Obama/McCain and space exploration

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I value space exploration and it has brought us a lot of technological advances that became mainstream. There's also a lot of research happening out there. However, given the crises we're in right now, I don't see it as an "essential" as I do other programs.

We can barely afford gas to get cross town (at least now it's managable) so I think we are a bit too broke to be thinking about going to another planet so we can f*ck that one up too.

NASA has to get rid of the old shuttle fleet and find reasosn why they keep going up there (fouling the weather while they are at it) so it will be worth something.

[CrackerBarrel]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

We can barely afford gas to get cross town (at least now it's managable) so I think we are a bit too broke to be thinking about going to another planet so we can f*ck that one up too.

NASA has to get rid of the old shuttle fleet and find reasosn why they keep going up there (fouling the weather while they are at it) so it will be worth something.

We finally agree on something. I like the space program and think it is exciting, but right now most of our manned missions seem to be going into space for the sake of flying up there. I haven't heard any convincing evidence of what the manned space program has accomplished in recent years (since they repaired Hubble). The last big crossover into mainstream consumer technology was things created during the development of the shuttle. That's been a pretty good while.

[PeppyGPhiB]

It's well known in the aerospace community that the current space shuttle is getting ready to be retired. A new space shuttle is being designed. Cheerfulgreek, as you can imagine, this will NOT be cheap. Also, in case you missed it, NASA has been doing research on Mars, just not with people on the ground there. It's even been in the news recently. We have learned a lot from the space program, but in these times when we can't afford to run our country on this planet, I think cutting space trips is a wise decision.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

We can barely afford gas to get cross town (at least now it's managable) so I think we are a bit too broke to be thinking about going to another planet so we can f*ck that one up too.

lol Yeah, I agree here. I would hope that wouldn't happen to Mars, but yeah, I'm sure Mars would get messed up too.

[PhiGam]

I think that we should drastically reduce space exploration until our economy begins to bounce back, there are simply more important things right now then spending billions to fly to a frozen rock.

[JonoBN41]

Apparently a rumor that Obama would kill the space program (so -hint hint - vote for McCain - hint hint) has been circulating through NASA. A fraternity brother of mine who works at the Johnson Space Center in Houston was absolutely frantic about it. Unfortunately, he neglected to check it out for himself. I checked it out online in a few seconds and found that Obama is very much in favor of continuing the space program. In fact, John Glenn supports Obama and his program.

I don't know where McCain stands on the issue, the relevance of which is becoming less and less every day.

Cheerfulgreek, I was amused by your comment about astronauts landing on the moon eons ago, since I watched (live and in person) the last two Apollo missions (Apollo 16 and Apollo 17) launch from KSC. In a way, it does seem like eons ago. I was initiated two days after Apollo 16's return to earth. Apollo 17 was a night launch in December, just before Christmas Break.

Jono

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

I think that we should drastically reduce space exploration until our economy begins to bounce back, there are simply more important things right now then spending billions to fly to a frozen rock.

I missed this one. It's not just a frozen rock, PhiGam. Mars has a lot of great scenery. It actually has mountains three times as tall as Mount Everest, canyons three times as deep and five times as long as the Grand Canyon. It also has a ton of dry riverbeds. You also need to look at the fact that its unexplored surface may hold unimagined resources for future humanity, as well as answers to some of the deepest philosophical questions that thinking women and men have pondered on for eons. I honestly think Mars may someday provide a home for a dynamic new branch of human civilization. I also think with future human settlement and growth there, it will provide an engine of progress for all of humanity for generations to come. But all that Mars holds will remain beyond reach unless and until women and men land there. You would be surprised, temperatures on Mars can get pretty warm. Mars also has water frozen into its soil, as well as large quantities of carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen, all in forms readily accessible to those inventive enough to use them. Also, these four elements are not only the basis of food and water, but of plastics, wood, paper, clothing, etc etc. You can also get rocket fuel out of those same elements too. That doesn't sound like a frozen rock to me.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

I missed this one. It's not just a frozen rock, PhiGam. Mars has a lot of great scenery. It actually has mountains three times as tall as Mount Everest, canyons three times as deep and five times as long as the Grand Canyon. It also has a ton of dry riverbeds. You also need to look at the fact that its unexplored surface may hold unimagined resources for future humanity, as well as answers to some of the deepest philosophical questions that thinking women and men have pondered on for eons. I honestly think Mars may someday provide a home for a dynamic new branch of human civilization. I also think with future human settlement and growth there, it will provide an engine of progress for all of humanity for generations to come. But all that Mars holds will remain beyond reach unless and until women and men land there. You would be surprised, temperatures on Mars can get pretty warm. Mars also has water frozen into its soil, as well as large quantities of carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen, all in forms readily accessible to those inventive enough to use them. Also, these four elements are not only the basis of food and water, but of plastics, wood, paper, clothing, etc etc. You can also get rocket fuel out of those same elements too. That doesn't sound like a frozen rock to me.

it all sounds nice but we are still a long ways off from establishing any kind of settlement there and besides with all the squabbling that humans do HERE or Earth we all can't come together and finance a trip together. You think we would ahve done that by now..I mean hey...we got a hooptie of a space station in orbit so if we ALL pooled our resources, we ALL could go to Mars. However, you know behind the scenes everyone is fighting to be the first country there.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

it all sounds nice but we are still a long ways off from establishing any kind of settlement there and besides with all the squabbling that humans do HERE or Earth we all can't come together and finance a trip together. You think we would ahve done that by now..I mean hey...we got a hooptie of a space station in orbit so if we ALL pooled our resources, we ALL could go to Mars. However, you know behind the scenes everyone is fighting to be the first country there.

I think we could go now. We have the technology, so why not?

Well, I really don't think anyone is fighting to see who goes first anymore. When the Cold War died, the space race died with it. If the Cold War was still going on, I'll betcha we would have landed someone on Mars 8 years ago. The Soviet space program attempted two launches in 1988 to explore Mars and it's moon Phobos that met with disappointment, continuing a streak of bad luck that pretty much has plagued every Soviet or Russian Mars mission. So because of that also, I don't think we've really been that pressed to go. It's funny how after the launch of Sputnik, we went to the moon soon after. I guess our government now sees it as since we have no one to compete against, why go?

[CrackerBarrel]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

I think we could go now. We have the technology, so why not?

Well, I really don't think anyone is fighting to see who goes first anymore. When the Cold War died, the space race died with it. If the Cold War was still going on, I'll betcha we would have landed someone on Mars 8 years ago. The Soviet space program attempted two launches in 1988 to explore Mars and it's moon Phobos that met with disappointment, continuing a streak of bad luck that pretty much has plagued every Soviet or Russian Mars mission. So because of that also, I don't think we've really been that pressed to go. It's funny how after the launch of Sputnik, we went to the moon soon after. I guess our government now sees it as since we have no one to compete against, why go?

Because we don't have the technology. Not anywhere close. The moon is 240,000 miles away. If we wanted to go back to the moon, we probably could. Mars is 50,000,000 miles away. It's 208 times farther away than is the moon. The shortest time period possible to get from the earth to mars is 9 months, and that is if you time it exactly right at an opportunity that comes every 1.6 years. Here's a quote from a kids astronomy page about the difficulty of a mission to Mars.

Just like you have to wait for Earth and Mars to be in the proper postion before you head to Mars, you also have to make sure that they are in the proper position before you head home. That means you will have to spend 3-4 months at Mars before you can begin your return trip. All in all, your trip to Mars would take about 21 months: 9 months to get there, 3 months there, and 9 months to get back. With our current rocket technology, there is no way around this. The long duration of the trip has several implications.
First, you have to bring enough food, water, clothes, and medical supplies for the crew in addition to all the scientific instruments you will want to take. You also have to bring all that fuel! In addition, if you are in space for nine months, you will need a lot of shielding to protect you from the radiation of the Sun. Water, and cement make good shielding but they are very heavy. All together, it is estimated that for a crew of six, you would need to have 3 million pounds of supplies! The Shuttle can lift about 50,000 pounds into space, so it would take 60 shuttle launches to get all your supplies into space. In the history of the Shuttle, there have only been about 90 launches, and there are less than ten launches per year... So with the shuttle, it would take six years just to get the supplies into space. For this reason, you would probably need to develop a launch system that could lift more than 50,000 pounds into space. Even with a better launch vehicle, it is unlikely that you could launch the Mars mission all at once. You will have to launch it in several pieces and assemble them in orbit.

It's obviously a little outdated too since it's still saying we are making less than 10 shuttle launches a year. Yeah, much less now.

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

I missed this one. It's not just a frozen rock, PhiGam. Mars has a lot of great scenery. It actually has mountains three times as tall as Mount Everest, canyons three times as deep and five times as long as the Grand Canyon. It also has a ton of dry riverbeds. You also need to look at the fact that its unexplored surface may hold unimagined resources for future humanity, as well as answers to some of the deepest philosophical questions that thinking women and men have pondered on for eons. I honestly think Mars may someday provide a home for a dynamic new branch of human civilization. I also think with future human settlement and growth there, it will provide an engine of progress for all of humanity for generations to come. But all that Mars holds will remain beyond reach unless and until women and men land there. You would be surprised, temperatures on Mars can get pretty warm. Mars also has water frozen into its soil, as well as large quantities of carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen, all in forms readily accessible to those inventive enough to use them. Also, these four elements are not only the basis of food and water, but of plastics, wood, paper, clothing, etc etc. You can also get rocket fuel out of those same elements too. That doesn't sound like a frozen rock to me.

So spending billions of dollars is warranted because:
1. There are tall mountains and dry riverbeds
2. There may be resources there (although there is no evidence showing this)
3. They have large quantities of the most commonly occuring elements on earth.

Sorry, I'm not drinking your kool aid on this one. Mars exploration is fine- when our economy isn't in the crapper. The money that would be needed for a Mars mission would be better invested in education or a second stimulus package. Going to Mars itself probably won't do much for us- simply because such a mission is very hard to pull off due to the orbit of Mars v. Earth.

NASA is a great program simply because of the technological advances that are a byproduct of space exploration IMO. I think that we should be using NASA scientists (some of the brightest minds in the world) to improve upon renewable energy technologies. Last time I visited Kennedy Space Center they did have a rather large exhibit about renewable energy.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

So spending billions of dollars is warranted because:
1. There are tall mountains and dry riverbeds
2. There may be resources there (although there is no evidence showing this)
3. They have large quantities of the most commonly occuring elements on earth.

Sorry, I'm not drinking your kool aid on this one. Mars exploration is fine- when our economy isn't in the crapper. The money that would be needed for a Mars mission would be better invested in education or a second stimulus package. Going to Mars itself probably won't do much for us- simply because such a mission is very hard to pull off due to the orbit of Mars v. Earth.

NASA is a great program simply because of the technological advances that are a byproduct of space exploration IMO. I think that we should be using NASA scientists (some of the brightest minds in the world) to improve upon renewable energy technologies. Last time I visited Kennedy Space Center they did have a rather large exhibit about renewable energy.

You're not drinking my kool-aid? lol o.k.

There's plenty of evidence in regards to Mars' resources. Like I was saying earlier, the resources it has can be used just like we found a way to use Earth's resources. We just need to be inventive enough to do so.

And I agree. Our economy is not doing very well, but I already talked about that. Once we're on our feet, I think this should be a priority. I said I hope whoever makes it in office, does not cut NASA spending.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

1. There are tall mountains and dry riverbeds

Yes, it's worth spending the billions of dollars needed to go. Do you even know what a dry river bed could mean? This is proof that Mars once had a warm, wet climate, suitable for the origin of life. I've already said that it can get up to the mid 60s there. Life could have been possible in Mars' early years, because in its youth the planet's carbon dioxide atmosphere was much thicker, endowing it with a very strong greenhouse effect. And so what if there isn't any present day life. What about fossils? Wherever life has died out, it will leave fossils. We need people there to look.

[cheerfulgreek]

Just like you have to wait for Earth and Mars to be in the proper postion before you head to Mars, you also have to make sure that they are in the proper position before you head home. That means you will have to spend 3-4 months at Mars before you can begin your return trip. All in all, your trip to Mars would take about 21 months: 9 months to get there, 3 months there, and 9 months to get back. With our current rocket technology, there is no way around this. The long duration of the trip has several implications.
First, you have to bring enough food, water, clothes, and medical supplies for the crew in addition to all the scientific instruments you will want to take. You also have to bring all that fuel! In addition, if you are in space for nine months, you will need a lot of shielding to protect you from the radiation of the Sun. Water, and cement make good shielding but they are very heavy. All together, it is estimated that for a crew of six, you would need to have 3 million pounds of supplies! The Shuttle can lift about 50,000 pounds into space, so it would take 60 shuttle launches to get all your supplies into space. In the history of the Shuttle, there have only been about 90 launches, and there are less than ten launches per year... So with the shuttle, it would take six years just to get the supplies into space. For this reason, you would probably need to develop a launch system that could lift more than 50,000 pounds into space. Even with a better launch vehicle, it is unlikely that you could launch the Mars mission all at once. You will have to launch it in several pieces and assemble them in orbit.

This kiddy cut and paste was so cute. Actually, if we do the research we could use the resources on Mars cutting cost on some of the supplies.

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

Yes, it's worth spending the billions of dollars needed to go. Do you even know what a dry river bed could mean? This is proof that Mars once had a warm, wet climate, suitable for the origin of life. I've already said that it can get up to the mid 60s there. Life could have been possible in Mars' early years, because in its youth the planet's carbon dioxide atmosphere was much thicker, endowing it with a very strong greenhouse effect. And so what if there isn't any present day life. What about fossils? Wherever life has died out, it will leave fossils. We need people there to look.

Do you realize how impractical a colony on mars would be? Expensive, it would take FOREVER to build seeing as it is extremely difficult and time consuming to run ONE mars mission. It would then cost us $10,000/ lb of cargo, not enough to warrant mining any mineral on mars.