manned mission to either the Moon or Mars. The whole conversation is distraction from what's wrong with American domestic and foreign policy as well as empty election year rhetoric.
I'm not against manned exploration at all, nor do I trvialize what has been done. But I don't think anyone should take this idea seriously because I don't believe the administration does. Just more fucking lies from the mouth of George W. Bush.
Don't be distracted.
- I wonder how much of the vitriol directed at President Bush’s Mars initiative, is because it’s President Bush’s Mars initiative.-
None at all. It's a flawed plan and will be tremendously expensive. The Moon base aspect is totally unnecessary and wasteful. It comes at the start of an election year and people see it for what it is, propaganda and distraction. It doesn't matter who's in the White House.
If FDR had initiated it, I would think it's not worth it. When Bush Sr proposed something similar in 1989 it was finally killed because the price tag was $400 Billion.
It has nothing to do with Bush and everything to do with PRACTICALITY.
-This may be true, but it takes a vastly *different* type of energy.
The fact is that the types of engines that will take us to Mars aren't capable of getting us out of the Earths Gravity. The types of engines that can get us out of Earths Gravity are too heavy to get us to Mars efficiently.
Using both is possible, but designing the vehicle to operate well in both the takeoff environment *and* the interplanetary environment is a huge complication.-
I am also talking about the money spent in constructing a Moon base just to get there. I am thinking of it in terms of cost anaylisis. How much money has to be invested for both plans (from the Moon vs from the Earth) and how much return on each investment. If the science we get back is the same no matter how we get there, and the Moon base aspect is much more expensive, then it's not practical to do it that way. For example, you not only have to constantly supply the Martian astronauts, but the Lunar ones as well. In the 50's and 60's Von Braun wanted to build a space station that would then be a lauching pad to Mars. It was ultimately rejected partly due to the price and inpracticality of launching to a space platform, then on to Mars. It really is a wasteful step and NASA I'm sure already knows that.
Read Zubrins The Case For Mars for more on the rocket energy required. I'm too fuzzy on the details right now (I'm at work) to get into the fuel efficiency aspect of the debate.
-You may be right, but the folks at NASA *are the ones saying that we need a launch point in space*, and no offense, but I'll take their opinion over yours in this matter.
The plan as I've read it is that you build the space station/moon base, then construct the interplanetary vehicle *in orbit* and launch from there. The reason being that it really is ridiculously impractical to get a vehicle designed to go to mars out of the earths gravity in the traditional way.
I shouldn't have to mention that decisions made in the 50's and 60's might not still make sense today. Technology has progressed *just a little bit* since then. Your desktop computer is many magnitudes more powerful then even the biggest mainframe or supercomputer was then.-
I would like to see your source for why it is more impractical to launch to Mars from Earth versus from a platform or Moon base. My source for my position is The Case For Mars by Robert Zubrin. Also This New Ocean, though I forget the authors name. Go buy them or check them out from a library. If you want an interesting history on Apollo, try A Man On The Moon by Howard Chaiken. (sp?)
NASA will say whatever they have to to get more funding of any kind IMHO. That includes claiming Bush's idea is solid. I haven't read that NASA likes the idea, so maybe point me to an article or NASA press release if you would be so kind. I believe it's possible but I would just like to see that for myself
As I said the problem has been looked at before and rejected by NASA, honestly. Sure the technology has improved but the basic rocket science is still the same. We still use launch vehicles designed from back then. The space shuttle is an example.
Maybe join marssociety.org and read their papers on solutions to these problems and others. This is a group that has devoted themselves to solving them. They have a lot of interesting ideas including eventually building a "cycler" that would perpetually orbit between Earth and Mars. We would just launch to it and hitch a ride.
I'm using a laptop, not a desktop.
-Isn't Mars basically just like winter in Minneapolis without a music scene?-
No, winter in Minneapolis is colder
-I know how much you guys like to bash bush and all, and I hate to interrupt that, but you *do know* that this has been on NASA's drawing board for years now right, and has pretty much nothing to do with bush (other than he obviously gave the go ahead).
They've had a plan filed for going to Mars in the year 2018 for at least three years now, if not more.-
They've actually had a plan since the 1950's. After Apollo 20 the next step was a space station and Moon base in the 70's and a manned mission to Mars in the 80's. It was all part of Von Braun's vision. Neither a space station nor a Moon base are necessary to go to Mars of course, as it would cost less to simply launch from Earth when adding in the costs of building and maintaining these bases.
Apollo was finally killed at 17 by Nixon and the space station degenerated into Skylab which was made from spare Apollo parts. Focus shifted to the shuttle and near Earth missions.
So you're correct, all Bush has to do with it is using it for election propaganda
