Bush's Space Panel Seeks Public Input 566
brandido writes "Space.com is reporting that Bush's space panel is seeking public input on the effort to return to the Moon and then reach Mars. From the article: "President Bush's new space advisory commission for getting humans to the Moon and Mars has launched a web site seeking public input with the promise of reading all comments." The article provides a link to the website for Bush's Space Panel, but it does not provide a direct link to the site for sending comments. I personally think we should use a Martian Space Elevator to further our exploration of Mars."
Remember (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Remember (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:Remember (Score:2)
Read your 1040 instructions (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I don't think the government should be funding space exploration (or health care, for that matter), so I'm not arguing in defense of NASA, just in defense of actually considering the numbers.
Also, I have enormous pride in my country. I feel very lucky to have been born in the US.
Re:Read your 1040 instructions (Score:3, Insightful)
Scaling all the numbers down by a factor of 200M and pretending that's what it's going to cost me personally gets this in proportion:
* NASA's budget request for 2005 is $80 per year out of my pocket.
* Bush added an extra $5
Spoken like a true AC (Score:4, Informative)
I lived in the UK up until 1997, and had the pleasure of experiencing UK National Health Service care in 1996, and the same treatment supplied by the USA's #1-rated HMO (Harvard Pilgrim) in 1997.
My medical needs included diagnosis and treatment of a kidney stone (i.e. typical non-surgical stuff) plus treatment for common chronic conditions like allergies.
Guess what? In my personal informed experience, the best US HMO healthcare is about as good as the UK's state-funded National Health Service. Wait times are about the same, quality of care is about the same. Yes, I had to wait weeks or even months for treatment in the US.
And remember, that was the #1 rated HMO in the country that year. I hate to think what kind of medical care you get if you live in rural Alabama.
Of course, the medical industry loves the fat profits it soaks out of the US consumer, and has lots of money to pay for the dissemination of propaganda to try and convince US consumers that those poor European countries with their universal healthcare systems are much worse off than the lucky USA. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if they paid people to post propaganda to the Internet.
Here's your free clue for the day: Try talking to people who actually have experience of both US healthcare and state-funded European healthcare. Don't just believe what you read in the corporate media or hear on FOX News.
Re:Remember (Score:5, Insightful)
Health care, just like education, should be a right for all citizens, NOT just a luxury for the rich.
Surplus population (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, but individual to individual, an affluent resident of a first world country owes no more to a poor countrym
Re:Remember (Score:5, Informative)
According to an interview [bbc.co.uk] Germany has practically no waiting-lines. I assume the Scandinavian countries are known to have an even better health-care system.
In the WHO World Health Report 2000 [worldbank.org] France is ranked first, the US 37th.
> You want cheaper healthcare? Get the government OUT of it.
I did not see the parent saying anything of cheaper healthcare. Not everyone is an egoist.
Oh, BTW:
> The U.S. spends more total dollars and more dollars per capita on health care than any other nation and New Zealand is in approximately the top 10% in spending.
Source [washington.edu]
Re:Remember (Score:5, Informative)
Funny you should ask. Just yesterday I ran into this little story:
/ ar ticles/2004/02/10/why_canadians_are_healthier/
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science
My favorite quote: "There isn't a single measure in which the US excels in the health arena," said Dr. Stephen Bezruchka, a senior lecturer in the School of Public Health at the University of Washington in Seattle. "We spend half of the world's health care bill and we are less healthy than all the other rich countries.
Re:Remember (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Remember (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Remember (Score:5, Insightful)
European endeavors (Score:5, Interesting)
It all looks like being quite some fun! (Not to mention pushing back the frontiers of knowledge, etc, etc)
Last one to land people on Mars is a rotten egg!
Re:European endeavors (Score:3, Insightful)
What facility remains, of course. From what I understand a good chunk of the space center hasn't seen repairs since Apollo.
Re:European endeavors (Score:3, Informative)
Supplies get delivered to the launching facility in french guyana by boat, which is just as effective in getting stuff there. In fact, the ariane rockets are built in Europe, and then shipped like a lego kit to french guyana where they assemble them and put them on the launch pad. I've visited the ariane 5 const
Re:European endeavors (Score:4, Funny)
It helps if the competitor is a sworn enemy, like the good old days during the cold war. We'll need another few years of Bush before Europe achieves that status...
Space Race (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Remember (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean apart from China, India, Europe and Russia. Maybe you mean economically or militarily, but this is likely to change once someone develops the capability to exploit resources in space. Remember the story of the hare and the tortoise?
Re:Remember (Score:3, Insightful)
Without the shuttle or a badly needed replacement system to orbit, is the US even in the manned-space game?
Re:Remember (Score:3, Interesting)
be that as it may, we need to do this. we need a moon base first if only as a technology proving ground that is easy and quick to get to (compared to mars). we should have started this 30 years ago as a follow up to apollo, but instead we spent 30 years building the space shuttle and one th
In other words... (Score:2, Insightful)
Sounds like a bad idea... (Score:4, Interesting)
Talk to the public that's already shown animosity to the plan! Great idea, guys!
Re:Sounds like a bad idea... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Sounds like a bad idea... (Score:3, Funny)
Sounds like you'd rather have a dictatorship (Score:3, Insightful)
The best thing you can hope for in a government is a smart guy who will listen to advice and then make his own decision.
(I thought this was posted once already, but now I can't see it in the thread. Sorry if this is a dupe.)
Space Elevator? (Score:3, Funny)
Or how about a direct cable elevator from earth to mars - yeh, that would work
The case for a space elevator (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The case for a space elevator (Score:3, Insightful)
The moderators must be on crack ranking pie-in-the-sky informative.
Hey why not go to mars (Score:3, Interesting)
Not to mention the costs that it would have, NASA budget doubled for like 5 years when the appolo missions were going on.
Dont get me wrong I am not anti-NASA, I am just anti-mars right now. We could use that money for more important things.
Re:Hey why not go to mars (Score:5, Insightful)
Like what? The ISS? Shuttle?
You`ve hit the common misperception with this plan-- it does not increase the NASA budget drastically. Rather, it reassigns funds within the current budget, adding around 10% to the total.
This plan is good if only for the fact that it gives some focus and a destination for NASA. The ISS will be built and then funding will end; the shuttle will be retired.
Personally, I like the broad outlines, as it forces the bureaucratic nightmare that NASA has become to get some shit done-- which will eventually push them to privatizing (or at least allowing privatization) of many parts in the chain if only to accomplish what they need to do to reach their big goals.
Re:Hey why not go to mars (Score:5, Insightful)
Space travel is monsterously expensive. At least with air travel there was something to see on the other side of the connection. Air was a logical extension to shipping and rail. Space travel isn't really taking you anywhere.
Until someone finds a pot of gold, space will only operate on the "Christopher Columbus" model. Crazy folks who have adventerous patrons.
Re:Hey why not go to mars (Score:3, Insightful)
Ever hear of Burt Rutan and his Spaceship One project? For that matter, there's a plethora of private companies all working towards the X-Prize. The prize itself is a pittance compared to what these private companies are spending to create a commercially viable SSTO (single stage to orbit) system. And unlike a government-funded project, these guy
Re:Hey why not go to mars (Score:3, Insightful)
No, I submit you have. It's not so much about the increase in cost, but about the misallocation of funds in the absolute sense - away from fundamental necessities such as medical care and better social securities.
It's no wonder the United Nations World Health Organisation ranks the US one of the three most impoverished nations in the western world in this respect.
Re:Hey why not go to mars (Score:3, Interesting)
What reason is there for living, if history stops here?
Time for a change (Score:3, Informative)
Very true. This is exactly why a change is in order. ISS/Shuttle is a white elephant. For the same money we can be doing far more real exploration.
So when my back is against a wall like that, i think i too would come out with crazy plans like this.
Bush's back isn't against a wall. These changes have been in the works for a long time. The Columbia disaster just forced a decision. Unlike other adminis
Re:Hey why not go to mars (Score:3, Interesting)
Seeking public input is laudable... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Seeking public input is laudable... (Score:3, Interesting)
He doesn't have to do that, market forces will do it for him - the economy in India will do very well thank you :) The Indian space program will probably do better as well, since this is a token effort with not much of a budget increase to NASA. To someone from outside the USA (never been to India either) it looks like a minimum effort t
Re:Seeking public input is laudable... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, we could turn inward, we could spend every dime trying to cure every socital ailment, (which for the last fifty years hasn't worked)... or we could be bold and challenge the willpower and spirit of mankind by reaching further into the heavens.
Re:Seeking public input is laudable... (Score:3, Insightful)
You hit the nail right on the head there man. The current situation in America is proof positive that the government can't solve social problems by throwing money at them. Look at education. The federal government spends more on education than it ever has at any time in our history and look what it has gotten us. Namely, nothing much. In fact, we are worse off today in many respects.
I'd rather
Re:Seeking public input is laudable... (Score:3, Insightful)
So what should we do? Spend hundreds of trillions of dollars tryi
Robots vs humans has already been debated (Score:3, Informative)
Declare war on them. (Score:3, Funny)
We know they have WMDs. (hello! all that Radiation doesn't just fall out of the sky! they are hiding something)
Soon all martians and moonmen will know what it is to live in a democracy (whether they like it or not!)
~note all in jest.
To the Moon, Alice! To the Moon... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's use the money to build a shuttle replacement. Right now we are talking to Russia about transporting our guys up and down?
Pour the money into a more efficent, safer transport system... Considering the huge amount of debt we are in now, methinks that is a better use of our money.
We are kicking Mars's ass right now.
AC
That _was_ the idea (Score:3, Informative)
Suggestion (Score:2, Funny)
Now, as for your first travelling companion. Look, we know you two guys haven't gotten on well in the past, but we think Saddam and you've got a lot of common attributes. In the right setting, we think you could achieve wonders together.
We
Space Race 2.0 (Score:3, Insightful)
The current enthusiasm for space is nice, and gratifying to us geeks, but it's based on not a lot more than thin air. One serious budget crisis, one change of president, and it'll be cancelled.
Just my 2c.
Re:Space Race 2.0 (Score:4, Insightful)
Also don't underestimate India, they are a long way with their space program and are also in a space race with neighbour china.
Jeroen
Re:Space Race 2.0 (Score:2, Funny)
My idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Kill the mars program and fix the Hubble.
We will go more places this way.
Re:My idea (Score:4, Insightful)
We could build a telescope that could kick Hubble's ass on the lunar farside. Plus, with permanent human presence, someone could walk over with a wrench to fix it, as opposed to difficult and expensive on-orbit repair.
--riney
Re:My idea (Score:4, Informative)
Are you kidding? First of all, science is about a diversity of observations. Space based optical wavelength, small telescope astronomy is nice, however it provides only a tiny portion of the measurements needed to understand the universe. The observations that we are making on Mars could seal the case that life is probable to exist elsewhere in the universe, perhaps even nearby! The Hubble, currently, can do little in the way of the search for life or habitable planets. Secondly, the hubble is an ancient piece of technology. The money used to run the program is better spent on new, much more powerful types of observatories, for instance Gossamer Telescopes [afrlhorizons.com], next generation x-ray observatories [space.com], or the Terrestrial Planet Finder [nasa.gov]. For exploring the furthest reaches of the universe, you must use infrared telescopes like the James Webb Telescope [nasa.gov] due to the massive redshift. Also it is important to set up a method of making groundbreaking observations of gravitional waves [uiuc.edu] using something like LISA [ucsb.edu] is essential to furthering our understanding of general relativity and cosmology. Also planetary exploration helps us develop propulsion systems that will eventually be used to launch interstellar probes.
There's so much to explore, and we're never going to make progress by continuously dumping money into a dying technology... Hubble's service record has been amazing, especially considering its flaws, however it is time to move on, to discover new and different things that Hubble cannot see.
Eliminating planetary science in order to take more pretty pictures, IMHO, is unacceptable. I'm glad to see that NASA agrees with this.
Disclaimer: I work on the Mars Exploration Rovers mission, so I'm a little biased
Cheers,
Justin Wick
And I hope the Trolls dont get to this. (Score:4, Insightful)
A real attempt to try and include people in the decision making by allowing them a way to comment.
Then it gets posted to Slashdot.
Then the trolls flood the comments mailbox with irrelevant drivel.
Then they stop reading the comments because the signal to noise ratio is too poor.
This is a real opportunity. Don't screw it up.
Funding, funding, funding, HO! (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously, US military expenditure could be cut massively and while I don't agree with why Bush is doing the Mars program I do agree it should go ahead.
No clue why I had to Thndercat up the title, go figure.
Re:Funding, funding, funding, HO! (Score:2)
Re:Funding, funding, funding, HO! (Score:2)
I suspect it's too late for that now. Iraq went from a non-event, a secular country bombed into the third world to a hotbed of fanatical terrorists overnight. Once you start using force you have to keep on using it until you find another solution, and Bush is leaving it up to his successors to do that. A sudden change would be like the British not sending in extra support for their troops in the Sudan a century ago. I am very happy that the US did
Doing some namedropping (Score:5, Insightful)
He did a talk for the whole club about the Apollo programme, and why what's happening in today's NASA is happening. The talk was in 2000, so this was before the Columbia break-up. His analysis was basically society as a whole and by consequence NASA was now too risk averse to do anything exciting in space. The irony is that the risk aversion in NASA is actually a risk in itself, and contributed to the Challenger accident (and now the Columbia one as we've seen in the reports).
Bush's speech is all well and good, but I'm highly skeptical that anything will come of it. Going to Mars will be a very dangerous mission. Going to the Moon was very dangerous, and it's surprising that there were so few casualties in the Apollo programme. I don't think NASA has the guts to stomach these risks without a very serious shake-up in culture.
I hope I'm proven wrong, but I'm not particularly confident.
Re:Doing some namedropping (Score:5, Insightful)
THANK YOU! Our nation needs to get some backbone, understand that you only live once (that we can scientificaly verify), stop masturbating and do something positive!
Let's go to Mars. Let's master genetic engineering. Roll out some wonder drugs (recreational ones are ok too). Whenever our nation has in the past took on a national challenge we've always been better for it. Railways, electricity, telephone, aviation, highways, space - every last one was ridiculed at the time of inception and look where we are today.
All this we shouldn't do this, and we can't do that, or if we do that then it will hurt ________ (fill in with cute defenseless demographic group like children or baby seals) talk does is get nothing done. It also makes for boring TV and newspaper. I'm sick of reading about stuff like:
* Tax cuts/increases.
* Who lied about what trivial non-important detail(i.e. the lewinsky thing, who's a bone fide war hero (TM) and Bush's military record)
* Michael Jackson and the rest of his family friends and lackeys.
* Marth Stewart - just go to jail already!
* Michael Moore, Ann Coulter and other Jim Carville style hatchet people.
* Bill Clinton
* Carl Rove
More Info (Score:5, Funny)
Majority Of Americans Thought We Already Had A Moon Base WASHINGTON, DC--A
NASA poll conducted to gauge support for President Bush's space-exploration initiative revealed that a depressing 57 percent of Americans believe that the U.S. already has a research base on the moon. "We put that international space-station thing up there in the '60s," phone-poll respondent Randy Snow said. "It might be on Mars, but I think it's the moon--wherever they have the golf course that President Kennedy played on. Remember, the Cubans tried to take it over?" NASA officials said they hope someday to make Americans' perception a reality.
Re:More Info (Score:2)
Well, if that's really NASA's official's hope, they should help the Cubans to set up a space program.
My Input = It's the economy stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
Gee....... why don't we go to mars? Maybe someone on Mars has the answer to our economic problems. Are these people in the same reality?
Re:My Input = It's the economy stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
After all, that money goes directly on jobs. Everyone who receives the money pays a healthy chunk of it straight back into government coffers. The remainder they spend on, say, cars, computers, clothes, food,
What else is there? Well, following large investment in aerospace related technology and computer technology in Apollo, surprisingly enough, the USA dominated those fields afterwards. The economy grew, so those slices handed out in benefits, health care etc grew bigger overall - the "pie" itself grew, so the amount in those "slices" grew.
So if this causes a doubling in NASAs manned spaceflight budget (at an annual cost equivalent to 3 days welfare spending (2 days, if you take into account the taxes paid directly back), or 6 days DoD spending), it would seem to be worthwhile.
So, yes. Employing more people (with a major focus on college grads) and expanding the economy (so that extra money would end up rolling into health care and unemployment benefits) would make a lot of sense.
Re:My Input = It's the economy stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
It is the first nation that will prosper during both the good times and the bad. By trying new things and discovering new knowledge, they are better able to handle their existing problems as well. Going to Mars will not fix the economy of itself, but it may very well help the recovery. If anything, it isn't going to hurt the economy a lot: compared to the total budget, NASA doesn't take a lot, and much of the money goes towards useful jobs or research.
The second nation is doomed to forever live in caves or grass huts, never contemplating building houses of wood or stone, at least not before the leaks in the existing huts are fixed, the mammoth pen is repaired, Llugs broken leg is splinted and healed, or before the hungry children of the next village are properly fed. You will be able to forever find more 'pressing' problems looming behind the ones you just fixed; insisting to fix all of them will get you nowhere,
Re:My Input = It's the economy stupid (Score:2)
I'm not a american... (Score:3, Insightful)
- Boicot Kioto pact.
- Attack countries like it was done in the middle age.
- Pretend to be the protectors of the world, with power to do everything they want without being questioned.
- Disband space technology/health studies in favor of military studies.
When I was young, I though about America as presented by Hollywood: land of opportunity, freedom and "the good ones". Now, every day, week, month that passes I just realize that you're becoming a really strange country where words like privacy and liberty mean nothing, and I find really hard to figure out if the US are still on the "good" side.
I know it's a us centric site, and I'll be modded down, but someone had to say it
Re:I'm not a american... (Score:2)
Re:I'm not a american... (Score:2)
I'm a US citizen, and I write a letter to my senator every month asking him what the hell he's doing, and he still won't give me a straight answer. These last three years have been the most depressing political years ever.
And the terrorist attacks were not the low point, which is really hard to pull off.
I wish I knew which
Re:I'm not a american... (Score:5, Informative)
Which means you are still listening to what Hollywood and the Media have to say about us. Things are rarely, if ever, as black-and-white as you've described. I'm no advocate of Bush, per se, but at least half the list you present in your post has another, more reasonable side to it that people disregard because it's become popular accross the world (and the US) to hate Bush and malign everything he's done.
Noone, even President Bush, is either totally wrong/evil or totally right/good.
You talk about the wrongness of the US boycotting the Kyoto Accord, but you don't mention that while we didn't sign it, neither did a single other country. In fact, not only did President Bush take issue with it, but several members of Former President Clinton's staff also felt it was unacceptable. These and other facts suggest that in its then-current form, it had some fundamental flaws that needed addressing.
You talk about us acting like protectors of the world, but never mention that almost every 'police action' we engage in (with the notable exception of Iraq, admittedly) has been done AT THE REQUEST OF THE COUNTRY WE HELPED. We get attacked for being the policemen of the world, but countries keep asking us to police their neck of the woods. While we do sometimes go overboard---I don't deny that---many of our police actions have been a great help to the people in the area. We helped the people of Somolia. We helped the people of Korea. Hell, we have even helped the people of Iraq (though at a high cost!). I mean, no one is arguing that Saddam was a nice guy who deserved to stay in office. We may not have found WMD, but we've found rape and torture rooms, and other evidence of a truly brutal regime.
We have our problems, but let's not go overboard and start asking whose side we are on! Almost every American I know (that's a lot, by the way, since I live here ) is a decent, hard-working person who honestly wants to make the world a better place. We don't always make the right decisions, but hell, no one does.
Re:I'm not a american... (Score:3, Funny)
You're right, but I do think that Bush is a "Deep Charcoal" on the Black/White Spectrum.
Re:I'm not a american... (Score:4, Informative)
A huge amount of countries have signed the Kyoto Protocol [unfccc.int] and most of them have even ratified the Protocol. Even the US (by Pres. Clinton) have signed the treaty, but Clinton knew that congress would not ratify it and did it just before leaving office as a symbolic act.
Without the US on-board, the Kyoto Protocol is not legally binding without Russia [bbc.co.uk], while Russia has lately used the Bush administration's line as an excuse for not signing up (lead by example). The reason Russia has gained importance, is because: The protocol would have entered into force when 55 signatories had ratified it, including industrialised countries responsible for 55% of the developed world's carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in 1990. [bbc.co.uk]
Why don't you explain that to mr. "Evil axis" guy instead of the parent post, which seems very reflected.
Re:I'm not a american... (Score:3, Insightful)
You act like the U.S. is the only country that didn't sign the pact. If you'll bother to check the facts, you'll see that Russia is also refusing to accept the treaty without changes, a stance identical to the U.S. position. Quite simply, the Kyoto treaty demands massive concessions by first world nations in exchange for virtually unlimited ability to pollute by everyone else. This is a treaty to stop pollution, it's an attempt to "even the scales" economically by wrecking the econom
Re:I'm not a american... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not really. People don't respond to that much anymore. Do you see round the clock coverage of the Mars rovers?
- Boicot Kioto pact.
Anyone with a brain free of ideological sludge realized that Kyoto was political bullshit. Even some of those that helped create it admit it's useless.
Attack countries like it was done in the middle age.
Oh, come now. The US armed forces haven't used a trebuchet in *years*.
- Pretend to be the protectors of the world, with power to do everything they want without being questioned.
We're not pretending. :-)
Disband space technology/health studies in favor of military studies.
Oh, please... We spend billions on basic research.
When I was young, I though about America as presented by Hollywood: land of opportunity, freedom and "the good ones".
Your foolish delusions are your problems. Sheesh. You're like Mac fans who believe the rumors about a 32" plasma screen iMac for $500 and then feel ripped off when it's not announced.
Now, every day, week, month that passes I just realize that you're becoming a really strange country where words like privacy and liberty mean nothing, and I find really hard to figure out if the US are still on the "good" side.
That's because you are still swallowing the Hollywood version of things.
I know it's a us centric site, and I'll be modded down, but someone had to say it :P
No, national self-flagellation is actively encouraged here. However, it is preferred if it isn't mired in ideological foofa like yours. You clearly have an outsider view, and seem hellbent on seeing the world in purely monochromatic good versus evil terms. Real life is about a billion times more complex than that.
Yeah, the US has done some shitty things, but so has every other country in the world and in history. That's no excuse, but all this criticism being heaped on us these days is a useless pack of bloody hypocrisy which you all can collectively take and stuff. Get your own houses in order.
Re:I'm not a american... (Score:3, Interesting)
Apparently you have a major dicconect with the leadership of the country. Bush has stated many times in no uncertain terms that there are only two groups of people:
1: The evil-doers (the people we don't like)
2: the people who are against evil-doers
That's it. He's left no room for those who think that terrorism is bad, but that U
Where is the money coming from George? (Score:4, Insightful)
Who's gonna foot the bill?
Moon must have WMD (Score:2, Funny)
In a surprise show of support even Democrats and partizan groups from all over the United States admit that they
but they admit anywhere out of the way would do.
This is all window dressing from a
Re:Moon must have WMD (Score:3, Insightful)
Your humor was enjoyed, but you've hit the nail on the head in at least two ways:
1. it's unlikely Bush will launch new movements into other countries before the November election (potential for public backlash, etc.) Talking about outer space is a "safe" subject. Humans on the moon is plausible short term; mars, longer term.
2. Bush is all for defense. Getting surveillance and armaments into space is the next major step ahead. Remembe
Priorities (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe something more modest, like a permanent moon base? Or more modest than that, wait a few years so we can fund this project with cash instead of Easy Credit Terms?
Re:Priorities (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously.
If the current US administration wasn't hell-bent on dropping bombs on muslims for dubious reasons they could easily have freed up several NASA budgets...
You're right. It's all a matter of priorities, and serious space exploration just don't rank all that high at the moment.
Inspiring taglines (Score:5, Interesting)
Moon+Mars=distraction till November 04 (Score:4, Insightful)
The support for the proposition that the current administration has ANY reason other than political gain for this proposal is lacking.
If we had 40 years of consistent manned spaceflight behind us, I'd expect that we would be able to assess the risks and costs of this "mandate". What we have is a group of really poor administrators at NASA who have killed two shuttle crews and the shuttle program through their gross errors in judgment.
We need an entirely new NASA-with an international mandate to cooperate and jointly budget new programs long before we start back to the moon.
It's not possible with the current NASA - all we will have will be bloated costs for proposals and a few happy contractors.
Low orbit assembly of ship modules, (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the best approach is to assemble 2 ships in low earth orbit, or one large modular ship. These ships would be assembled by robotically docking "russian" style space station modules.
Pre build all the required modules before lanch.
Some of the modules required for each ship.
- habitation modules, either one can be used for planet habitation.
- power modules, "probably nuclear is required for enough power" either one can be used for planet
- sealed cargo modules, which can hold supplies and tools for crew, can be used for planet if mission requires
- cargo racks, and robot arms to assist module assembly,
- crew excape modules, aka chinese or russian style capsules,
- propulsion modules
- fuel modules
- numerious landers to attach modules for planet landing
This is just a draft
Just Posted this to their website (K. Rice Plan) (Score:4, Interesting)
1. NASA should be required to make any purchase of over $50M in a competitive bidding process. This can be open auction if need be, or sealed bid, but bids must be published afterwards.
2. No Cost-Plus contracts should be awarded unless a congressional waiver is granted.
3. PRIZES: NASA should award at least $100M per year of all-or-nothing prizes for technology demonstration projects. Requirements should include disclosure of all technology used, so the experience curve (a.k.a. learning curve) of other companies benefits from this tech. Patents are always possible.
Prize 1: first private launch into space (100 km) using air-breathing engines for > 50% of time of flight.
Prize 2: First two-stage to orbit flight using wholly reusable components (>90% by mass re-used) for 2 subsequent flights. Similar to X-Prize, only going to orbit.
4. NASA should auction delivery of consumables (Air, Water, fuel) to within 200 meters the ISS (not necessary to dock). PAYMENT SHOULD BE C.O.D. FOR CONSUMABLES AT THE ISS. No payment should be made if nothing is delivered. Contractors should arrange for their own insurance, everything.
5. Likewise, NASA should offer payment of 0.1 cents per pixel (or something close to that) for delivery of all photographs of any planetary body taken from orbit around that body. Maximum award per body should be set by committee.
6. The space shuttle, conceived in 1968 and an albatross around the neck of NASA, should be RETIRED immediately and bids taken on its separate primary functions (delivery to ISS and higher orbits of personnel).
7. NASA administrators should be given real power to reform their agency, without irrelelevent Line-Item appropriations from congress. Facilities should be able to be closed. Existing power structures (political ones) should be phased out or replaced with different ones somehow. NASA KILLS TOO MANY PROJECTS DONE BY THE PRIVATE SECTOR, DON'T LET THAT HAPPEN!
Just some humble suggestions I like to call the K. Rice Plan.
Cordially yours,
-- Kevin Rice
-- Kevin J. Rice
Re:Just Posted this to their website (K. Rice Plan (Score:2)
--
Evan
Jokes aside... (Score:4, Insightful)
--
Evan
Public Doesn't Know (Score:5, Insightful)
I realize that NASA's mission has become heavily weighted in symbolism and emotion and that this is the reality of 21st century politics.
But, as a member of the public, as a taxpayer, I would much rather that they pay for 50 select astronomers, geologists, physicists, engineers, chemists and biologists to come to a conference and ask them what kinds of space missions would be valuable from their perspective. Put the ideas in a ranked order, with costs and risks, and then let the administrators decide what they'd like to do.
As it stands now, there are some interesting projects that have made it through the cracks, but all the big money goes towards various make-work manned missions meant to whip up patriotic fervor, demonstrate international cooperation, or keep the inertia going with some large project that everyone is afraid to let die because of its size.
There's nothing wrong with pride in one's country (except that the emotion is often used as a tool by less honourable men), or with international cooperation. But please let those things be incidental to defining NASA's mission and not central.
Re:Public Doesn't Know (Score:4, Interesting)
The result? There were many goals described, some of which may now be in peril as a result of Bush's backhanded hit on science within NASA. Putting a man on the moon or on Mars is not on the list, however. You can read the brief summary here [nationalacademies.org]. The entire text of the report is availbale here [nap.edu]. Although the entire text is well over 200 pages, there is a lot of material in it that sets it apart from most beauracratic reports, including some 40+ pages of a layman's discussion of the science driving the requests.
Bob
Hubble (Score:4, Insightful)
Replace the Hubble and large quanities of the terristial radio telescopes with moon based ones. Get the benefits of the location for more science. When the Hubble goes it will be an extreme loss, replace it with something more grand as soon as possible.
Space elevator not new (Score:4, Informative)
Nuclear propulsion (Score:3, Interesting)
send Robots, not Ugly Bags of Mostly Water (Score:3, Insightful)
proposal: send ONLY beings designed for space travel.
Robots are cheaper, we could be doing 10 times as much science for the same cost. I know that some experiments can only be done by humans today. the right decision is to improve robotics. A.I. , visual object recognition, self-repair ability, robotic hand. this research would have a positive impact on civilian aplications, too (working in hazardous environment, like nuclear reactors and dumps).
The ISS is an expensive political project. It is hard to kill it, because of international involvment. but it should be killed, because it is using up resources, which could be spent much better.
Re:send Robots, not Ugly Bags of Mostly Water (Score:3, Insightful)
proposal: send ONLY beings designed for space travel. "
Further observation: Humans have evolved in a sub-tropical environment. They are not designed for cool temperate or sub-arctic conditions.
proposal: Send only robots to these latitudes on Earth
A trained human is between dozens and hundreds of times as effective as any robot. Co
Re:send Robots, not Ugly Bags of Mostly Water (Score:5, Insightful)
proposal: Send only robots to these latitudes on Earth
I don't think anyone is talking about permanent solutions. If we had robots advanced enough at the time we started trying to go to the South Pole, and it cost a huge amount to send someone to the South Pole, wouldn't it have been a better idea to have used robots, until we knew enought o send people?
A trained human is between dozens and hundreds of times as effective as any robot.
I'm not sure that a scalar metric makes sense. There are things that humans can do that robots cannot. Humans are adaptable, and pretty good at dealing with unexpected problems that might come up. They're useful if you're trying something that might fail in some unknown way and you're not sure ahead of time how to fix it (i.e. swapping out a circuit board would mean that you could just build in a redundant board ahead of time). With planetary probes, one major problem that relies on unknown data is dealing with the ground surrounding a landing site. Humans might be very handy, but we also have some clever robots these days.
A second benefit is that manned missions pretty much must be round-trip. Most robotic ones are one-way. Doing a round-trip is expensive and hard, but it lets you bring back samples for free.
In the past, successful manned missions (at least Glenn and Armstrong in the US) have had enormous PR benefits. I suspect that this is still true to a smaller extent, though frequent manned missions to places like the ISS may have worn down public facination with manned missions.
All that being said, humans have an enormous number of issues for space travel. Among others:
* Humans require life support. This means food, water, oxygen, and temperature control, plus much radiation shielding, and space to move around in. It means basic toilet facilities. It generally means safety mechanisms and escape systems. It means medical supplies. This is a *lot* of weight. Weight is a big deal, because for each pound you lift into space, you have to lift some quantity of fuel, which requires more fuel to lift.
* Humans place tough environment constraints on a mission. The Mars landers used a cheap, simple method of slowing down -- big airbags. Putting a human through this would pulp them. Putting someone on Mars probably means requiring a lander with retrorockets. This is more weight. You can't get the module very hot, or very cold, or very irradiated. You have to be really careful about chemicals being exuded into the environment.
* Humans have PR issues. If NASA loses a human, NASA catches a *lot* of flak and has to do investigations and shut down anything that might cause the problem again. If a robot gets lost, some money gets lost, but it doesn't mean a public outcry and the potential for NASA funding to be cut.
* Humans have risk factors. You can try some things with robots that you cannot do with humans. You can say "I wonder what's over here". Sure, there's some chance that the rock sheet that you're driving on might break and dump you into a deep pit, but ultimately, the robot is expendable. People are not.
You have to think -- suppose we could do a round-trip mission. Instead of carrying a human and all the associated support stuff, if we could just get a good robot, we could do the round trip with *masses* more samples for analysis back on Earth.
How long will it be before we can get a robot that can climb down lava pipes and into tunnels?
I have a friend who is in the robotics grad program at Carnegie Mellon University. He builds robots that entirely autonomously explore abandoned mines. Since many of these mines are not safe for a human (gasses, collapses, etc), if a robot fails in the thing, you cannot go in to get it out. The problem of crawling around in tunnels is pretty similar. If you can solve mine tunnels, you can probably handle lava pipes.
Spirit uses more conservative design because it needs to be mature tech -- there can't be a chance of it failing zillions of miles away.
Space elevator is premature... (Score:3, Interesting)
But until it's proved possible, we shouldn't base our entire space program around a pipe dream.
The comment I posted (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that any of you should care, but here's what I posted to their comment site:
Going to the moon only makes sense in the context of getting raw materials. Building ships or habitats or almost any other activity would be a lot easier off the moon, probably at one of the libration points.
People going to Mars doesn't make any sense unless they intend to stay for good. If getting people back is part of the plan, then send them to the asteroids instead. Much easier to get there, easier to get back from, and probably easier to exploit for raw materials than the moon, frankly.
In fact, if you're going to the moon for raw materials to build with in high Earth orbit, it might be easier to swipe a few asteroids and bring them back to a libration point manufacturing facility than to bring the equivalent material up from the moon.
But Mars is not a stepping stone to anywhere; it's a destination. Only, there's nothing to do on Mars that couldn't be better done in Arizona.
The same could be said for the moon, except it's easier to lift raw materials from the moon than from Mars or Earth. But that assumes you figure out what to do with raw materials in space.
If you aren't going to figure out how to process raw materials in bulk in space, then quit sending people. At a billion bucks a pop, Man in Space only makes makes sense if he's building something there.
In no case should you drop stuff down a gravity well (moon, Mars, or Earth for that matter) unless it's going to help you get materials back up.
Man's future in space is basically about moving materials; down is an expense, up is an investment, construction is accrued value. The net worth of the whole endeavor then becomes a pretty simple equation.
(ps: I had to promise my mother I wouldn't go to the moon as long as she was alive. She's doing okay at 72, so I can wait a little longer.)
Planned tether for Mars rover (Score:4, Interesting)
This is what I sent them... (Score:4, Interesting)
The Mars mission would probably be better served by assembling the craft at a Legrange point - but to do so, we need a better lift capability.
However, I concede the President's desire to get the public excited about space again - and setting up an assembly facility at L5 isn't going to do that...it sounds like just another space station like the hideously expensive waste of vacuum that we are probably about to abandon.
I'd have preferred to see the President putting his weight behind the construction of a space elevator to earth orbit. That is a worthy goal, it's certainly at least as do-able as a manned Mars mission and would have immense benefits for mankind beyond the Mars mission. The likely need for novel materials to build it would also have great spin-off potential for American business - and hence go a long way toward justifying the expense.
Setting up a facility at a Legrange point would also fit nicely with the plans for the Hubble replacement - so there would be synergy in that effort.
Seeking Public Comment = Looking For Support (Score:3, Insightful)
First, it builds public interest. When they come out and say "we've decided to do it this way," then the majority of people feel that they've had their say, and the government has listened to them, and what the government thinks is probably the best decision for some reason that completely escapes everyone's grasp, so they just go along with what the government decides. As if they had any say in it in the first place.
Second, it tells them how to spin what they're doing. What they're really doing is spending the public's money on something that isn't particularly accomplishable with our current technology. If they get our say-so, then they can hand billions over to our nation's "defense contractors" to try to figure it all out. Don't doubt for a minute that it'll be a long and expensive process.
Looking for public comment? Mr. Bush, I am unimpressed. How's that comment for you?
Getting back to the topic (Score:3, Insightful)
Like parenthood, there's never a good time to do it - there'll always be pressing needs elsewhere. My take is if we can't build a colony on the moon, we may as well forget about manned space flight. If we do elect to abandon manned space flight, we'll be like old ladies in retirement homes waiting to die. Except our death will be delivered by our own hand or possibly a Permian level event. Either way, we're dead if we elect to stay here.
If we elect to build the colony, it has to be designed from the outset to be self-sustaining. By self-sustaining, I mean the whole shebang - kids (or at least the means for making them), farms, lots of people, machine tools, everything. The colony has to be able to weather failures on earth, be they political and/or economic failures, cutting them off.
I'm old enough to remember the first Star Trek broadcast and have that meme deeply imprinted - we need to explore and go out beyond earth. The moon's but the first step.
Space exploration and other goals (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's what I wrote: