TOPIC: Crazy space stuff

  All I know is, until some slick business man figures out a way to make money out of space travel/living/research (ie: moon condos for the super rich) the long term dedication isn't going to be at a level that I certainly wish it was at, and neither will the mass population's support. It took fear and national pride to get things going early on to "beat the commies" but without an enemy with which to compete, the drive just doesn't seem to be there, and that's a shame. If only there was some way to hybridize American Idol with space exploration....

<br />   All I know is, until some slick business man figures out a way to make money out of space travel/living/research (ie: moon condos for the super rich) the long term dedication isn't going to be at a level that I certainly wish it was at, and neither will the mass population's support. It took fear and national pride to get things going early on to "beat the commies" but without an enemy with which to compete, the drive just doesn't seem to be there, and that's a shame. If only there was some way to hybridize American Idol with space exploration....<br />

<br /><br />China is actually nipping at our heels.  The are currently starting an Apollo style mission to the Moon.

  I've followed that a bit, but they've got some ground to make up before they cause the reaction that it will probably take to get space back into the public consciousness as it was back when we were competing with the Soviet Union...

<br />  I've followed that a bit, but they've got some ground to make up before they cause the reaction that it will probably take to get space back into the public consciousness as it was back when we were competing with the Soviet Union... <br />

<br /><br />That is true, although keep in mind that after the Apollo Program closed down in 1972, we have basically done no manned space exploration beyond Low-Earth Orbit.  Once China goes to the Moon, you can be sure that they will be planning something bigger, say Mars?  <br /><br />Its funny but when you look at dollars, America spends only like 0.8% of its budget on NASA (roughly $15B).  Compared to the ~$439 Billion on the Military in 2007 (not including Iraq war costs).  Hell, the Research and Development budget for the Military alone is four times the budget for NASA.  But lets not get into a War discussion please.  Just wanted to illustrate a point of relative budgets.  :cool:<br />

  The shame of it is that one of the most decorated retired generals in U.S. history warned against a vast military complex, as it would just grow and grow (and actually lead to wars, as you have to use the stuff sometime)... and a lot of people said he didn't know what he was talking about... stupid Eisenhower.<br /><br />  And I agree with you that the budgettary issues seem ridiculous... hey just look at those tax breaks they're going over in congress right now for the oil industry... maybe they can divert them to NASA... oh well it's nice to dream. Though I still think a permanent manned facility on the moon would be a nice baby step towards Mars... heck if you get crazy and really ramp it up, think of what you can do with a low gravitiy manufacturing facility... space vessels that don't have to go through entry/reentry... it's too bad we haven't found oil (I know where oil comes from, so I'm not suggesting that it's a possibility, any valuable commodity would do) on the moon or the space program would be a lot further along. 

flying to the moon is one thing. but mars? how long would that take? i seem to remember some crazy numbers ; like a year. i'm probably wrong on that, but it won't be some relatively quick ride. who would sign on for that?

<br />flying to the moon is one thing. but mars? how long would that take? i seem to remember some crazy numbers ; like a year. i'm probably wrong on that, but it won't be some relatively quick ride. who would sign on for that?

<br /><br />Explorers and scientists - that's who!    It's a six month trip.  The Mars Society sees a mission going like this:<br /><br /> - Send up an unmanned ship that has a plant for making fuel from Martian resources.  It lands on the surface and makes enough fuel for the return trip.<br /><br /> - Send a crew in a ship that can be converted into a habitat (in tandem with another return ship, just in case).  They land and assemble it.  They stay for 18 months for exploring and research waiting for the planets to realign.<br /><br /> - Once they're done, they climb in the fueled return ship and fly back, leaving their habitat for future missions.<br /><br />Each mission that flies there brings another piece of our Mars outpost until it's a full complex of labs and living spaces.  (It could eventually become a full-scale colony.)<br /><br />This "live off the land" approach would put the price tag at around $30 billion which is about $425 billion *less* than Bush's plan.  (It's also less than half of what we spent to build the new line of F-22 fighter jets.)<br /><br /> www.marssociety.org/about/faq.asp <br />

Don't knock the F-22 -- it gave me my first real job! (helping write the software for its "black box" -- which are actually dayglow orange btw)<br /><br />There was an interesting article in PopSci a while back about Buzz Aldrin's "Roadmap To Mars":<br /><br /> www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/2076326.html <br /><br />An excerpt:<br /><br />"My blueprint for manned travel to Mars, based on reusable spacecraft that continuously cycle between Earth and Mars in permanent orbits, requires much less energy over the long term. Once in place, a system of cycling spacecraft, with its dependable schedule and low sustaining cost, would open the door for routine travel to Mars and a permanent human presence on the red planet. Its long-term economic advantages make it less susceptible to cancellation by congressional or presidential whim. In effect, this system would go a long way toward politician-proofing the Mars program."<br />

30 Billion? Please. That's so ridiculously low I can't even begin to guess how many orders of magnitude it's off by. NASA itself was asked to compile a budget for how much to revive the manned space program to get a man to the moon and came up with a figure of 400-500 billion and we're supposed to get to mars on 30?<br /><br />Heck, even getting the moon the first time around cost around 175B in 2003 dollars.