Some questions for debate:
1. Is space exploration getting enough funding? (is it getting too much?)
2. Is it getting enough publicity; is it considered unimportant?
3. Is human exploration of Mars a reasonable target for the next few decades, or should it be a much longer term goal?
4. How important is space exploration?

Just to add some things in here, during the span and I guess normal behaviror of our galaxy, the milky way, our solar system, goes up and down through the center of the spiral. During this we are privy to many big rocks hitting us through probability, with no way to defeat such a thing, or to reach a safer area it could mean death of all life on earth. Many groups of people have found and labeled earth-destroying objects near to earth already. I don’t think we really have a conscious choice in the matter. Plus with population booming and the impact it is having on earth and the need of natural resources, again I don’t see any way we could not try and get into space, plus, think of all the stuff that could be out there, from other life and cultures, to just weird environments and understanding. SO yes more funding and international work on it should be a priority.

1. too much
2. enough
3. much longer
4. not near as important as the scientists say it is

I would assign a much lower priority to anything that does not have immediate benefit, like within a few years. There are no habitable plantets near us, including Mars. And we have real problems here at home that need our attention more than the extremely remote possibility of life on other planets that we can probably never reach.

The advancement of space technology gave us satelite communications (TV, GPS etc), has allowed us to look deeper into the Universe than we ever thought possible and using wavelengths of light that don't even reach the Earth (with instruments such as the Hubble Space Telescope), as well as being able to understand the bodies within our solar system better (including our own planet). These are just some of the things space exploration have given us, and many of them were fairly short term - it was just over a decade between congress approving funding for the telescope and its launch. You cannot give up on something because its benefits are not obvious at first - the space telescope was first concieved in the '20s but with continual developments in space technology we finaly have several space telescopes orbiting the planet - if more funding had been put into the space program, we would have had one sooner.


Mars may be uninhabitable for us, but it is certainly not unreasonable to suggest that other life may exist there - the moons Titan and Europa may also be home to other life-forms.



We will always have problems at home. You don't need to stop funding the space programme to solve these problems, and the fact is that there will never come a time when we don't have problems on Earth.



There are ~10^22 stars in our Universe - many more than the number of grains of sand on the Earth. many of these stars have planets, and many of these no doubt have similar conditions to that of the Earth: I would consider it an extremly remote possibility that life *doesn't* exist elsewhere.

This does not happen. The positions of stars within a solar system does not change much. Over billions of years, the relative positions will change but nothing as dramatic as traveling into the center of the solar system. Galaxies are generally disc shaped. Earth is located about three quarters of the way out from the center of the Milky Way.

One of humanities greatest abilities is the creation of knowledge. Through this, we evolve in means others than genetic (another good human characteristic, adaptability). I was told by a speaker 20 years ago that we spend more on gum than we do on space exploration. Space exploration has a very low priority. Having a goal such as putting a human on Mars in 12 years could change this. It would be a positive endeavor upon which all the world could rally.

Thats not what i mean, and our location from the center of the galaxy on a horozontal axis, we go up and down through that, not that we travel to the center of the galaxy grey seal. I would not be saying that if i was not into astrophysics and astronomy.

The whole point being is there is a danger posed in space by moving objects, if a large one was to be comeing at us, there is little to nothing we could do but die.

I would like to make a thread about HEA or dark matter, acoustic continums and atoms and such, but i dont think many people are into issac asimov, i get romantic with space sometimes.

Hey, Nileriver, you are bringing up good points on why space exploration is important. Identifying objects which could hit Earth is a good one. How would we prevent it once identified? Hmm Maybe we need to do some more research ?

Understanding our world, whether it be observing the flight of a bird, viewing the lifecycle of flowers in a field, or comprehending dark matter, is all so valuable. We should be placing much emphasis on this pursuit, the best of ourselves.

The space program has been, thus far, the biggest "bang for the buck" program to advance technology.

There is a (seemingly) unreachable goal (such as the Moon) and all of these devices are developed in an effort to reach that goal. The results of the space program are MUCH more far reaching than most people imagine. Insulation, semiconductors, computers, communications technologies, advanced plastics, the list goes on and on.

We need more support for NASA.

You are not the only one who watches the Learning Channel, Discovery, etc.
I am aware of all you said, and like I said, most of those things have a relatively quick return and/or benefit. I did not say STOP funding, I voted to reduce it. Planets and moons in our system may have primitive life, but it is unlikely that there will be a benefit from proving that. And it doesn't matter how many stars there are, the possibility of life there is meaningless if we cannot reach them within the span of a human life. A lot of our scientists want to do things for the same reason that some people climb Mt. Everest, simply because it is there. That is fine for them, have at it, but not on my contribution to the IRS. I would rather fund public education.

I think what you are supposed to do here is vote your opinion, and then explain it if needed, not rebut my input.

I think there is a couple of very good reasons to increase funding, and perhaps even expand the international space community.

1) The "Eggs in one basket" theory- we should colonize and terraform as much of the solar system as possible as quickly as possible to avoid extinction from a large scale terran natural disaster.

2) The technological gains made by the concerted efforts of thousands, if not millions, of scientists on single problems are tremendous. Without the "space race" we would not have everything from Microwaves to velcro, and certainly not be debating online today!

1. Not gonna happen in the next 100 years, if ever. Only our planet is the correct distance from the sun to have a suitable temperature range for the growing of crops, not to mention the water and atmosphere problems.
2. Microwave cookers and Velcro did not come from the space program. Microwave was an offshoot of Radar, Velcro by a guy who had to remove burrs from his dogs coat and his pants after their walk. I think the Internet would have happened anyway.

There are benefits to the space program, but that is no reason to throw a lot of money at some wild ideas like colonizing Mars. If we DID do that, and if a huge meteor was heading our way, you can bet that only a very select few would be sent there to continue the human race. I doubt that you or I will be invited. Still want to help pay for it?

I know a little bit about astrophysics but have to agree with Bill55AZ that it is a waste of money to look for life elsewhere. The conditions for life as we know it must be almost perfect.

You must have water oxygen and carbon all present plus nitrates, a renewable source of energy like a star at a correct distance to stop the water from freezing or evaporating and the earth fits these parameters for life perfectly. If we where a little bit further out (I think about 2%) our oceans would all be ice and no life would exist and if we were 6% closer the temperature would be 80 degrees celsius on a cool day in the polls.

Looking for life on other planets is silly, we are one of a kind, and even if you did by some fluke find life on another planet it is likely to be over 10'000 light years away and even if it was intelligient life that doesn't give us an acceptable communication time for any meanigful gain.

There are 10^80 atoms in the universe and this is a tiny fraction of the number needed to mathematically say that there is even one place for life to exist.

Research and observation of the cosmos I don't think is a waste of time as understanding light and fusion and all sorts of other things are worth it but we don't need to worry about being struck by a huge meteroid as we'll have killed ourselves off before we go back into the denser part of our solar system. We still have our giant friend Jupiter that has saved us on multiple occasians from collisions with its tremendous gravity and magnetic field.

Less funding should be given to sending spaceships up to look at moon rocks and mars dust etc as you don't gain anything from it and it cost millions. But by all means observe the amazing universe in which we live and send up bigger and bigger satelite telescopes and look.

The nearest star to us proxima centauri (not alpha centauri) and is 4.2 light years away so even if life existed here it would take us (at our current maximum speed of 12% of the speed of light) it would take us 25 years to get there (not including the relativity effects) That means a person could go there and come back once unless you sent them when they were very young and they lived to be over 100 but what are the chances of something happening that close to our life perfect little world.

And we already know what to do if a meteor is headed our way and jupiter can't save us. We just send Bruce Willis up with a load of drilling equipment and a nuke, easy.

The only way we can terraform another planet is by taking resouces from terra(earth) to the planet we want to make like ours, and the resources are short as it is and cannot be replaced. Unless nanotechnology develops enough to change water into gold terraforming won't ever be possible.

I don't watch the discovery or learning channel actually, and I think most TV documentaries are poorly made !




Spinoffs from space technology are beneficial to everyone, even if landing on the Moon or Mars, in itself, isn't.



This is supposed to be a debate!

So debate, say why someone else is wrong or their opinion should be questioned.


I couldn't say for sure, but I read a book about life, and in it it basically said that carbon is the only element that can support life as we know it. Life also requires energy and a way to renew that energy so life must live off other life. A sulphur sea (which is what is thought to be under the frozen surface of europa or titan) cannot bring forth life because it will never be able to gain energy to reproduce. Stop reading 2001:a space odyssey


No. We will never get rid of problems until all the humans are gone but until then a few hundred million dollars would definitely help.


What is the point of it being there, in relation to us, even if it does exist. How many of those 10^22 stars have planets and how many of those planets can yield life and how many are within any contactable distance of us. We will never find life on another planet (unless it drifts from earth to mars) as no other planet will match earth in its life perfect conditions.

Lets say that there is a hundred billion stars in our galaxy (10^11) and that one has given birth to life. That still means that if every galaxy brought forth one planet with life there would be 10^11 planets with life on, one in each galaxy.
But they are still several hundred thousand lightyears away and what benefit is that to the advance of science. If we received an obviously intelligent message from space the species that sent it will long have died out and the signal is all that remains. Our planet is not going to last another 100000 years so I don't see how any other one could.

Finding carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen on a planet isn't very unlikely at all - hydrogen is the main constituent of stars of course anyway, and oxygen, nitrogen and carbon would be present in 2nd generation stars/solar systems as well. Also, 80 degrees C is the perfect temperature for primitive life to develop (i'll try and find a link...)



I agree that looking for life would be unachievable now with current technology - that is something for a long time in the future. You're probably familiar with the drake equation: we really don't know the probability of life existing elsewhere, but with generally accepted estimates, there is a good possibility that intelligent life exists in our own galaxy.



You would never be able to say for certain that their was life in the Universe, no matter how much matter there is, but the fact that we exist indicates that it is *possible* for life to exist elsewhere.



Yep, agree with you there.



Someone pointed out earlier in the debate that more money is spent buying chewing gum than put into the space programme. I think a human sample return mission to mars would really benefit science, as well as overcoming many problems of spaceflight - there would no doubt be other benefits to Earth based technology. satellites and space telescopes are certainly useful but they do not provide as much understanding of a place as a robotic or human mission there would do.



25 years is too long for humans, but possible for a robotic space probe - that is not to say it would be easily achievable though.







You don't have to terraform a planet to live there.

If you don't terreform the planet you live on you have to be able to supply yourself from somewhere, you would have to have a totally self sustainable dome and since a dome of around a square mile can support only a few people we would be in a real apartment lot if we all tryed to move to another world.

Lots of experiments have been done on doming people up to see if they can survive for several years but one of the occupants was ill and sneaked some hamburgers in in one experiment. They still needed the sun at the right distance to keep the dome warm. If we went to go to mars we would need a massive heater to stop us freezing during the night, we need fusion and 100 years supply of hydrogen.

Space exploration really is a dream of the future and until we invent a warp drive there is no scientific use in sending probes out at our tiny speeds at such a huge cost. As for observation of other planets or moons what benefit is there of sending probe, we know there lifeless lumps of rock, what more do we need to know.

A sulpherous lake, heated geothermally, would be ideal for life to develop - National Maritime Museum article


We have already cut NASA's budget in half and our problems haven't gone away - a few hundered million would go further in the space programme than it would solving our Earthly problems.



I was arguing whether other life existed, not whether it is possible to contact it.
I agree though, unless we develop faster than light communication (which is theoretically possible using quantum physics), we will probably never contact another species.

You don't need to do this if you are only staying for less than a month



If we *know* that Mars doesn't support life, then why is ESA sending Mars Express, NASA sending the Mars Exploration Rovers, and BNSC sending Beagle2? We don't know that life doesn't exist there, and even if we did, that is not the only reason why we are sending probes.

Oliver - please avoid posting two posts in a row. If you have another idea to add, and you were the last person to have posted, please go in & edit your post. Also, it would be helpful if you edited your quotes down to the specific portion you are debating. Otherwise, we can all use our scroll button, so there is no need to rehash what we've all read.

We can only guess on the amount of objects be it planets or stars from what we can label the visible universe with things like Hubble. For all I know what we see of the universe can be less then 1% of its total size, we don’t know for sure yet is something I will wager to say. We see gas giants or planets that are much larger then Jupiter and a multitude of other things that go to show that who knows what is out there. Not only does the drive produce a large amount of new technologies, on the whole not only from threats of extinction the general requirements of natural resources, environmental issues and the need to secure such for the worlds growing population show why getting into space should be a priority.

Mars itself may hold bundles of natural resources that range from all kinds of things, iron to aluminum, but we don’t know yet because we are not there. I don’t know about you but the overall fact of meeting another life form, even if its just plants and insects is very cool, or maybe some advanced race of people, maybe they will be little green men, who knows, the point is we don’t yet. The space program cant fund itself and costs a pretty penny, international Cooperation would benefit the program on a whole, but that would be up to a lot of people.

I was talking about making a second earth and if you can only stay on mars for a month and it takes three months to get there from earth it wouldn't work very well. When earth becomes uninhabiltable what will we do, we could move to mars and terraform it but you would have to stay there forever if there was no earth to go back to.

What are the benefits of sending a probe to the moon or mars except managing to acheive it and having to develop the technology to do so. The actual trip there does not gain you anything and even if we found massive deposits on mars of resources we would never be able to bring them back as it would be far to expensive.

Give it a couple more centuries, If we can last that long of course.

If Mars and Earth are at opposition, with current rocket technology and at current speeds, the combined journey time would be a little over 500 days, but the stay would only be 20 before having to leave - we will have to develop much more powerful and efficient engines if we want to get there in a resonable amount of time.

You would not have to leave Earth to terraform Mars - the very gas that is warming up the Earth could be used to do the same thing on Mars. By melting Mars' polar ice caps, CO2 would be released into the atmosphere and the greenhouse effect would warm the planet up. The whole process would take about 50 years [link] - we know Mars had a warm and wet climate in the past - a lot like Earth. But of course, this type of space exploration is for a much longer timescale (~500-1000 years).



The benefit of sending any probe anywhere is scientific understanding - the technology developed when doing so is a bonus.



As you say, extracting resources from Mars will not come for a very long time, but a human mission to there could be a much shorter-term goal.




Our planet will last for a lot longer than 100'000 years, and humans have lasted for 2 million years already - what makes you think we won't last for a couple more centuries?

"What makes you think we won't last a couple more centuries?"

In my case, the fact that WWIII seems emminent. Not much chance the race would last through a third world war.
---
Now, as for the benefits of colonizing or even exploring space...
Aren't there much better things we could do with our time?
Say these "millions of scientists" tried developing someting else? They could accomplish as much as they do on space programs.
---
The other thing:
Anyone else here of Project 921?
China's trying to go to space.

1. No, it should definitely get more.
2. Yes, space exploration and technology is given far too little attention.
3. Human exploration of mars is definitely a goal for the near future. With our increasing knowlege of things it is a reasonable goal to land on mars definitely within two decades, and it could be done in something around one.
4. Space exploration is very important.

Space exploration is a very important thing for people today. First off there is the rather obvious benefit of increased technology as a by-product of further space research. This would, in all likelihood, mainly effect communications (in the near future) and aerospace designs (also in the near future). Enough concentration on space exploration and space science would also result in advances in physics, energy, and innumerable other fields. By energy I refer to new or better forms of electrical generation and other ways of getting energy.

Secondly is a problem that readily comes to mind when one considers the reasons for space exploration: the preservation of our very species. The first view that this is associated with is an asteroid slamming into our planet. True, the likelihood is minute, but the odds that this or a similar scenario will EVENTUALLY come to pass are undeniably massive. In any case, its better to be prepared now then to find later that it is too late. This isn't the only possible cause of the destruction of our species. There are perfectly natural causes, such as more efficient viruses or a new ice age. There are human effects on the environment: global warming, intolerable radiation from the sun (due to holes in the ozone layer, and yes I am aware that those are not necessarily human-caused), overuse of resources (even renewable resources can be used up if we take too many too quickly), or even pollution. Purely human causes must also be considered, namely nuclear, chemical, and/or biological war(s). While none of the effects I have mentioned are too terribly pressing at the moment, and while most are not even likely, they are possibilities, and must be considered.

Therefore space exploration (as a means to space colonization) is mandatory. The least we could do would be to put an outpost on the moon, and colonization of Mars and of space itself (in rotating, drifting space stations powered by light and atomic energy) is next in line. These goals should be put down as those of our nation, particularly the one about the moon. In order to continue to exist, the human race is compelled to at some point begin colonization of space; this is a fact. At the very best the Earth can last until the sun becomes a red giant, and thus colonization of space (and you will undoubtably have noted that the sun's transformation shall also imperil or destroy the other planets or our colonies on them (assuming we still exist at that time, of course), and thus interstellar colonization is also an eventual necessity. For the present, however, we needn't discuss this, as it shall not become useful, plausible, or indeed possible for quite some time.


In returning to the present we see that the space program lacks the budget and public interest required to put any of our goals of exploration (such as putting a man on mars) into practice, and thus our colonization goals are not even in the realm of possibility for the foreseeable future (those goals include putting commercially productive structures into space, creating a permanent moon base, and completing the and/or building new space station(s).).

In order to gain any of the benifits of space exploration and research, to say nothing of colonization, the first step is public interest. If a goal were to be set, such as putting a man on mars, and a time limit set on that goal (such as our "race to the moon"), the people would become much more interested. With interest comes a higher budget, more research, and eventually a higher level of productivity.

Increased support for space exploration would be supportive of public education. Education is the dissemination of information and also the creation of information. Education without seeking better understanding(creation of information) is called "training". Training of people is important. However, it is an incomplete means to educate.

"A lot of scientists want to do things....simply because it is there." Yes! This is the desire to better understand. Curiosity is a good trait of humanity. All of human progress through recorded history is due to this. Without it, there is no progress.

Pulling in our horns and not seeking better understanding would be a good reason to decrease funding of public education. We would could reduce educational costs if we are doing nothing more than training. It is expensive to educate people to intellectually explore and be scientifically creative.

I submit, space exploration is an important part of our intellectual creative process. Increased expenditures on space exploration will support this important aspect of humanity, increase the status of those with higher education, and increase the status of education. This will result in increased funding of public education.

As an active member of the Mars Society, I might add in what little insight I have on the topic of human Mars Missions. To be quite frank, we could have gone to Mars in the 70's if NASA had enough of a budget for it. Right now continued progress is being made in development of habitat modules and Rover's by the Mars Society and other groups, and I feel if Congress could come up with 10-20 billion dollars a 20 year Human Mars Mission would be very possible. This could ofcourse also be carried out by a private group at a much lower cost(as they can use many more foreign technologies the government would not use) and that cost could round out to 4 or 5 billion dollars.

And as for permanent plans for living on Mars, Mars has near its surface all the same minerals present on Earth, therefore when the technology is developed to extract those minerals Mars Colonists could be quite self-sufficient(But that is in atleast the 2060 range, using 2015 as a first launch date for the Mars Missions)

If you have an interested in the prospect of human exploration of Mars, read "The Case for Mars" by Dr. Robert Zubrin, it is what I consider to be the primary book on the subject and where I obtainedall of these rough quotes. He is also currently the President of the Mars Society, www.marssociety.org

As I read through all of your arguments I continue to notice something that seems to bother me. Whenever you speak of finding life on another planet, most of you seem to have the opinion that almost no other planets have the exact specifications for "life as we know it" and that is what bothers me. That is an extremely closed minded thing to say, for all we know, we are the only "life as we know it", there may be life on other planets, and it probably won't be anything like us. For all we know we may find a race of aliens that finds sulfuric acid as important to life as water is to us, we don't know.

Second page in on a debate about NASA funding... probably about time to bring the actual funding data to the table...

2002 budget figures (source):

$14,484,000,000 - NASA total
$6,551,000,000 - Human space flight
$7,359,000,000 - Space, aeronautics, and technology R&D
$539,000,000 - Mission Support
$35,000,000 - Other

So they get about fourteen and a half billion dollars a year. Their total funding increase from 1998 to 2002 was 1.96%, which must have been a congressional oversight.

In any event, I voted that they shouldn't get any extra funding. NASA needs to reset their priorities.

They need to stop developing technology based on other technology that doesn't exist. With the amount we have spent developing ambitious and now-abandoned technology, we could have built a more efficient means of transporting equipment and personnel to space using existing technology.

Mike

The main push of most of that R&D i think was to try and get away from using chemical based means of travel like rockets. They are not the safest means of travel in that you basically have a giant fireball of liquid oxygen or nitrogen to deal with in the event of an accident. The latest propulsion technology if actually made would not only be safer i would think it would also be a lot faster, which is something that would greatly enhance space travel.

Believe it or not you can go insane on how long it will take to travel to mars by conventional means, the chemical rocket.

It may sound weird that they were basically working on some radical stuff, but nasa is not the only one, many other companies also deal in this same area.

Edited to add.

The danger also of using a big missile to travel the depths of space is a great danger, moving flakes of paint can pierce the stronger metals we have today and so forth. The result of something like that would most likely mean a grave danger for space travel on chemical rockets.

I voted "other"... so I should explain...

I truly believe populating space is the ultimate manifestation of our understanding of what being alive means.

But that doesn't mean the current Administration of NASA has a clue...

See... the current Administrator of NASA is... a bean counter. Not that I got anything against bean counters... is just that... they belong with the beans.

NACA... the precursor of NASA, made this Nation a leader... no... _The_Leader_ in aerospace in the World. But they didn't make that happen by building, buying, managing, flying, every freaging airplane out there. They set the tone for scientific understanding of flight, and experimented, and proposed solutions, etc.

NASA started as a political solution to a severe Propaganda crisis. At first, the politicians gave carte blanche to the scientist to do their stuff, as long as their stuff meant beating the Soviets to the Moon. But as soon as Apollo 11 was landing on the Moon, President Nixon was calling them on the phone to congratulate them, and with the other hand, signing the order to remove the german scientists from management and reduce the budget of NASA.

After that NASA was parked in the same lot as the Department of Education and Welfare, and "take no more than 1/3 of every penny of the tax payers money and do wonders and next year you'll get less."

So they hung to their best bread maker, manned flight, as a way to stay popular with the Texas and Florida Senators. Visionaries like Carl Sagan were left to reach Mars on a shoe-string budget, and try to detect life with 1/10th the experiment they needed.

Don't get me wrong -- I DO believe in manned space flight!

But we expect NASA to be managed by bean counters, and with an infinitely smaller budget than any armed force or major agency "...do this and the other, not because it's easy but because it's hard."

So the matter is not whether space exploration is important, but WHEN ARE WE GOING TO GO AT DOING IT RIGHT? We need a major overhaul of NASA and a major rethinking of HOW do we go about doing Space Exploration, and then put a whole lot of money, and do it... "...because it's there."

-- my two cents --

For me the answer is very simple.

Earth--limited resources.

Space--Unlimited resources, most asbsolutely free

If we want to continue to expand our minds, cultures, population, etc., we MUST find ways to move out of space.

We are much like a bacterial colony in a can of beans in a warehouse full of other cans of beans, artichoke hearts, soup, and uncountable, unimaginable other potential situations where our little colony might thrive. Someday we will consume all the beans in our can. What then? If we can somehow learn to infect the other cans we will be free to make mindless music videos for billions of years instead of mere hundreds or thousands.

Why do you all seem to think that moving to another planet is our only way to expand? Think about this: moving anywhere else in any significant numbers (by significant I mean a viable genetic population requiring, with our number of chromasomes, a minimum of approximately 500 human individuals) would require us to create transports that we could live on and propogate in for many generations. Why the need then for planets?

Asteroids have heavy metals, stone, water, gasses, ices, etc., everything you might need to build such a craft is right there, free for the taking, and doesn't need to be boosted into orbit. Also, there are many asteroids very close at hand. All we need do is start mining asteroids. The only real expenditure we need make is to go out and get the first one and bring it into high earth orbit. NASA need not fund all of it as it would benefit the world's economy immeasurably, so private funding could be obtained to augment the NASA budget for a mission like this.

All future funding would be a piece of cake if they could pull that off.

Once you have built such a craft (for which the technology already exists), why the need for planets or terraforming technologies to be developed in any hurry. Self-sustaining spacecraft with viable populations of humans, flora, other fauna, etc, could then be sent all over the warehouse to other bean cans.

Otherwise, we also have the option of sitting here and eating up our beans until some time in the future we are just a dried up stain of indeterminate ex-biological goop stuck to the inside of our empty bean can.

With all my respect, I doubt that society that changes its leader every four years will ever care of going to space.

After Soviet Union died, the only real reason of going to space - political propaganda - vanished.

Existance of Soviet Union was based on one main factor - EXPANSION. Military and cosmonautics were the two main branches of Soviet economical, political and even cultural life. In early 80ies, this two branches began merging: I mean development of "Almaz" (first and only manned BATTLE spaceship created by man), "Polyus" (100-ton orbital BATTLE station) and "Buran" (Soviet BATTLE shuttle) and formation of project "Uragan" as answer to pathetic SDI project (after fall of Soviet Union, tourists can visit ruins of abandoned "Uragan" command headquarters).

EXPANSION is everything. In biology, the species that increase their appetites and do not expand, are on the way to extinction. If humans won't colonize space, they are DOOMED, they will suffocate in the excrements of their own technosphere.

We need to increase funding of space projects at least tenfold. But that DOESN'T mean we need to start launching big rockets immediately. No, we need to make it gradually.

Since Soviet Union is no more, here I will list projects, accomplished or planned by Communist Party to be accomplished.

First, Soviets created space shuttle that doesn't need launch pads and big rockets. It is Soviet "Molniya" prototype, launched from "mothership" An-225. It is designed to be cheap space transport, and it is REALLY cheap. One ton of payload, delivired by "Molniya", will cost almost 40 (FORTY!!!) times less than one ton of payload, delivered by American "Shuttle".

The project was to use "Molniya" both as space transport and space fighter, with goal to destroy American communication, surveillance and SDI sattelites. Theoretically, "Molniya" can attack any point of Earth with zero probability of interception - cheap fleet of them can be used to destroy all American aircraft carriers, for example.

Second, they created medium-class space shuttle for orbital construction and military operations. This is project "Energia-Buran".

Third, the project was two develop superheavy rocket "Vulkan" with 350 tons of payload. The project was stopped after break-up of Soviet Union.

Fourth, was construction of orbital shipyard. It was to be maintained by "Molniyas" and "Burans". Along with technical personel, it should house "space spetsnaz" troopers.

Fifth, the "Vulkans" deliver components to shipyard, and series of orbital stations is assembled: scientific, combat, communication, surveillance. Spaceships were to be sent to estabilishing bases on Moon and Mars (yes, with small contingent of "space spetsnaz" as well). This spaceships were to be equipped with nuclear and ion engines, which were ALREADY developed and tested by Soviet Union (you can see real nuclear engine at Russian Cosmonautics Museum and ion drive at Keldysh Center).

According to schedule, by the end of these five phases, Americans are just finishing their SDI. Also, according to schedule, Soviet space industry should receive fusion power reactors and fusion drives (based on Soviet "ToKaMaK" device), as well as plasma shields (generated by Phased Antenna Arrays, both in form of "cloaking device" ("Marabu" generator, used on modern Russian MiG-MFI) and in form of protection). The date is August, 2002.

Next stage is where my skills and my inventions were going to be used - estabilishing mining bases (no, NOT colonies - according to schedule Soviet science and industry would not be prepared for colonization of other planets by 2002, only on estabilishing mining bases, mostly with robotic equipment; colonies would be estabilished later).

Here's list of projects. Most of numbers are approximate.

--------------------------------------

PROJECT: Complex Lunar Expedition (CLE).

Creation of Primary Lunar Orbital Base (LOB).

Starting mass of LOB - 20.000 tons (2009 year), final - 10.000.000 tons (2060 year).

Primary fusion reactor - 1 Gigawatt, emergency atomic reactor - 50 Megawatt.

Thrusters - plasma drives 100 KH with exhaust speed of 1000 km/sec.

Crew - 12 men, scientists - 12 men, 10.000 expedition robots, barracks for 1.000 of "space spetsnaz" troopers.

According to modern overview, the total cost of LOB project will be equal of 30 billions of Euro (of 2000 year).

The goal of LOB is to orbital support of CLE, accumulation of fuel and modules on orbit of Luna for futher space expeditions and construction of orbital bases on orbits of Earth and Luna.

PROJECT: Complex Mars Expedition (KME).

Creation and transfer of Primary Mars Orbital Base (MOB) to orbit of Mars.

Starting mass of MOB - 40.000 tons (2012 year), final - 100.000.000 tons (2060 year).

Primary fusion reactor - 1 Gigawatt, emergency atomic reactor - 200 MWatt.

Thrusters - plasma drives 200 KH with exhaust speed of 1000 km/sec.

Crew - 50 men, scientists - 50 men, 20.000 expedition robots, barracks for 1.000 of "space spetsnaz" troopers, living space for 1.000 of civilians.

Total cost of MOB project from 2009 to 2012 - 100 billions of Euro (2000 year).

Goal: support of CLE, accumulation of fuel and resources on orbit of Mars for long-range space expeditions and construction of bases on Mars and in Asteroid Belt.

PROJECT: Lunar Colony (LC)

Creation of Lunar base and Lunar city "Korolyov" (Sergei Pavlovich Korolyov is legendary Soviet Chief Designer, direct counterpart of Werner Von Braun).

Population - 100.000 civilians by 2020 year, which will work in industry, mainly on extraction of Helium-3 for Soviet fusion drives and construction of spaceships.

Building of Lunar Cosmodrome and Assembly and Testing Complex (MIK) for assembly of spaceships.

Building of space academy and flight school.

PROJECT: Cosmic Colonization

Mass exploration of Luna and Mars and creation of large cities on surface.

Creation of large orbital habitats (the Clusters) with population of more than 100.000 men on orbit of Earth, Luna, Mars and in Asteroid Belt.

Mass emigration to Mars. By 2020-2060 year Mars population will exceed 5.000.000 and amount of industrial robots will exceed 5.000.000.000.

According to recent re-assessions, Mars would become the richest place in Solar System with average income per capita equal exceeding of 1.000.000 of Euro (2000 year).

Lunar bases will be not as rich, mostly serving as "industrial planet" for mining resources and construction of Soviet space fleet.

And according to recent re-assessions, by 2020 year or so, Soviet space bases would be giving PROFIT to Soviet budget.

--------------------------------------

Sounds crazy and outlandish? If you don't believe me, go to Russian Technocrat Party site. They STILL plan to accomplish this plan, and even have made new schedule and business-plan, calculating all costs and income (and YES, they still plan to gain profit by 2020)!

And I will also tell you something personal. Like I said, my primary field is designing of military/space machinery. When Soviet Union existed, I dreamed to be on the frontier of Soviet space expansion. I had all abilities to do this, my "children" (machines I designed and tested) can still be used. But instead of this, my entire world has collapsed. The cosmodromes, the high-tech plants, the laboratories are in hands of primitive and short-sighted "New Russian" oligarchs. And here comes organisation of cowboys whose biggest accomplishments in space are fake Lunar expedition and assassination of Soviet spaceship Chief Designer Korolyov, TAKING best Soviet technologies like RD-180 (no, not to reverse-engineer them, NASA guys are too dumb for that, but to prevent Russia from using this Soviet legacy) and yelling that they are "best". Of course you are best now, after political destruction of real leader - Soviet Union.

But I hope Soviet Rule will return and my robotic children will roam dust of Luna and sands of Mars.

And then, we shall meet again, Earthlings.

Respectfully,
Chief Engineer Kimov

PS: And yes, here's another topic for other discussion. I am absolutely sure that American astronauts never been on Luna. As military/space engineer, one of my duties was to compare videos from Soviet moon robots and American manned flights. American videos and photos are absolutely unrealistic, it becomes obvious in two seconds. Theory of people from our Constructor Bureau is that Americans launched probes that took examples and translated video and other info to Earth. Don't discuss this in this thread, it is off-topic, if you are interested, open new thread and I will gladly discuss it there.

PPS: If anyone is interested in my "children", I can tell me about them in other thread and give some photos, but without revealing of schematics, sorry.

Kimov, can you give me the url for this Russian Technocrat Party website? I'd be interested in seeing it, before I respond in detail.

I do find it difficult to believe all that you say, however, considering the fact that the Russians were so hard up for money for their space program just a few years back that they were taking in rich Americans as tourists, to help keep Mir afloat for an extra year.

Second, the Buran (a design ripped off from the US, by the way) only made one flight, and unmanned at that, because they couldn't get the life support systems to work properly, and couldn't get the software to load for the CRT displays. The funding was cut two years later, leaving Buran and it's two sister ships (only partially completed) abandoned.

Third, as early as March of this year, Russia was asking for money from NASA and the US to build at least 3 more Progress spacecraft to keep the ISS supplied while our Shuttles were grounded due to the Columbia disaster. If they can't even afford to build a few of their most basic ships, what does that say about your grand plan?

Fourth, these "battle shuttles", "battle stations", and what not, as you describe them, were all developed after the agreement to and signing of at least 4 treaties that specified the peaceful uses and exploitation of space, the moon and other planetary bodies. Are you seriously telling me that your country was then, and is now, admitting to open violation of these treaties?

This sounds like the start of a great science fiction story, maybe, but not much more than that. Sorry, but I just don't buy it. Especially now. Since the Soviet Union collapsed, the government there has been severely cash-strapped. The US spends almost 4 times the total Russian economy, just in support of our military. That doesn't take into account all of the rest of the government, or private enterprise wealth here. There's no way Russia can afford this kind of program on the timetable you give.

Oh, and as to your assertion that we never got to the moon? Go ahead and start that thread. I'll be waiting..........


Edited for spelling

1. Is space exploration getting enough funding? (is it getting too much?)

Not at all. I think we (as a planet) should be spending perhaps two to three times as much as we are doing now.


2. Is it getting enough publicity; is it considered unimportant?

It gets publicity of course, but I don't think it has any impact on peoples lives. Space has become so familiar through science fiction and films, that I think people tend to take it for granted.

They do not seem to realise just how difficult it really is.


3. Is human exploration of Mars a reasonable target for the next few decades, or should it be a much longer term goal?

It should be attempted before 2020CE. After all, what is there to do for the human race which is more interesting?

Its a whole new world!

And, I have a pet idea, that as a sign of solidarity, a woma should be granted the honour of being the first human being to set foot on Mars.


4. How important is space exploration?

It depends on one's prioroities of course, but after weapons development, I think space exploration is that human endeavour which spawns more high tech than any other field of research.

For that reason alone, it is worth it.


In my opinion, I think we really need an International Space Agency. The costs involved are simply to great, and it is counter produtive for the best minds of the planet to be building two examples of every item needed.

The Soviet Union had some of the best equipment ever made. They had the strongest rockets, and the best engines, but their computer systems were a joke. The Americans in turn, had very expensive equipment, that simply costs too much, but has fantastic computers.

If these two nations put aside their vanity, they could both work together, for science, under the planning of an ISA.

Individual companies could build and design the vehicles, thus keeping the element of competition, but it makes no sense for seperate nations to waste resources on identical projects.

to NITEGUY:



Here's this site:

http://tkp.spb.ru/

It has LOTS of interesting material.



Look, you are talking about RUSSIAN FEDERATION. RUSSIAN FEDERATION is sort of "banana-republic", on the level even BELOW Mozambique, Syria, Chile, Panama and Iran. But SOVIET UNION is different thing. SOVIET UNION was SUPERPOWER, and WILL BE superpower when we rebuild it.



You know too little about "Buran". "Buran" has the same shape as American Shuttle, but its inner systems don't have any similarity with its American counter-part. "Buran" can carry more payload and much more maneurable. I am not even mention Soviet superiority in navigation systems (explained below).



Where did you get this information? It is completely incorrect. We didn't have any problems with software or with life support. In fact, life support was the most simple thing to accomplish. The hardest thing was to design navigation and autopilot equipment. THAT was purpose of only "Buran" flight - to test computer navigation. It worked BRILLIANTLY. Yes, that was UNMANNED flight, and it is the best side of "Buran". AMERICAN COMPUTER AND NAVIGATION TECHNOLOGY IS TOO PRIMITIVE TO CREATE REUSABLE UNMANNED SPACE VEHICHLES. They even can't make them land properly.

The ability of unmanned flight was included to "Buran" project because "Buran" supposed to be military aircraft. Aside from civilian fleet, by 2000 year Soviet Union should have 10 (ten) military "Buran" shuttles, mostly unmanned, armed with variety of weapons.



Exactly, "thanks" to Perestroika. Perestroika is destruction of Soviet system. This policy has nothing to do with might of Soviet Union.



I repeat: DON'T MIX RUSSIAN FEDERATION WITH SOVIET UNION!



Yes, Soviet Union violated these treaties (you violated it too, by the way, with your SDI project). But that's not all. After Gorbachev started Perestroika, he started PHYSICALLY DESTROYING this machinery. For example, I was invited as expert to witness the launch of "Polyus" (100-ton combat battle station, launched by heavy "Energia" rocket, the same rocket that was used in "Buran" project). Gorbachev made a speech. "We don't want to expand Arms Race to space, bla-bla-bla, we want peace, bla-bla-bla..." And then, after the "Polyus" was already on orbit, he ordered to DESTROY it by dropping it to lower layers of atmosphere. That is the true nature of Perestroika! I will never forget this treachery.



I understand you. If I were you, I wouldn't buy it either. It is way too amazing. But it is true. I hope after visiting Russian Technocrat Party site you will belive me. Oh, yes, and I also have collection of rare photos of some of these Soviet projects. I think I will soon make a site and put them there.



I say it again: DON'T MIX RUSSIAN FEDERATION AND SOVIET UNION.

But of course, today, after fall of First Soviet Empire, timetable shifted to 10-20 years in future.

Russian Technocrat Party (tkp.spb.ru), as well as Communist Party of Russia (kprf.ru) and The Brotherhood (shadow organisation), have plans to rebuild economy in relatively short period of time.



Edited to add:

to MOIF:

Our computers are joke? Then, tell me, why ALL best space navigation systems are made in Russia? Tell me, why ALL best military coordination and fire control systems are made in Russia?

The fact: we had bad computer COMPONENTS, but our final, INTEGRATED systems are better than American.

Let's check characteristics of them. "Senezh-M1E" (weakened, export variant!): range - 600 kilometers, maximum number of tracked targets - 120, units controlled - 17 ground units and 6 fighters. That is much better than American counterparts "Missile-Minder", "Sage" and English "Nomad".

And tell me, have you heard of Soviet polycappilari x-ray lens? This technology was Soviet answer to American supercomputers. Using polycappilari x-ray lens, Soviet Union planned to produce NANO-COMPUTERS, as cheap as matchbox. They don't require large masks, you can make as big mask as you want, and then duplicate it on ANY level of integration without any serious costs. This project costed only 4 billions of Euro, but it could give Soviet Union free supercomputers by 1996 year.

If you don't believe, go to any search engine ("Google", for example) and type "Muradin Kumakhov".

Came the morning, the weather was snow flurries with 20 m/s winds. Launch abort criteria were 15 m/s. The launch director decided to press ahead anyway. After 12 years of development everything went perfectly. Buran, with a mass of 79.4 tonnes, separated from the Block Ts core and entered a temporary orbit with a perigee of -11.2 km and apogee of 154.2 km. At apogee Burn executed a 66.6 m/s manoeuvre and entered a 251 km x 263 km orbit of the earth. In the payload bay was the 7150 kg module 37KB s/n 37071. 140 minutes into the flight retrofire was accomplished with a total delta-v of 175 m/s. 206 minutes after launch, accompanied by Igor Volk in a MiG-25 chase plane, Buran touched down at 260 km/hr in a 17 m/s crosswind at the Jubilee runway, with a 1620 m landing rollout. The completely automatic launch, orbital manoeuvre, deorbit, and precision landing of an airliner-sized spaceplane on its very first flight was an unprecedented accomplishment of which the Soviets were justifiably proud. It completely vindicated the years of exhaustive ground and flight test that had debugged the systems before they flew.

(from ASTRONAUTIX.COM)

Kimov,

It's taken me a while to get though all of the information on the Russian Technocrat site you gave me (my Russian isn't what it used to be).

I must apologize to you. I said that your assertions looked like the start of a science fiction story. After looking at the site, however, I have concluded that it bears a more striking resemblance to pure fantasy. Here's why:

1. The "robots" that they talk of using to house human brains, so as to advance their "immortality project" come straight from science fiction of the 30s and 40s. Don't believe me? Here's the quote from their main page on immortality:

Please note that they are calling american science fiction writer, Isaac Asimov , a prophet, and they can't even get the spelling of his name correct!

2. The corporations listed as to providing technical work and funds for the "space exploration" portion of the site do not appear to exist, at least through any search engine I could find. However, one, (Russia Universal Robots) does indeed to be another ripoff of an old science fiction story from Karl Capek's "RUR", short for "Rossum's Universal Robots". The other company, "User Soft", appears to be made up out of whole cloth, with nothing behind it.

3. Their assertions of funds needed are more than optomistic as well. The budget they propose for just the space program is 500 million euro's, beginning in 2004, and jumping to 3,000 million euros by 2008. This is going to be just a bit tough to come up with, considering that Russia's total budget revenues for this year are projected at just 6 million euros. But, hey, what's 495 million euros among friends, huh?

4. All of the basic information for what they want to do, is pretty much what you said, in terms of personnel and hardware required, except for one thing. Nowhere do they mention "battle space ships", "battle space stations" or "space spetznaz troops". They do mention explorers, colonists, and scientists. Sounds like someone has a bit of an inferiority complex.

5. Your assertions that things would be greatly different in the face of a new Soviet Union, are disingenuous, at best. Face it. Russia is beginning to see the real value in a privatized, free market system. Yes, it's tough at the beginning. Especially trying to come to terms with a capitallist economy, foreign to most Russians to begin with. Top it off with the fact that the old Soviet system was near bankruptcy when the change occured, and it will take some more time. But, that doesn't mean that you won't be better off economically in the long run.

6.
Okay, if you say so. I got the information on Buran from records given to NASA, by Russia, after the fall of the Soviet Union. The full article is here.

And by the way, it's not that our Shuttles do not have the capability to be remotely flown or landed, it's that, since the the beginning, our pilots refused to give up control to a machine. It may not be as efficient, but as we are talking about manned space flight, why put pilots aboard, if you're not going to use them?

All in all, I would say (based on this site) that it is one of the more elaborate hoaxes I have seen, or these are truly some of the most mis-guided people I have ever seen, I'm just not sure which.

I think it is important to realize that without the space program we would be without Velcro and Tang. (Joking)

I voted 'more funding'. Space provides an atmosphere where discoveries can be made that cannot be made on earth. One (among thousands) that pops into my head is the exploration of a property of water whereby you can cool it to below freezing while keeping it liquid. At a certain point, the water will spontaneously solidify creating a crystal structure different from anything producible on earth. These types of experiments may the key to stronger materials.

There are things that can be done in space that cannot be accomplished on earth. We should continue to fund the space program. (I think NASA should get more funding.)


Kimov said:

As for this, the reason the Mercury capsule (1950's technology) even had controls for the pilot was because the astronauts wouldn't fly in it without them. The engineers who designed the craft originally designed it to fly automatically. You statement is off by quite a long shot. NASA had the capability to design navigational computers that could accomplish this task 50 years ago.

I was curious about the Polyus '100-ton combat battle station' mentioned, so I did a Google search and read up on it.

There was indeed a combat satelite named Polyus, and it was launched, but it never functioned...



http://www.friends-partners.ru/partners/mw...raft/polyus.htm

Here is a schematic of the satelite;

http://www.friends-partners.ru/partners/mw...s/p/polyus2.jpg


I suppose its possible that Gorbatjev might have ordered the satelite destroyed by puttng it into a lower orbit and then the Soviets lied about why it failed, but some how, I don't see any evidence of that.





I was talking past tense. Which means I was talking about the past. I have my information from my copy of Korolev's biography, which makes it quite clear that the Soviet Union had no computers worth talking about all through his life time, and even in the decades there after.

I have no idea what sort of hard or software the Russians have today, but since I was refering to the SOVIET UNION, then it hardly matters.

to NITEGUY:



Oh my God, you took serious EVERYTHING that was written there???

I know Russian Technocrat Party leader Morozov - I talked to him in forum of Communist Party of Russia. This guy is a bit... strange. For example, when I posted information I have found about him, he started saying things like: "but there is something you don't know! When our robots will storm Kremlin, you WILL know!". And his "immortality project" is completely outlandish.

Only HALF (if not less) of his projects are actually being implemented. And as far as I know, the companies he talks about do not exist, BECAUSE THEY ARE GOING TO BE ORGANISED AFTER RUSSIAN TECHNOCRAT PARTY WINS ELECTIONS. If you really read his programs, you know that he wants to rebuild entire national economy, creating corporate state, forming several large corporations (like the ones he listed). This answers the second question: "Where will he get money?".

About military personel. He DOES lists space "desantniks" (originately a branch of airborne spetsnaz, in case you don't know). He doesn't mention military ships because seems that he doesn't want to build them, he is pro-Western.

And he spells Azimov's name right. In Russian, it is Ayzek.

Have I answered your questions about Morozov? He is crazy guy, so learn to filter what is true and what is lies in his texts, without applying "true or false" statement to ENTIRE texts.

Now, let's continue.



I have already read this article several years ago and discussed it with guys from "Energia". They said it has nothing do with reality. The fact is that using NASA information to judge Soviet space program is like judging American society by watching KGB propaganda films.

And in case you don't know, guys in RKA were actually PAID for shutting down "Buran" project, just like they were PAID for destroying "Mir" station by the celebration of Nazi scientist Von Braun's birthday (is it a coincidence? I think not).

to MOIF:



You forget the simple fact: EVERYTHING RUSSIAN MILITARY HAS WAS DEVELOPED IN SOVIET UNION. Including "Senezh-M1E". SOVIET military computers seem to have much better characteristics than MODERN AMERICAN ones.

As for "Polyus", I never said it functioned. It was destroyed BEFORE it entered service.

Seem to have? How do you know? Have you visited any American military installations or are you relying on some other unspecified source of information?

A psychic ability perhaps?




You said, in your previous post;




Now. I don't know who you are, or what your credentials are, but I do know that there are far too many contradictions and out right falsehoods in your claims for you to be what you say you are.

Since I have been able to prove you wrong, on more than one occaision, regarding details that are easy to find on the internet (created by Americans I might as well point out) I can only assume that you are either telling an elaborate joke, extremely confused or a liar.

Do you know difference between ENTERED SERVICE and ON ORBIT? Do you know what term "service" means? For example, Buran was on orbit but it never ENTERED SERVICE.

"Entered service" means finished testings, no longer a prototype and installed into system.

Tank "entered service" means that army gets it. Space system "entered service" means that it finished all tests and started to function: to give profit, or to protect region, or to do any that sort of thing.

Hey, you're the one that sent me the url for the site, and in all seriousness, too:



And now you tell me the guy is more than a little nuts? Like I said, it was either a fantasy, or a con job. And who's trying to con me now, hmmm?



Wait a minute, Kimov. Look at the site again. It's not NASA speculation, it was information given to NASA by an agency of the Russian government. So, unless you are saying your commrades are liars, I stand by the quotes listed.

I'm surprised noone has mentioned china's manned flight.



and they brought him home alive:




it seems that every nation that has had the capability to explore space has done so.

(1)I agree with moif that space exploration doesn't get enough funding. I think the world needs something to unite it. this was sort of the goal behind the ISS. and in the late 80's the USSR and America were planning on going to mars TOGETHER. much more could be achieved if we all worked together. (this sort of answers question 3)

(2)I don't think manned exploration gets enough publicity however. it isn't sensational enough. the media (here in the states at least) perfers sensationalism over information ("if it bleeds, it leads" as they say)

(3)I think we are capable of reaching mars NOW. the problem lies in the time it takes to reach mars using conventional rocketry. (over a year I think) we need to invest in things like project prometheus, the nuclear powered space ship. with such a ship the could reach mars in six months, tops. (I believe, I might be wrong) we should definitely set a timeline for it: 2020 at the latest. it apparently worked in the 60's to set a deadline, maybe it will work now (not to mention what such a project might do for our economy)

(4)manned space exploration is fairly important, for many reasons: (1)earth will not be here forever. though the sn has an estimated 4 billion years left, there are other things that could effect life on earth. we should try to disperse the human species as far and wide as possible. this can only be done through space exploration and colonisation, even if it is our own neighborhood initially. (2)humans are naturally inclined to explore the unknown. there are few unknowns here, save the ocean floors, and a few remote isolated areas. the next logical step is the "final frontier"; space. (3)as moif said, many technological advancements have come from the space program, for example, communications tech, (remember, the last image from voyager came from about where pluto orbits, likely a world record. btw here is earth at 3.7 billion miles is it really inconceivable there are other similar sized planets out there?)

humans have always wanted to explore space (ironically the chinese were the first to try. they strapped a guy to a chair with ancient rockets attached. the chair never left the ground and blew up.)

If you're interested, we have a whole thread dedicated to that subject: China intends to send human beings into space, How does this make you feel?

unabomber said:


For informational purposes:

I worked at NASA briefly 5 years ago. One day I met with a man who was working on different flight plan scenarios for a trip to Mars. According to him, the fastest trip we could make to Mars using conventional propulsion would take about 5 months. The most fuel efficient, conventional propulsion flight would take about 9 months. These were round trip figures if I remember correctly. The main problem with these options was the difficulty in getting enough fuel aloft to make the trip.

I'm not sure but I think so called nuclear engines are similar to ion rockets in the sense that they are very efficient and light, but provide lower thrust than a conventional rocket. This would make a Mars flight easier and cheaper, but extend flight time.

Ok guys... some basics about Mars...

Simplest fuel/oxidizer propulsion (specific impulse < 600 seconds) orbits are hoffman orbits(sp?). An ellipse tangential to both orbits. Problem: planets need to be in correct position (about every two years) Time -- about 9 months. (See Anderson -- Introduction to Flight, publisher?)

Ion propulsion/Solar energy for Electric power -- specific impulse ~ 1000 seconds. Problem: Very low thrust, therefore low acceleration, also, less Solar energy as distance increases from Sun while going to Mars. Advantage -- less fuel per payload.

Nuclear -- Kimov is going to like this -- During Bush senior. Space exploration Initiative program, NASA bought a USSR Nuclear Space Reactor to continue experiments on nuclear propulsion -- yes, continue, USA had experimented in the 60's. The SEI experiments were directed at using the Nuclear Reactor energy to power ion or plasma engines -- same problem as Ion. But...

In the 60's, the Nuclear power engines studied produced very high specific impulses and very high thrust. These engines could reach Mars in 3 months or even less! Environmental concerns and weight of radioactive shielding are a major issue! See also Lithium...

Here's the real beef!!!! NASA is working with other concepts (Fusion, Antimatter, ...) that could make the Mars journey almost as fast as the Moon! See also...

www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/advanced_propulsion_020522-1.html

www.hobbyspace.com/Links/LaunchPropulsion1.html

and many others!!!

Space missions are geyting attention. The Chinese thing sure got a lot of attention mainly because China is the third nation to make it to space.

Also, the occasional shuttle launch gets publicity because it's alway cool to watch the launches but they also get publicity for their importence. Say for example the launch of the latest series of Mars probes last month. If they make it to Mars without flipping out on NASA and/or crashing into Mars, they can take data readings on Mars that can finally put the "Water on Mars?" theory, which will keep scientists busy for years analyzing the data.



It should be a long-term goal because we need to expand our horizons and learn more about our solar system. We don't know much about our solar system except that there are a bunch of planets, an asteroid belt and a sun.

Also, because someday, we may be forced to leave Earth and we will need a place to stay. Yes, we have the Moon but will that sustain however many people there will be when that time comes?

I am forever amused by all this talk of 'terraforming' mars.

Aside from the immense costs of such a venture, why in the heck would anyone want to transfer from one gravity well to another, when it could be possible to construct practically limitless living space, and cultivate organics, using the nascent, free floating resources of the NEO's and belt asteroids?

Mars is worthless. Its a distant, UV blasted desert

Though I said YES, the Space Program needs more funding, I do not think funneling more money into NASA will accomplish very much useful beyond funding more bureaucracy, since that's all NASA seems capable of anymore ... just being a bloated ineffectual bureaucracy.

Rather I'd like to see large, very large, cash prizes for specific accomplishments. In short, fund the space program very well, but privatize it!