We're going back - to Mars too

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by My Way

Bush to Announce Missions to Mars, Moon
By SCOTT LINDLAW
PALM BEACH GARDENS, Fla. (AP) - President Bush will announce plans next week to send Americans to Mars and back to the moon and to establish a long-term human presence on the moon, senior administration officials said Thursday night.

Bush won't propose sending Americans to Mars anytime soon; rather, he envisions preparing for the mission more than a decade from now, one official said.

The president also wants to build a permanent space station on the moon.

Three senior officials said Bush wants to aggressively reinvigorate the space program, which has been demoralized by a series of setbacks, including the space shuttle disaster last February that killed seven astronauts.

The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Bush's announcement would come in the middle of next week.

Bush has been expected to propose a bold new space mission in an effort to rally Americans around a unifying theme as he campaigns for re-election.

Many insiders had speculated he might set forth goals at the 100th anniversary of the Wright brothers' famed flight last month in North Carolina. Instead, he said only that America would continue to lead the world in aviation.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, among others, has called for an expansion of the U.S. space program, including a return to the moon. The United States put 12 men on the moon between 1969 through 1972.

An interagency task force led by Vice President Dick Cheney has been considering options for a space mission since summer.

Former Ohio Sen. John Glenn, the first American to orbit the Earth, has said that before deciding to race off to the moon or Mars, the nation needs to complete the international space station and provide the taxi service to accommodate a full crew of six or seven. The station currently houses two.

At the same time, Glenn has said, NASA could be laying out a long-term plan, setting a loose timetable and investing in the engineering challenges of sending people to Mars. The only sensible reason for going to the moon first, he says, would be to test the technology for a Mars trip.

---

Neato. DISCUSS!

Source: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040109/D7VV0JG00.html
Link thrown at me by Jimmy Carter.

This is great. It gives NASA some purpose and goals again. It's exactly what they needed.

I call dibs on the best crater on the Moon. And the reddest rock on Mars.

About time! I'm excited.

I've been waiting for this news for a long while. I always wanted a president to get proactive about space, and finally someone is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grande Lad Att

Link thrown at me by Jimmy Carter.

---

I rock.

I'd of thought our government would have wanted to put a base on the Moon before this. Think of the tactical advantage of having a nuclear launch site on the moon.

I think now it's just because they don't want China to get up there and stake the moon for their own first.

Sounds good to me, now we just need an intergalactic war and it'll be like Star Wars.

I say Coke should paint their logo on the moon, that'd be like the ultimate billboard.

Aww... my ovaries!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xeno Gigas

I think now it's just because they don't want China to get up there and stake the moon for their own first.

---

Nothing wrong with a little competition...

If it takes China to make NASA and the government do what they should've been doing for 20 years, so be it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

This is great. It gives NASA some purpose and goals again. It's exactly what they needed.

I call dibs on the best crater on the Moon. And the reddest rock on Mars.

---

Yeah right, ass. It's going to be like Gone with the Wind where everybody races to find the best land. I imagine it like that, anyway, only in really slow motion because of the gravity thing...

You can have the reddest rock though. I won't shatter all of your dreams at once. Actually I like doing that, so the reddest rock would be a race too, except this one would entail old fashioned pistols and space horses (just put the glass bubble over their head and oxygen on the bottom of their rib cage) because Mars resembles the old west.

what do they mean by 'putting men on the moon again'?

they were never there in the first place!1
</conspiricy>

theres lots of interesting things out in space. its about time NASA got some support.

I almost forgot. We really, really need to get back up there so all the assclowns who don't believe we could get up there in the first place can once and for all STFU!

This would be the best thing Bush has ever done, or will ever do, if it happens.

I think if they do go up again, they should bring a camcorder. An ordinary sony or something camcorder. Make some money on the endorsement, but just show the planet from the astronauts first impressions. That would be some historical shit.

Yeah, the commercialized space race is gonna be great.

"Houston, I'm stepping off the Mars Lander.

One small step for a man, which is surprisingly comfortable in my Nikes..."

lol. It wasn't supposed to be an ad, but just a cool feed they could send back. I think keeping the one small step for man speech would be cool.

Yeah they should either go with something poetic, or:

"Holy fucking shit, I'm on Mars, bitches!"

or

"Houston, I'm stepping off the land... HEY WHAT THE HELL ARE THOSE?!?!?

...


...


...


Haha, fooled ya, Houston."

That would be the best thing in the world, or OUT of this world (har har!!!!!11), and show the nature of todays society pretty well.

Houston, we have a problem, actually more like an OH MY FUCKING LORD WHAT THE FUCKING FUCKY SHIT IS THAT!!! (imagine this on a live world wide feed, if you will). Then the astronaut doubling back and going: "Oh, phew, it's just a rock. I almost lost my cool there for a second."

This is awesome news!!! I couldn't be any happier. It's like humanity is finally taking the next step in space exploration (even if these are only plans).

Didn't think I would disdain this eh?

There's no reason to send humans to the moon and without any long term survival plans, none to send humans to mars.

Useing the moon as a space station is a great idea, but the cost of taking water to the moon in large quantities is too much. Humans are just not ready for colonizing other planets yet. The science is not there. I don't just think that colonies off the planet earth are "neat" I think they are going to be (GOING TO) an important part of our future. I like the agressive attitude shown here, but it's an aggressive attitude shown towards accomplishing a goal that has no real reason yet except to "reinvigorate the space program." We need direction first - then drive. The cart is before the horse.

Again - We do not have the science or technology for this. The best outcome is that in so huge a push (if it is indeed huge) then the technology may come. But the water problem will baffle scientist longer than I think Bush is prepared to expect.

All I have to say is...

TOTAL RECALL!

Dude (Tracer), they didn't have the technology to get to the moon back when Kennedy announced it the first time. That was the point. To advance the species. I think this rocks. It will probably wind up being some joint deal with the Russians and the Chinese, among others, so as to avoid any feelings of bitterness about who got there ahead of the others this time. After all, we're supposed to be one big happy world now, where as back in the 60's it was screw the commies, we dont wanna live under a communist moon.

The Russians have always had better rockets than the US, they can be given some money to develop a rocket that might be able to push us all the way to Mars. Or they may just take some Hydrogen bombs up and push themselves that way. Who knows.
Going to the Moon is really just a dry run so NASA can figure out what they want to do when they go to Mars.

All I know is this, if we don't go ahead, push ourselves to go to Mars, then there is really no point in having a space program in the United States. They've done everything you can do in near earth orbit, they've gone to the moon, they've got an antiquated fleet of shuttles that sooner or later (and sooner would be better) needs to be replaced. Satellites can be put into orbit by Air Force rockets, and the time is rapidly coming when civilians are going to be able to enter orbit on their own, as seen by the progress of the X-Prize contestants. So what else is there for NASA in terms of space?

<spoiler>Mars.</spoiler>

I said that the technology might be devleoped if there was a push for it and that would be nice. This I said. You might have missed it.

I also said that there's no really good reason besides reinvigorating the space program. There's not much humans can do in space that robots cannot more cheaply and infinitly more safely. It's too costly to run some moon base because there simply is no water there - and if it is, it's hidden in a dark southron polar region where sunlight won't directly hit. On Mars.. no technology we have now or that will be ready soon can carry the amount of supplies needed (as well as the people) to Mars any quicker than 2 years (and another 2 to get back). How much supplies are you going to have? How long will the astronauts be there? A day? This is not sounding practical and untill I see a technology that works, I do not think that Mars is a theseable goal for humans right now or in the forseeable future. Besides: what will astronauts do there that robots are not already doing or that robots could be made to do (not to mention the cost and the risk and the maintnence is all less for robots)? It sounds like a blast man, but it's just not very pragmatic or particularly conservitive minded =/ Then again, Bush perplexes me.

Ya you're right, I did miss that. Either way, I wasn't tryin to be a prick when I said it, sorry if I came off as one. Late night postings...

They'd probably use multiple rockets. Like one burns out 1/4 of the way to Mars and the other one kicks in.

Fuel to weight ratio man. Conventional chemical rockets, no matter the amount will not do. Not for Mars.

They need to build a mothafuckin Club Med up there or something.

Tangent - What's better: China, Russia, Europe, US (Brazil, Canada, heh) competing against each other with moderate cooperation to advance their space agendas, or a united space federation which each country contributes to? Competition begat technological advances, historically, but would it not be prudent to partake in a joint venture considering the potential costs for such a grand venture?

*edit* whoops. I meant Russia.

Why not have one big group with the internal divisions representing the countries to spark the competitive spirit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tracer

Fuel to weight ratio man. Conventional chemical rockets, no matter the amount will not do. Not for Mars.

---

Not if they use warp 9.

Engage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tracer

Fuel to weight ratio man. Conventional chemical rockets, no matter the amount will not do. Not for Mars.

---

Don't you really only need the fuel to get the rocket out of the Earths' atmosphere and primary gravitational field. Because in space their is no air resistance or friction to slow it down, only the relatively weak gravitational pull of the planets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brisco Bold

Tangent - What's better: China, USSR, Europe, US (Brazil, Canada, heh) competing against each other with moderate cooperation to advance their space agendas, or a united space federation which each country contributes to? Competition begat technological advances, historically, but would it not be prudent to partake in a joint venture considering the potential costs for such a grand venture?

---

They've been trying that with the ISS (International Space Station). But, Russia (which hasn't been the USSR since the early 90s, it's a Federation now) never has the money to pull its own weight. So, they spend a couple of months whining to NASA and the ESA for more scratch. Then, when they finally get it, they just piss it all away and finish the rest of their project on the shoe-string budget they started out with.

You can never divorce a country's self-interest from something like this. It would take a one-world government to effectively run a harmonious space initiative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AstroBlue

Don't you really only need the fuel to get the rocket out of the Earths' atmosphere and primary gravitational field. Because in space their is no air resistance or friction to slow it down, only the relatively weak gravitational pull of the planets.

---

I know some of the dynamics to rockets in space, my understanding is that there needs to be a good sized burn to leave the atmosphere, a short burst to break earths gravity and then a prolonged burn to build up enough speed, then a series of other burns to get into Mars' orbit. You need to burn fuel to change direction, speed and all that. Thats how they're steered. In anycase, I remember hearing on TLC or something that conventional chemical rockets cannot generate enough energy in relation to thier weight (which has nothing to do with wind resistance) to get a rocket moving fast enough to get to Mars in under 2 years. Other solutions might be plasma, others suggest anti-matter, which is about as far off as cold fusion. Reguardless, chemical rockets aren't good enough. As it stands, the fastest moving craft ever made by man were the Voyagers which were nuclear powered as well as used the gravitational fields of the outer planets to slingshot itself to higher speeds. They were lighter than any manned craft too which helps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tracer

I know some of the dynamics to rockets in space, my understanding is that there needs to be a good sized burn to leave the atmosphere, a short burst to break earths gravity and then a prolonged burn to build up enough speed, then a series of other burns to get into Mars' orbit. You need to burn fuel to change direction, speed and all that. Thats how they're steered. In anycase, I remember hearing on TLC or something that conventional chemical rockets cannot generate enough energy in relation to thier weight (which has nothing to do with wind resistance) to get a rocket moving fast enough to get to Mars in under 2 years. Other solutions might be plasma, others suggest anti-matter, which is about as far off as cold fusion. Reguardless, chemical rockets aren't good enough. As it stands, the fastest moving craft ever made by man were the Voyagers which were nuclear powered as well as used the gravitational fields of the outer planets to slingshot itself to higher speeds. They were lighter than any manned craft too which helps.

---

Cool, thanks for clearing that up! But I still don't understand how you can speed up or change direction in space, what is the propulsion pushing against?

Not against anything, it's just the emission of energy in a direction.. like the recoil on a gun in some respects, a constant recoil. Once you have the speed you want you no longer need to apply more energy, but to position yourself to orbit or stay in orbit of something you need to burn fuel in the opposite direction you wish to go. Retro boosters are used for this.

Thats the best decision Bush has made. Thatll take a while to get together but will be worth the wait though. Cool stuff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

Russia (which hasn't been the USSR since the early 90s)...

---

Whoops. Don't know what I was thinking. Fixed now.

My thought is it's just some campaign hupla. Anyways, echoing what Tracer was going on about-
"This is short-sighted and painful, for many reasons. It distracts from real issues at home. It will gut NASA's science budget. But the big reason, for me, is that it continues to spin the issue of space exploration as a "conquest of space," pseudo-military, plant-the-flag effort. It's not.

Exploring space is Green."
I love this site-
http://www.worldchanging.com/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Green

My thought is it's just some campaign hupla.

---

It most likely is.

Quote:

---

http://www.worldchanging.com/

---

Good site.