Full Version: NASA
George W. Bush has recently proposed a "Mission to Mars," costing tons of money, which I truly believe can be spent better. With a huge and growing deficit, an incredible dependence on oil, and growing problem with national security.
The Questions of Debate are:
1. Is the Mars project worthwhile, and the monetary resources? Why?
2. If worthwhile: what do we gain through the Mars project?
3. Where could the money better be spent?
Edited for grammar.
The Questions of Debate are:
1. Is the Mars project worthwhile, and the monetary resources? Why?
2. If worthwhile: what do we gain through the Mars project?
3. Where could the money better be spent?
Edited for grammar.
1. Is the Mars project worthwhile, and the monetary resources? Why?
Yes. The prospect of America landing a man on Mars is incredibly appealing. However, I am not as sure that it is really fiscally possible. Especially in the situation we find ourselves currently in.
I am not entirely sure what planet Bush was cooking on when he proposed this idea--especially considering that the Republicans refer to the Democrats as "wild-eyed". However, this does not take away from the fact that this is an awesome (truly) goal, that has advantages far beyond mere monetary value.
2. If worthwhile: what do we gain through the Mars project?
We gain the ability to say that a man has been on Mars. That statement instrinsically has value--it shows the progress of mankind in general. It would be a beautiful thing.
Plus, who knows what Mars, or the research effort to GET to Mars might yield!
Yes. The prospect of America landing a man on Mars is incredibly appealing. However, I am not as sure that it is really fiscally possible. Especially in the situation we find ourselves currently in.
I am not entirely sure what planet Bush was cooking on when he proposed this idea--especially considering that the Republicans refer to the Democrats as "wild-eyed". However, this does not take away from the fact that this is an awesome (truly) goal, that has advantages far beyond mere monetary value.
2. If worthwhile: what do we gain through the Mars project?
We gain the ability to say that a man has been on Mars. That statement instrinsically has value--it shows the progress of mankind in general. It would be a beautiful thing.
Plus, who knows what Mars, or the research effort to GET to Mars might yield!
1. Is the Mars project worthwhile, and the monetary resources? Why?
At this point in history it doesn't make much sense to try a manned mission to Mars. It's fine and good to inspire mankind to become at one with the universe and all that, and I'm even in favor of exploration. But right now, there are too many other projects that have more scientific importance and are languishing in legislative and financial limbo. It seems to me that this project is merely a cover for assigning pie-in-the-sky government contracts to otherwise unoccupied defense corporations. This is more of an engineering challenge than a scientific one, and I don't see that we, as a species, have sufficiently answered many of the scientific questions that have been posed by our wonder of the universe.
If a proposal like this were to go forward, I don't think anything should be done until we can successfully produce a viable propulsion device that would make human travel to other planets much more efficient. To this end, I think that any time limit placed on the success of the mission is silly. There is no need to race to the red planet.
2. If worthwhile: what do we gain through the Mars project?
The biggest gains would be in the real-world applications of the technologies produced by the research team. The solutions to unique problems that a mission to Mars would present would undoubtedly have earthly applications for industry and quality of life innovations, just like current and past space programs have done (like the miracle of bar codes
). The "ooh aah" inspirational value would be there, but I don't think it would be as riveting as it was for the Moon landing simply because we would know what to expect.
3. Where could the money better be spent?
Basic science. I would like to see the supercollider project taken out of mothballs. Work on neutrinos, cosmic rays, nuclear fusion: scientific research that would enhance the space program instead of the other way around.
At this point in history it doesn't make much sense to try a manned mission to Mars. It's fine and good to inspire mankind to become at one with the universe and all that, and I'm even in favor of exploration. But right now, there are too many other projects that have more scientific importance and are languishing in legislative and financial limbo. It seems to me that this project is merely a cover for assigning pie-in-the-sky government contracts to otherwise unoccupied defense corporations. This is more of an engineering challenge than a scientific one, and I don't see that we, as a species, have sufficiently answered many of the scientific questions that have been posed by our wonder of the universe.
If a proposal like this were to go forward, I don't think anything should be done until we can successfully produce a viable propulsion device that would make human travel to other planets much more efficient. To this end, I think that any time limit placed on the success of the mission is silly. There is no need to race to the red planet.
2. If worthwhile: what do we gain through the Mars project?
The biggest gains would be in the real-world applications of the technologies produced by the research team. The solutions to unique problems that a mission to Mars would present would undoubtedly have earthly applications for industry and quality of life innovations, just like current and past space programs have done (like the miracle of bar codes
). The "ooh aah" inspirational value would be there, but I don't think it would be as riveting as it was for the Moon landing simply because we would know what to expect.3. Where could the money better be spent?
Basic science. I would like to see the supercollider project taken out of mothballs. Work on neutrinos, cosmic rays, nuclear fusion: scientific research that would enhance the space program instead of the other way around.
1. NO. I have watched enough shows on the science channel about Mars to know that the planet has essentially none of the properties of earth that makes our planet a place where humans can live. Unmanned projects will tell us what we think we need to know that we don't already know. But Scientists already know that we can't live there. The ones pushing the water issue are waving the proverbial red herring. Water is the least of the problems.
2. NA
3. Human nature has made very little progress during the era of recorded history.
I suppose education in this area, if forced on us in our schools, would help speed up the process. The funds would be better spent to rid ourselves of our less than admirable attributes. And it should be a global effort.
2. NA
3. Human nature has made very little progress during the era of recorded history.
I suppose education in this area, if forced on us in our schools, would help speed up the process. The funds would be better spent to rid ourselves of our less than admirable attributes. And it should be a global effort.
QUOTE(nivekelly @ Jul 31 2004, 11:13 PM)
George W. Bush has recently proposed a "Mission to Mars," costing tons of money, which I truly believe can be spent better. With a huge and growing deficit, an incredible dependence on oil, and growing problem with national security.
The Questions of Debate are:
1. Is the Mars project worthwhile, and the monetary resources? Why?
2. If worthwhile: what do we gain through the Mars project?
3. Where could the money better be spent?
The Questions of Debate are:
1. Is the Mars project worthwhile, and the monetary resources? Why?
2. If worthwhile: what do we gain through the Mars project?
3. Where could the money better be spent?
Actually, not so recent. Recently, all he's proposed is that Kerry isn't good enough to be President. The Mars project was proposed in January and disappeared from the news almost immediately, leaving many of us here to believe it was a Bush pet project that Rove let him go through with proposing, but that no one thought was reasonable, given our high level of governmental debt.
Now, NASA is doing research into how to get there and has redirected resources toward that goal. But will that goal survive a Bush election loss?
1) The project is worthwhile, just to set a country goal for moving technology forward, but our monentary resources are already stretched past the point where we can afford something like this. I'd rather see them spend more money helping companies put private citizens into space.
2) As with any test of our limits, we always learn something new that turns out to be darned useful to the public. Science sometimes doesn't look for interesting answers to problems until it has to strive toward a monumental goal.
3) The amount being spent on it is a pittance compared to such "necessities" as war. Gee, let me think... where would I rather see the money spent....?
1. Is the Mars project worthwhile, and the monetary resources? Why?
It depends on what one means by "worthwhile". What are the goals we wish to achieve by sending humans to Mars? If it's simply to say that we've sent humans to Mars, then I don't believe this is sufficient reason. If it's to have a more hands-on geological and biological understanding of Mars, then I could see this being a good reason. Afterall, robotic probes do not have the necessary versatility that humans do (perhaps this will change in the future though). If it's to set up a permanent human outpost, then I believe it's too soon. We need to bootstrap our way to Mars in this case. Go to the Moon first then talk about Mars.
2. If worthwhile: what do we gain through the Mars project?
Apart from off-shoot technologies, a Mars mission can have scientific value. There's also the "avoid having all eggs in one basket" argument. That is, humans living on multiple planetary bodies reduce the likelihood of total anhilation of the human race should catastrophy occur. It depends on the goals we set.
3. Where could the money better be spent?
I think it's premature to pursue a Mars mission. We need to do smaller steps to achieve this goal:
1. cheap access to Earth orbit
2. tourism-driven sub-orbital/orbital market
3. permanent base on the Moon
4. tourism-driven Moon access
5. other Moon uses: mining, power generation, astronomy
6. finally, Mars/asteroid access via Earth orbit/Moon bootstrapping
We will need to engage the private sector as much as possible in any human space activity. The government should set goals, create incentives, reduce regulation (where appropriate) and generally encourage a human space industry.
But, it all comes down to cheap orbital access. If we don't have that, any large project will always remain extremely expensive. Personally, I think the NASA should dump a single shuttle mission to set aside at least $500 million to create "purses" for private space achievements. I know this is being discussed but not much as come of it so far.
It depends on what one means by "worthwhile". What are the goals we wish to achieve by sending humans to Mars? If it's simply to say that we've sent humans to Mars, then I don't believe this is sufficient reason. If it's to have a more hands-on geological and biological understanding of Mars, then I could see this being a good reason. Afterall, robotic probes do not have the necessary versatility that humans do (perhaps this will change in the future though). If it's to set up a permanent human outpost, then I believe it's too soon. We need to bootstrap our way to Mars in this case. Go to the Moon first then talk about Mars.
2. If worthwhile: what do we gain through the Mars project?
Apart from off-shoot technologies, a Mars mission can have scientific value. There's also the "avoid having all eggs in one basket" argument. That is, humans living on multiple planetary bodies reduce the likelihood of total anhilation of the human race should catastrophy occur. It depends on the goals we set.
3. Where could the money better be spent?
I think it's premature to pursue a Mars mission. We need to do smaller steps to achieve this goal:
1. cheap access to Earth orbit
2. tourism-driven sub-orbital/orbital market
3. permanent base on the Moon
4. tourism-driven Moon access
5. other Moon uses: mining, power generation, astronomy
6. finally, Mars/asteroid access via Earth orbit/Moon bootstrapping
We will need to engage the private sector as much as possible in any human space activity. The government should set goals, create incentives, reduce regulation (where appropriate) and generally encourage a human space industry.
But, it all comes down to cheap orbital access. If we don't have that, any large project will always remain extremely expensive. Personally, I think the NASA should dump a single shuttle mission to set aside at least $500 million to create "purses" for private space achievements. I know this is being discussed but not much as come of it so far.
1. Is the Mars project worthwhile, and the monetary resources? Why?
My answer is very similar to what logophage wrote here. If the goal of the mission is just to "get to mars" for the sake of getting to mars then it isn't worth it. However, what would make it worth it is the scientific study of Mars and the journey itself.
Out of these I think the "journey" is one of the more important points. In order to pull off something of this magnitude, NASA would have to work on solutions to a lot of problems making a journey to Mars unfeasible right now (because it is more than just monetary). In working on solving those problems, we are going to have technological advances that can be applied to other industries.
2. If worthwhile: what do we gain through the Mars project?
In my opinion, the biggest thing we gain is the knowledge of the applied technologies that will be used to get us to Mars and home again safely.
3. Where could the money better be spent?
Like logophage posted, spending the money on a mission to Mars right now is premature. The things that we should be most concerned with are:
- Cheap orbital access
- Permanent Space Station / Moon residence
- Encouraging private companies to spend money in the furtherment of space technology
Space is one of those long term ventures where the benefits transcend a single administration. As a human race it is in our best interest to learn as much as we can about the vast Universe around us.
My answer is very similar to what logophage wrote here. If the goal of the mission is just to "get to mars" for the sake of getting to mars then it isn't worth it. However, what would make it worth it is the scientific study of Mars and the journey itself.
Out of these I think the "journey" is one of the more important points. In order to pull off something of this magnitude, NASA would have to work on solutions to a lot of problems making a journey to Mars unfeasible right now (because it is more than just monetary). In working on solving those problems, we are going to have technological advances that can be applied to other industries.
2. If worthwhile: what do we gain through the Mars project?
In my opinion, the biggest thing we gain is the knowledge of the applied technologies that will be used to get us to Mars and home again safely.
3. Where could the money better be spent?
Like logophage posted, spending the money on a mission to Mars right now is premature. The things that we should be most concerned with are:
- Cheap orbital access
- Permanent Space Station / Moon residence
- Encouraging private companies to spend money in the furtherment of space technology
Space is one of those long term ventures where the benefits transcend a single administration. As a human race it is in our best interest to learn as much as we can about the vast Universe around us.
Enter sci-fi freak...
1. Is the Mars project worthwhile, and the monetary resources?
I would love to see NASA land a man on Mars, just to say that I saw it happen. But really, there is no immediate need to land on Mars. When the whole Mars issue was brought up earlier this year (seems so long ago I actually thought it was 2003) all it did was spur on another space race, with the Russians saying they could land a man on Mars within 10 years, then the Chinese became the third nation to send a man into space. A Mars landing, if it is a result of another lone-nation effort, will be very disappointing in my view. If the landing on Mars is all about achievement, then there is no greater achievement than a joint effort from all our space agencies proving we have made progress since the troubled days of the 20th century.
Overall, not particularly worth the money. There are more pressing issues.
2. If worthwhile: what do we gain through the Mars project?.
To re-iterate, moments such as these are best used to display human achievement. If it is a race to Mars between 2-3 countries, with the winner plonking their flag down, then thats taking a step backwards in my view. Get (wo)man to Mars, plant a symbol that represents all (wo)mankind, and then there will be something worth gaining.
3. Where could the money better be spent?
Well, since this is about NASA and therefore American money, I'm sure many Americans at this point in time will be keen to see more money spent on security, defence and, most importantly, intelligence. I personally would rather see more money going towards welfare, aid and environmental causes, with space exploration quite low on my list.
By the way, I was given an acre plot on the moon for my birthday, so you are all welcome to visit when I build my lunar farm
1. Is the Mars project worthwhile, and the monetary resources?
I would love to see NASA land a man on Mars, just to say that I saw it happen. But really, there is no immediate need to land on Mars. When the whole Mars issue was brought up earlier this year (seems so long ago I actually thought it was 2003) all it did was spur on another space race, with the Russians saying they could land a man on Mars within 10 years, then the Chinese became the third nation to send a man into space. A Mars landing, if it is a result of another lone-nation effort, will be very disappointing in my view. If the landing on Mars is all about achievement, then there is no greater achievement than a joint effort from all our space agencies proving we have made progress since the troubled days of the 20th century.
Overall, not particularly worth the money. There are more pressing issues.
2. If worthwhile: what do we gain through the Mars project?.
To re-iterate, moments such as these are best used to display human achievement. If it is a race to Mars between 2-3 countries, with the winner plonking their flag down, then thats taking a step backwards in my view. Get (wo)man to Mars, plant a symbol that represents all (wo)mankind, and then there will be something worth gaining.
3. Where could the money better be spent?
Well, since this is about NASA and therefore American money, I'm sure many Americans at this point in time will be keen to see more money spent on security, defence and, most importantly, intelligence. I personally would rather see more money going towards welfare, aid and environmental causes, with space exploration quite low on my list.
By the way, I was given an acre plot on the moon for my birthday, so you are all welcome to visit when I build my lunar farm
1. Is the Mars project worthwhile, and the monetary resources? Why?
Negative. Even if a specific benefit of landing on Mars had been show, which it has not, having NASA dedicate its resources to this project is hardly a worthwhile use of its time. A deadline of 2010 has been set for NASA to cease all space shuttle flights in order to divert resources for this "Mission to Mars" scheme. As a result, a truly worthwhile space project, the International Space Station (ISS), which was meant to be a hub of scientific research, has been forced to cut backs its plans and sacrifice some of its objectives. It will now never be able to hold long-term 7 man crews, as planned, nor will it ever be fully completed according to the original design (it is half-complete now). It will, as of 2009, be able to hold only 4 man crews, which curtails the scientific research intended. Labs that recreate the environment and importance of the ISS cannot be created on Earth. The International partners that have contributed heavily to the space station are hurt by NASA's failure to live up to its commitments, although they must publicly agree with it because they are unable to stand up to NASA. For information on all of this, read here.
At any rate, with a projected $639 billion budget deficit this year, putting money towards this seems ridiculous. The Atlanta Journal Constitution ran an article on July 18 putting the estimated cost of returning men to the moon by 2015 at $64 billion, and this is something we already have the technology to do. This would presumably be a minute fraction of the cost of a Mars mission.
3. Where could the money better be spent?
It seems like the general consensus by debaters here on why the Mars mission would be beneficial is summed up by "njs6," who claimed
If "progress of mankind" is the general goal, we must understand the definition of progress. According to Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary at Britannica.com, the most relevant definition for our purposes is:
First of all, I believe a mission to Mars does not inherently accomplish this. Saying mankind has been to Mars does not make mankind "better" in much the same way my saying I have been to Rome does not make me a better person than anyone else who has not been there. Since no arguments have been presented to show a quantifiable way a mission to Mars would benefit mankind, we must assume it is actually not progress, and therefore not a worthwhile expenditure.
How can we better promote "progress"? Fighting hunger. Fighting cancer and AIDS. Fighting gun violence. Providing better social security and welfare. Funding real, quantifiable science on the ISS. Providing better education, especially in urban environments, and make higher education more available to all. These are just a few of the ways this money could be better spent, and provide for the "gradual betterment" of mankind.
Negative. Even if a specific benefit of landing on Mars had been show, which it has not, having NASA dedicate its resources to this project is hardly a worthwhile use of its time. A deadline of 2010 has been set for NASA to cease all space shuttle flights in order to divert resources for this "Mission to Mars" scheme. As a result, a truly worthwhile space project, the International Space Station (ISS), which was meant to be a hub of scientific research, has been forced to cut backs its plans and sacrifice some of its objectives. It will now never be able to hold long-term 7 man crews, as planned, nor will it ever be fully completed according to the original design (it is half-complete now). It will, as of 2009, be able to hold only 4 man crews, which curtails the scientific research intended. Labs that recreate the environment and importance of the ISS cannot be created on Earth. The International partners that have contributed heavily to the space station are hurt by NASA's failure to live up to its commitments, although they must publicly agree with it because they are unable to stand up to NASA. For information on all of this, read here.
At any rate, with a projected $639 billion budget deficit this year, putting money towards this seems ridiculous. The Atlanta Journal Constitution ran an article on July 18 putting the estimated cost of returning men to the moon by 2015 at $64 billion, and this is something we already have the technology to do. This would presumably be a minute fraction of the cost of a Mars mission.
3. Where could the money better be spent?
It seems like the general consensus by debaters here on why the Mars mission would be beneficial is summed up by "njs6," who claimed
QUOTE
We gain the ability to say that a man has been on Mars. That statement instrinsically has value--it shows the progress of mankind in general. It would be a beautiful thing.
If "progress of mankind" is the general goal, we must understand the definition of progress. According to Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary at Britannica.com, the most relevant definition for our purposes is:
QUOTE
3 : gradual betterment
First of all, I believe a mission to Mars does not inherently accomplish this. Saying mankind has been to Mars does not make mankind "better" in much the same way my saying I have been to Rome does not make me a better person than anyone else who has not been there. Since no arguments have been presented to show a quantifiable way a mission to Mars would benefit mankind, we must assume it is actually not progress, and therefore not a worthwhile expenditure.
How can we better promote "progress"? Fighting hunger. Fighting cancer and AIDS. Fighting gun violence. Providing better social security and welfare. Funding real, quantifiable science on the ISS. Providing better education, especially in urban environments, and make higher education more available to all. These are just a few of the ways this money could be better spent, and provide for the "gradual betterment" of mankind.
1. Is the Mars project worthwhile, and the monetary resources? Why?
Absolutely.
2. If worthwhile: what do we gain through the Mars project?
Well, besides the associated technologies, and experiences, we can also gain added resources to add to our already depleting planet. We need to get them somewhere and with the population growth going the way it is, we have to come up with something short of genocide. Now that may seem a little Sci Fi channel, but I believe that the depletion of our planet could be the end of humans in the future. People could survive through just about anything short of loss of resources.
3. Where could the money better be spent?
On more immediate projects. I believe that with the rate of commercial interest in space there may be a lot of Private Funding. If not, maybe even a completely privately funded mission.
I think Nasa should worry about more immediate goals like a functional space station, a permanent presence on the moon, and garnering private sector support for future travels.
Absolutely.
2. If worthwhile: what do we gain through the Mars project?
Well, besides the associated technologies, and experiences, we can also gain added resources to add to our already depleting planet. We need to get them somewhere and with the population growth going the way it is, we have to come up with something short of genocide. Now that may seem a little Sci Fi channel, but I believe that the depletion of our planet could be the end of humans in the future. People could survive through just about anything short of loss of resources.
3. Where could the money better be spent?
On more immediate projects. I believe that with the rate of commercial interest in space there may be a lot of Private Funding. If not, maybe even a completely privately funded mission.
I think Nasa should worry about more immediate goals like a functional space station, a permanent presence on the moon, and garnering private sector support for future travels.
A few questions for you mindmesh, or anyone interested in responding...
I believe there was a report done in the past year showing how our current environmental policy, combined with our natural resource consumption, would eventually lead to wars/ genocide over the remaining resources. Have you read it or do you have a link? I'd be interested in reading it again. However, if this is the case, would not the better option be to simply fix our environmental policy and begin investing in the finding of alternative fuels? Also, are there any reports or is there any scientific evidence to support the contention that we would indeed find natural resources on Mars that are or will be scarce on Earth, or is the contention here that we should fund a project that could range into 13 figures in cost on the chance that there might be useful resources on the Red Planet?
Do you have any sources/ reports that claim a private agnecy would foot any part of the bill for a mission to Mars? (Note: I ask this entirely inquisitively; I believe that there may very well be, I simply have not read one). Also, is not most of the current commercial interest in space centered around satellites and (shudder) orbital weapons? Finally, and perhaps most importantly, might not adding a commercial interest to the space program cause a negative change in NASA's agenda and compromise the pure science that could be done on the mission, instead leaning to the interest of (a) corporate sponsor(s)? And, might there not be corruption in the awarding of NASA/government contracts and sponsorships?
Would it not be true, then, that the Mars mission is indeed not wothwhile, as the Mars planning has drawn away from NASA's collaboration in the international space station and compromised the scientific research that can be performed on it, as proven here? (Note: same link as in my last post).
QUOTE
We need to get them somewhere and with the population growth going the way it is, we have to come up with something short of genocide.
I believe there was a report done in the past year showing how our current environmental policy, combined with our natural resource consumption, would eventually lead to wars/ genocide over the remaining resources. Have you read it or do you have a link? I'd be interested in reading it again. However, if this is the case, would not the better option be to simply fix our environmental policy and begin investing in the finding of alternative fuels? Also, are there any reports or is there any scientific evidence to support the contention that we would indeed find natural resources on Mars that are or will be scarce on Earth, or is the contention here that we should fund a project that could range into 13 figures in cost on the chance that there might be useful resources on the Red Planet?
QUOTE
I believe that with the rate of commercial interest in space there may be a lot of Private Funding
Do you have any sources/ reports that claim a private agnecy would foot any part of the bill for a mission to Mars? (Note: I ask this entirely inquisitively; I believe that there may very well be, I simply have not read one). Also, is not most of the current commercial interest in space centered around satellites and (shudder) orbital weapons? Finally, and perhaps most importantly, might not adding a commercial interest to the space program cause a negative change in NASA's agenda and compromise the pure science that could be done on the mission, instead leaning to the interest of (a) corporate sponsor(s)? And, might there not be corruption in the awarding of NASA/government contracts and sponsorships?
QUOTE
I think Nasa should worry about more immediate goals like a functional space station
Would it not be true, then, that the Mars mission is indeed not wothwhile, as the Mars planning has drawn away from NASA's collaboration in the international space station and compromised the scientific research that can be performed on it, as proven here? (Note: same link as in my last post).
njs6:
Yes. The prospect of America landing a man on Mars is incredibly appealing.
I for one agree with NJS6, yet not because of its 'appeal,' yet because of its function. But, I do not feel America's deficit can't afford a bigger jump, or that NASA is capable of working on this Mars project alongside studying and analyzing the International Space Station. Though I do truly believe that landing of Mars would be both functional and remarkable, I believe now is not the time. NASA must prioritize, and mainly of the international space station. The costs are tremendous, and the reward is truly limited, with the strong chance of no benefits of going there, except to 'say' that America went to Mars.
QUOTE
Yes. The prospect of America landing a man on Mars is incredibly appealing.
I for one agree with NJS6, yet not because of its 'appeal,' yet because of its function. But, I do not feel America's deficit can't afford a bigger jump, or that NASA is capable of working on this Mars project alongside studying and analyzing the International Space Station. Though I do truly believe that landing of Mars would be both functional and remarkable, I believe now is not the time. NASA must prioritize, and mainly of the international space station. The costs are tremendous, and the reward is truly limited, with the strong chance of no benefits of going there, except to 'say' that America went to Mars.
QUOTE(nivekelly @ Aug 3 2004, 06:54 PM)
njs6:
Yes. The prospect of America landing a man on Mars is incredibly appealing.
I for one agree with NJS6, yet not because of its 'appeal,' yet because of its function. But, I do not feel America's deficit can't afford a bigger jump, or that NASA is capable of working on this Mars project alongside studying and analyzing the International Space Station. Though I do truly believe that landing of Mars would be both functional and remarkable, I believe now is not the time. NASA must prioritize, and mainly of the international space station. The costs are tremendous, and the reward is truly limited, with the strong chance of no benefits of going there, except to 'say' that America went to Mars.
QUOTE
Yes. The prospect of America landing a man on Mars is incredibly appealing.
I for one agree with NJS6, yet not because of its 'appeal,' yet because of its function. But, I do not feel America's deficit can't afford a bigger jump, or that NASA is capable of working on this Mars project alongside studying and analyzing the International Space Station. Though I do truly believe that landing of Mars would be both functional and remarkable, I believe now is not the time. NASA must prioritize, and mainly of the international space station. The costs are tremendous, and the reward is truly limited, with the strong chance of no benefits of going there, except to 'say' that America went to Mars.
See...I think everyone here is missing something important.
It's the Coolness factor.
Let's get the point: Going to Mars would be the coolest thing that America has ever done. No, Mankind has ever done. No deficit, or mere money matter should stop us from going to Mars. Who knows that might happen...maybe it'll spur patrioitism and somehow make the economy boom...the point is, we should try and do this because it is so darned cool.
Sorry for the high corniness level of this post....but, it's true!
Wasn't it Steve Jobs who said, "you can't overrate the value of coolness"? Anyway, I think we can all agree that a manned Mars mission would be really cool. I do not believe that inspiration is or should be a sufficient justification for such a mission. So, the issue is to determine if it has any other value apart from "coolness".
Pros:
* inspiration
* technology spin-offs
* job creation
* scientific knowledge
* "spreading the seed" --> permanent presence required
Cons:
* expense
* resource diversion
* poorly defined goals
* inefficient planning & execution
* unmanned missions have better scientific value
Feel free to add to either list.
As I stated in a previous post, it all comes down to cheap orbital access. Cheap orbital access will likely not come in a giant technological leap but through a series of technological refinements over time. NASA, the military and even the FAA in some sense has stood in the way by not encouraging and even discouraging (until recently) a private launch industry.
<rant>
It isn't in a government's best interest to encourage such a private space industry. Why? Because it can keep a virtual monopoly on the launch market. Moreover, it can keep the military high ground within its purview. An expensive and highly regulated launch market discourages most everyone from entering it.
</rant>
Anyway, all this means to me is that NASA's role should be more and more relegated to facilitation rather than active missions.
Pros:
* inspiration
* technology spin-offs
* job creation
* scientific knowledge
* "spreading the seed" --> permanent presence required
Cons:
* expense
* resource diversion
* poorly defined goals
* inefficient planning & execution
* unmanned missions have better scientific value
Feel free to add to either list
.As I stated in a previous post, it all comes down to cheap orbital access. Cheap orbital access will likely not come in a giant technological leap but through a series of technological refinements over time. NASA, the military and even the FAA in some sense has stood in the way by not encouraging and even discouraging (until recently) a private launch industry.
<rant>
It isn't in a government's best interest to encourage such a private space industry. Why? Because it can keep a virtual monopoly on the launch market. Moreover, it can keep the military high ground within its purview. An expensive and highly regulated launch market discourages most everyone from entering it.
</rant>
Anyway, all this means to me is that NASA's role should be more and more relegated to facilitation rather than active missions.
QUOTE(Maverick @ Aug 3 2004, 03:31 PM)
I believe there was a report done in the past year showing how our current environmental policy, combined with our natural resource consumption, would eventually lead to wars/ genocide over the remaining resources. Have you read it or do you have a link? I'd be interested in reading it again.
You might consider picking up the Red Mars, Green Mars and Blue Mars trilogy of books by Kim Stanley Robinson as they deal fairly directly with that topic.
QUOTE(Maverick)
Do you have any sources/ reports that claim a private agnecy would foot any part of the bill for a mission to Mars?
No one has stepped up to foot the bill yet, but for the first time encouraging steps are being made with SpaceShip One.
If that mission ultimately ends up being successful then we could see the next 10 to 20 years progressing exactly as logophage pointed out in one of his previous posts.
Now as to your question about Mars, I don't think any private industry would step up until there was a good and profitable reason to do so. If they thought they could make money via tourism or new industries/markets then they would be motivated to invest.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.