NASA announces detailed plans Monday for sending humans back to the moon and eventually to Mars. No human has trod the lunar surface since 1972 (since the Apollo 17 mission) and humans have never visited Mars yet.
Even before the official announcement, there is criticism from Capitol Hill over the reported $100 billion cost of the lunar program, given government commitments to the Iraq war and recovery from Hurricane Katrina.
The new $100 billion lunar program would begin in 2018 by landing four people on the moon for a seven-day stay.
Excellent - To infinity and beyond (Again)
I have serious doubts about 2018...
The fact that I am UK citizen has no bearing on this comment......." With the problems that the world faces, with terrorism, poverty and global warming, how can the expenditure of $100 billion be justified on sending men to the moon. What is this going to achieve which will benefit mankind and stop mankind being the orchestrator of his own destruction."
1. $100B is an imperceptibly small amount to spend relative to the US federal budget. 2. The US spends more money (both public and private) to help benevolent causes around the world then any other nation. 3. I believe that our ability and will to explore is what separates us form the rest of Earths creatures. 4. If we stay on Earth and only Earth we will eventually go extinct. Whether it be form Earth bound natural disaster(s), space catastrophe or man's own creation the fate of man on Earth is inevitably doomed unless we learn to harness our solar and eventually our extra solar environment. 5. Things on Earth are getting better all the time, not worse. Study a bit of history and you will see that free and prosperous cultures like yours and mine are on the rise. Instead of advocating the US squander $100B more dollars on, what is it you had in mind exactly? Why don't you try and appreciate the absolutely wonderful things man has and will continue to accomplish with the scarce resources that are dedicated to space exploration. Being British you may not think that the discovery of America 500 years ago was a real significant moment in human history. But if you adopt a nonhuman perspective it is arguably the most significant work of exploration that human kind ever embarked on. So too will space exploration and colonization seem to our descendants 500 years form now.
Best regards from America,
The Spacejunkie
Best regards from America,
The Spacejunkie
You don't think Planet America should try to help conquer it's own world (earth - Remember?) before trying to muck about with others then? I reckon $100 billon would go along way to removing poverty and finding cures to say, I don't know, how about Cancer or AIDS on the planet, don't you?
NTT.
NTT.
We and everyone else in the world that can afford it are already spending money on the causes you mentioned. Maybe not enough Ill give you that. But diverting money from important and useful causes to support other important and useful causes is a highly debatable topic. One that depends on your own perspective. In other words everybody's got his or her own ideas on how to "save the world." I don't understand you people who are critical of space exploration like it’s the enemy. Have you seen the defense budget of the US and GB lately? With that kind of money I think we may be able to cure cancer, colonize the moon and get every impoverished African into a Pizza Hut by the end of the next fiscal year. 
But again this kind of viewpoint depends largely on perspective. I'm sure there are many who feel the world is much too dangerous to decrees defense spending. I know lets just tell everyone that "All You Need Is Love." That’s got to work. Perspective. Perspective. Perspective. Hey what kind of car do you drive? What do you do for fun? Do you have any idea how much money Yanks and Brits spend each year on things like beer and amusement parks? Responsibility for all the worlds’ problems is on our heads. So don’t try and bring down the good things we are doing. Fixing the Earth’s troubles starts with one.
But again this kind of viewpoint depends largely on perspective. I'm sure there are many who feel the world is much too dangerous to decrees defense spending. I know lets just tell everyone that "All You Need Is Love." That’s got to work. Perspective. Perspective. Perspective. Hey what kind of car do you drive? What do you do for fun? Do you have any idea how much money Yanks and Brits spend each year on things like beer and amusement parks? Responsibility for all the worlds’ problems is on our heads. So don’t try and bring down the good things we are doing. Fixing the Earth’s troubles starts with one.
In the words of Black Sabbath "They can put a man on the moon quite easy, when people here on earth are dying of old diseases"
Sometimes I wander whether we should even bother messing with finding a unifyed theory of everything, I mean.. that wouldn't really help anyone to say we found it.
Sometimes I wander whether we should even bother messing with finding a unifyed theory of everything, I mean.. that wouldn't really help anyone to say we found it.
I know lets all forgo all of our technological niceties and start living like prehistoric man did we can live and die at peace with the world. We will discover nothing, explore nothing, and create nothing. We will simply stick our heads in the sand and wait for our inevitable extinction. What's the point?
PS: Please don’t hit me with the religious BS. I say man is creates his own fate and you cannot convince me otherwise. That’s a debate for a whole different thread though.
PS: Please don’t hit me with the religious BS. I say man is creates his own fate and you cannot convince me otherwise. That’s a debate for a whole different thread though.
You can't remove poverty. There are always some amount of people that will not thrive and you can force them to. All you can do is provide opportunity which the USA has more of than any other country. So while you people catch up we are gonna explore.
This mission is leading to populating a moon base. This base will be used as an observation point, a launching point for future missions and be an environment for scientists. All kinds of good stuff will come from it.
If I had to chose to let New Orleans rot or fund this mission it would be a hard decision... I dont think they should rebuild New Orleans for $200 billion. Let insurance monies and private industry do it.
Then there is the point made above that...
This mission is leading to populating a moon base. This base will be used as an observation point, a launching point for future missions and be an environment for scientists. All kinds of good stuff will come from it.
If I had to chose to let New Orleans rot or fund this mission it would be a hard decision... I dont think they should rebuild New Orleans for $200 billion. Let insurance monies and private industry do it.
Then there is the point made above that...
QUOTE
The US spends more money (both public and private) to help benevolent causes around the world then any other nation.
Now that the Space Shuttle program is dead, sounds to me like this generation of NASA big brains needs something to do. "Hmmm, what would I do if I had $100 Billion? Maybe I could find out why our oceans are dieing? No! Maybe we could use this money to clean up our drinking water? No! Maybe I could research the effects of deforestation: how that maybe causing the spread of new viruses and the effect it has on wildlife and how that effects humans? Nah!!! Hey, I got it! Lets go back to the moon! We already know how to do that! We'll be big stars again!!!! Yippy! Lets get started!" The human race is a lost cause anyway, might as well go back.
Everything that has made us who we are today has been from man's explorations and desire to know what is on the other side, it is what drives us. No matter how bad things seem today overall man is much better off than he was a 1000 years ago so if hour general lot has improved because of exploration would we not want to contiune exploring to improve our lives even more.
QUOTE
Maybe I could find out why our oceans are dieing?
I'm with you let us explore the oceans and lets start squashing the various entities on Earth that are harming it. But not by diverting from form the most ambitious and useful program the US government has ever spent money on.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Maybe I could find out why our oceans are dieing? |
I'm with you let us explore the oceans and lets start squashing the various entities on Earth that are harming it. But not by diverting from form the most ambitious and useful program the US government has ever spent money on.
Maybe we could use this money to clean up our drinking water?
My drinking water is fine straight out of the tap. If yours is bad you should try Ice Mountain brand bottled water. It costs about $1/leiter and is produced right down the street from me. In other words I think modern science has solved this problem. As an interesting side note the exhaust gas of the space shuttle is some of the purest water a man could ever hope to drink.
QUOTE
Maybe I could research the effects of deforestation: how that maybe causing the spread of new viruses and the effect it has on wildlife and how that effects humans?
Thanks to NASA this research is happening and will continue to mature in the future. Want proof? Here you go.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/
I almost forgot have you ever been to Kennedy Space Center? 140,000+ acers of pristeen marshland and one of the largest wildlife preservations in the US. With a spaceport to boot. Know your enemy my friend. It is not exploration and the persuit of knowledge it is the lack of it.
Spending that kind of money on a trip to the moon as opposed to spending it on something that could help end suffering on earth would be worse than the most horrific event ever to face humanity, including war, famine, and disease. All of the world's hungry could be fed, all the poor could get the medical attention they need, and the budget for the major medical research organizations could probably be increased 10 fold, making cures come 10 times faster.
No president should be allowed to make decisions that affect America's budget this much, under presidents so far in the future. This is so costly that if we get most of the way there, it would still worth it to throw it all away and stop funding it. Unfortunately, I don't think any president would have the guts to do that.
Barry
http://www.polisource.com
No president should be allowed to make decisions that affect America's budget this much, under presidents so far in the future. This is so costly that if we get most of the way there, it would still worth it to throw it all away and stop funding it. Unfortunately, I don't think any president would have the guts to do that.
Barry
http://www.polisource.com
The cost is 100 billion, but over how many years? It isn't going to be over 1. It will be spread out (they will of course need/want more to get to Mars). Nasa's current budget is about 16 billion while the DOD is 437 billion (wikipedia) fiscally. This isn't going to be like Katrina where they write a check for 100billion right away, and why should the government spend so much money to help rebuild a city in a hurrican prone environment that is below sea level? This is like people in Oklahoma rebuilding homes after years of tornados or mudslides in california or wildfires in the midwest. They live there, they know the risks. Of course if they utilize the money to R&D hurricane proof civil structures I would be a bit more accepting of the cost. Learn from the mistakes don't just do something because of tradition ("my entire family has lived here for over 100 years..."), especially if the traditional way is vastly inefficient and dangerous.
Back to space:
Look at the time frame, 2018? I doubt it. It won't survive >3 more administrations. Especially with so much of the Right controlling all levels of government and a rising evangelical population in the US. Give'm their tax breaks, sports, and promise of eternal damnation if they don't believe what they believe and they're happy.
I'd like us to go though, doesn't even have to be NASA. If China (they won't/can't atm) would go I would be thrilled! Why? Competition. Americans are so damn stagnate it is sick (it isn't even funny the differences in the amount of engineers/scientists the southpacific countries are churning out compared to us). Go to work, go home, watch sports. Priorities are really about world peace huh? Ending hunger is at the forefront of everybodies mind day in and day out? All of that money spent on actors, games, and sports stars. Bullshit. It is the spinoff technologies of pushing the edge of what we don't know and are forced to adapt to is what makes this world a better place.
This can be done with Katrina (hurricane proofing civil structures), the oceans (we've never gone as deep as it can go,compression, new species, geological), exploration of space (zero-g, radiation, vacuum, inhospitable environments) and others. The point is, unless we expose ourselves to dramatically different environments technological growth will stagnate.
There will always be conflict. There will always be hunger. To stop everything and put all our efforts into eradicating them would just cause other problems. Nobody can make everybody happy. Such is life. You dump your money into biomedicine but they need more precise/better instruments created from the computer/electrical/physics sector. So you need to spend money on all of them. Everything is interdisciplinary anymore.
http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html
http://www.satopny.com/about.asp
Back to space:
Look at the time frame, 2018? I doubt it. It won't survive >3 more administrations. Especially with so much of the Right controlling all levels of government and a rising evangelical population in the US. Give'm their tax breaks, sports, and promise of eternal damnation if they don't believe what they believe and they're happy.
I'd like us to go though, doesn't even have to be NASA. If China (they won't/can't atm) would go I would be thrilled! Why? Competition. Americans are so damn stagnate it is sick (it isn't even funny the differences in the amount of engineers/scientists the southpacific countries are churning out compared to us). Go to work, go home, watch sports. Priorities are really about world peace huh? Ending hunger is at the forefront of everybodies mind day in and day out? All of that money spent on actors, games, and sports stars. Bullshit. It is the spinoff technologies of pushing the edge of what we don't know and are forced to adapt to is what makes this world a better place.
This can be done with Katrina (hurricane proofing civil structures), the oceans (we've never gone as deep as it can go,compression, new species, geological), exploration of space (zero-g, radiation, vacuum, inhospitable environments) and others. The point is, unless we expose ourselves to dramatically different environments technological growth will stagnate.
There will always be conflict. There will always be hunger. To stop everything and put all our efforts into eradicating them would just cause other problems. Nobody can make everybody happy. Such is life. You dump your money into biomedicine but they need more precise/better instruments created from the computer/electrical/physics sector. So you need to spend money on all of them. Everything is interdisciplinary anymore.
http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html
http://www.satopny.com/about.asp
QUOTE
Spending that kind of money on a trip to the moon as opposed to spending it on something that could help end suffering on earth would be worse than the most horrific event ever to face humanity, including war, famine, and disease.
Are you crazy? I'm not being sarcastic. I just don't want to waste my time debating a crazy person.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Spending that kind of money on a trip to the moon as opposed to spending it on something that could help end suffering on earth would be worse than the most horrific event ever to face humanity, including war, famine, and disease. |
Are you crazy? I'm not being sarcastic. I just don't want to waste my time debating a crazy person.
All of the world's hungry could be fed, all the poor could get the medical attention they need,
$100B over 13 years. That's just over $7.6B per year. That's about half of the NASA budget. Now you tell me how (and I would appreciate mathematical support) you propose to feed the world or give everyone medical attention with $7.6B a year for the next 13 years.
QUOTE
and the budget for the major medical research organizations could probably be increased 10 fold, making cures come 10 times faster.
Again where are your numbers? $100B over 13 years sounds like a lot to someone who has never looked at a wealthy nations federal budget but it's really not that much. In order to increase the R&D budget of the major medical organizations in America by 10 fold for the next 13 years you would need something in the neighborhood of $1 trillion. Your trying to compare a $250B a year private industry with a $15B a year public entity. Your logic here is beyond comparing apples and oranges. It's more like apples and ground beef.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| and the budget for the major medical research organizations could probably be increased 10 fold, making cures come 10 times faster. |
Again where are your numbers? $100B over 13 years sounds like a lot to someone who has never looked at a wealthy nations federal budget but it's really not that much. In order to increase the R&D budget of the major medical organizations in America by 10 fold for the next 13 years you would need something in the neighborhood of $1 trillion. Your trying to compare a $250B a year private industry with a $15B a year public entity. Your logic here is beyond comparing apples and oranges. It's more like apples and ground beef.
No president should be allowed to make decisions that affect America's budget this much, under presidents so far in the future.
No president has or ever will make decisions that affect America's budget this much. Have you ever heard of the US Congress? Here's a link.
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/
These elected officials are the ones who appropriate money for the various publicly funded endeavors in America. They will continue to do so on at least a yearly basis for the foreseeable future. Do you understand what that means to "presidents so far in the future?"
QUOTE
This is so costly that if we get most of the way there, it would still worth it to throw it all away and stop funding it. Unfortunately, I don't think any president would have the guts to do that.
Again are you crazy? Please don't take offence I’m just not into reasoning with crazy people. Please choose one of the following: 1. Admit your crazy and I will ignore you from now on. 2. Justify what you have said by supporting your outrageous claims with numbers. Or 3. Take your meds and veg out for a couple of days. By the time you regain consciousness I will have forgotten this thread.
I believe the problem with most people's critial thinking is they figure money is a finite commodity, which is NOT. Money just circulates, you cannot just waste money, specially if you are the goverment. You spend money wisely or not, but the money comes right back into the economy either way.
Just my rant :-/ Sorry.
Just my rant :-/ Sorry.
For some reason I can't reply when I'm logged in, but here I am as a guest again.
That's ok, I don't mind if you don't reply.
That's ok, I don't mind if you don't reply.
$100B over 13 years. That's just over $7.6B per year. That's about half of the NASA budget. Now you tell me how (and I would appreciate mathematical support) you propose to feed the world or give everyone medical attention with $7.6B a year for the next 13 years.
I got a similar reply to a similar post to Compuserve's physics forum about 10 years ago. I wonder if those old posts are still archived. I'll give you the same answer. I'm talking about solving the hunger and health care problem, which doesn't afflict every person in the world. I don't know how much even that would cost, but that's the beauty of sums like $100 billion (and more if you include Mars). You can be pretty sure it could do just about anything.
$100B over 13 years. That's just over $7.6B per year. That's about half of the NASA budget. Now you tell me how (and I would appreciate mathematical support) you propose to feed the world or give everyone medical attention with $7.6B a year for the next 13 years.
I got a similar reply to a similar post to Compuserve's physics forum about 10 years ago. I wonder if those old posts are still archived. I'll give you the same answer. I'm talking about solving the hunger and health care problem, which doesn't afflict every person in the world. I don't know how much even that would cost, but that's the beauty of sums like $100 billion (and more if you include Mars). You can be pretty sure it could do just about anything.
Again where are your numbers? $100B over 13 years sounds like a lot to someone who has never looked at a wealthy nations federal budget but it's really not that much. In order to increase the R&D budget of the major medical organizations in America by 10 fold for the next 13 years you would need something in the neighborhood of $1 trillion. Your trying to compare a $250B a year private industry with a $15B a year public entity. Your logic here is beyond comparing apples and oranges. It's more like apples and ground beef.
The American Cancer Society's budget is about $800 million per year. If you consider 10 organizations to be the major ones and they all have that extreme budget, that's $80 billion. You'd think a science website would be more accurate than the mass media, but the news story we're all commenting on used the rounded-out figure of $100 billion. This Washington Times article says it's $104 billion. $104 billion - $80 billion = 24 billion for the hungry and health care deprived people. I don't know if that's enough, but how many major medical research organizations there are is debatable, and $80 billion is probably above average for even the largest research organizations. I think my statements give an accurate enough impression of the scope of the waste in sending people to the moon and Mars despite the absence of exact figures.
As for comparing public and private entities, they can both save lives with money, and they both do. The government funds some medical research, don't they?
Again where are your numbers? $100B over 13 years sounds like a lot to someone who has never looked at a wealthy nations federal budget but it's really not that much. In order to increase the R&D budget of the major medical organizations in America by 10 fold for the next 13 years you would need something in the neighborhood of $1 trillion. Your trying to compare a $250B a year private industry with a $15B a year public entity. Your logic here is beyond comparing apples and oranges. It's more like apples and ground beef.
The American Cancer Society's budget is about $800 million per year. If you consider 10 organizations to be the major ones and they all have that extreme budget, that's $80 billion. You'd think a science website would be more accurate than the mass media, but the news story we're all commenting on used the rounded-out figure of $100 billion. This Washington Times article says it's $104 billion. $104 billion - $80 billion = 24 billion for the hungry and health care deprived people. I don't know if that's enough, but how many major medical research organizations there are is debatable, and $80 billion is probably above average for even the largest research organizations. I think my statements give an accurate enough impression of the scope of the waste in sending people to the moon and Mars despite the absence of exact figures.
As for comparing public and private entities, they can both save lives with money, and they both do. The government funds some medical research, don't they?
No president has or ever will make decisions that affect America's budget this much. Have you ever heard of the US Congress? Here's a link...
Thanks, but I created my own webpage with information on legal research. And here's some relevant information from http://thomas.loc.gov/home/lawsmade.bysec/sourcesofleg.html :
---------------
In modern times, the "executive communication" has become a prolific source of legislative proposals. The communication is usually in the form of a message or letter from a member of the President's Cabinet, the head of an independent agency, or the President himself, transmitting a draft of a proposed bill to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate....the Constitution imposes an obligation on the President to report to Congress from time to time on the "State of the Union" and to recommend for consideration such measures as the President considers necessary and expedient....The President's budget proposal, together with testimony by officials of the various branches of the government before the Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate, is the basis of the several appropriation bills that are drafted by the Committee on Appropriations of the House.
---------------
I would blame whoever supports sending men to the moon and mars, including congress.
No president has or ever will make decisions that affect America's budget this much. Have you ever heard of the US Congress? Here's a link...
Thanks, but I created my own webpage with information on legal research. And here's some relevant information from http://thomas.loc.gov/home/lawsmade.bysec/sourcesofleg.html :
---------------
In modern times, the "executive communication" has become a prolific source of legislative proposals. The communication is usually in the form of a message or letter from a member of the President's Cabinet, the head of an independent agency, or the President himself, transmitting a draft of a proposed bill to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate....the Constitution imposes an obligation on the President to report to Congress from time to time on the "State of the Union" and to recommend for consideration such measures as the President considers necessary and expedient....The President's budget proposal, together with testimony by officials of the various branches of the government before the Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate, is the basis of the several appropriation bills that are drafted by the Committee on Appropriations of the House.
---------------
I would blame whoever supports sending men to the moon and mars, including congress.
These elected officials are the ones who appropriate money for the various publicly funded endeavors in America. They will continue to do so on at least a yearly basis for the foreseeable future. Do you understand what that means to "presidents so far in the future?"
It means that not only might future presidents put a stop to long term projects, resulting in a loss of the money already spent, but congress may too.
If anyone's interested, you can read the full text of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005 by going here and clicking H.R.3070.RFS.
Barry
http://www.polisource.com
Because defending ourselves is more important than learning about the moon and mars and creating teflon, or whatever argument is being used these days. I don't know when to stop spending on defense, but I know when to stop spending on space exploration. Now.
On saving the human race, we have plenty of time. Lets look at this moon and mars stuff again in 100 years. We can probably keep pushing it back for millenniums. When it looks like earth will be habitable for only about 200 more years, we can start working on something, and it probably won't be to move people.
Because defending ourselves is more important than learning about the moon and mars and creating teflon, or whatever argument is being used these days. I don't know when to stop spending on defense, but I know when to stop spending on space exploration. Now.
On saving the human race, we have plenty of time. Lets look at this moon and mars stuff again in 100 years. We can probably keep pushing it back for millenniums. When it looks like earth will be habitable for only about 200 more years, we can start working on something, and it probably won't be to move people.
Well apparently you see little to no value in the exploration of space. I say exploring the unknown reaches of the universe is the most important task man has ever embarked on. People like you would likely be much happier in a time long ago when man thought the world was flat and modern day Europe and Asia were it. Don't sail to far out. Ok. We wouldn't want you to fall into the abyss at the edge of the world. I suspect you are just trying to piss me off so goodbye.
QUOTE
Are you crazy? I'm not being sarcastic. I just don't want to waste my time debating a crazy person.
That's ok, I don't mind if you don't reply.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Are you crazy? I'm not being sarcastic. I just don't want to waste my time debating a crazy person. |
That's ok, I don't mind if you don't reply.
QUOTE
All of the world's hungry could be fed, all the poor could get the medical attention they need,
$100B over 13 years. That's just over $7.6B per year. That's about half of the NASA budget. Now you tell me how (and I would appreciate mathematical support) you propose to feed the world or give everyone medical attention with $7.6B a year for the next 13 years.
I got a similar reply to a similar post to Compuserve's physics forum about 10 years ago. I wonder if those old posts are still archived. I'll give you the same answer. I'm talking about solving the hunger and health care problem, which doesn't afflict every person in the world. I don't know how much even that would cost, but that's the beauty of sums like $100 billion (and more if you include Mars). You can be pretty sure it could do just about anything.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| All of the world's hungry could be fed, all the poor could get the medical attention they need, |
$100B over 13 years. That's just over $7.6B per year. That's about half of the NASA budget. Now you tell me how (and I would appreciate mathematical support) you propose to feed the world or give everyone medical attention with $7.6B a year for the next 13 years.
I got a similar reply to a similar post to Compuserve's physics forum about 10 years ago. I wonder if those old posts are still archived. I'll give you the same answer. I'm talking about solving the hunger and health care problem, which doesn't afflict every person in the world. I don't know how much even that would cost, but that's the beauty of sums like $100 billion (and more if you include Mars). You can be pretty sure it could do just about anything.
QUOTE
and the budget for the major medical research organizations could probably be increased 10 fold, making cures come 10 times faster.
Again where are your numbers? $100B over 13 years sounds like a lot to someone who has never looked at a wealthy nations federal budget but it's really not that much. In order to increase the R&D budget of the major medical organizations in America by 10 fold for the next 13 years you would need something in the neighborhood of $1 trillion. Your trying to compare a $250B a year private industry with a $15B a year public entity. Your logic here is beyond comparing apples and oranges. It's more like apples and ground beef.
The American Cancer Society's budget is about $800 million per year. If you consider 10 organizations to be the major ones and they all have that extreme budget, that's $80 billion. You'd think a science website would be more accurate than the mass media, but the news story we're all commenting on used the rounded-out figure of $100 billion. This Washington Times article says it's $104 billion. $104 billion - $80 billion = 24 billion for the hungry and health care deprived people. I don't know if that's enough, but how many major medical research organizations there are is debatable, and $80 billion is probably above average for even the largest research organizations. I think my statements give an accurate enough impression of the scope of the waste in sending people to the moon and Mars despite the absence of exact figures.
As for comparing public and private entities, they can both save lives with money, and they both do. The government funds some medical research, don't they?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| and the budget for the major medical research organizations could probably be increased 10 fold, making cures come 10 times faster. |
Again where are your numbers? $100B over 13 years sounds like a lot to someone who has never looked at a wealthy nations federal budget but it's really not that much. In order to increase the R&D budget of the major medical organizations in America by 10 fold for the next 13 years you would need something in the neighborhood of $1 trillion. Your trying to compare a $250B a year private industry with a $15B a year public entity. Your logic here is beyond comparing apples and oranges. It's more like apples and ground beef.
The American Cancer Society's budget is about $800 million per year. If you consider 10 organizations to be the major ones and they all have that extreme budget, that's $80 billion. You'd think a science website would be more accurate than the mass media, but the news story we're all commenting on used the rounded-out figure of $100 billion. This Washington Times article says it's $104 billion. $104 billion - $80 billion = 24 billion for the hungry and health care deprived people. I don't know if that's enough, but how many major medical research organizations there are is debatable, and $80 billion is probably above average for even the largest research organizations. I think my statements give an accurate enough impression of the scope of the waste in sending people to the moon and Mars despite the absence of exact figures.
As for comparing public and private entities, they can both save lives with money, and they both do. The government funds some medical research, don't they?
QUOTE
No president should be allowed to make decisions that affect America's budget this much, under presidents so far in the future.
No president has or ever will make decisions that affect America's budget this much. Have you ever heard of the US Congress? Here's a link...
Thanks, but I created my own webpage with information on legal research. And here's some relevant information from http://thomas.loc.gov/home/lawsmade.bysec/sourcesofleg.html :
---------------
In modern times, the "executive communication" has become a prolific source of legislative proposals. The communication is usually in the form of a message or letter from a member of the President's Cabinet, the head of an independent agency, or the President himself, transmitting a draft of a proposed bill to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate....the Constitution imposes an obligation on the President to report to Congress from time to time on the "State of the Union" and to recommend for consideration such measures as the President considers necessary and expedient....The President's budget proposal, together with testimony by officials of the various branches of the government before the Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate, is the basis of the several appropriation bills that are drafted by the Committee on Appropriations of the House.
---------------
I would blame whoever supports sending men to the moon and mars, including congress.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No president should be allowed to make decisions that affect America's budget this much, under presidents so far in the future. |
No president has or ever will make decisions that affect America's budget this much. Have you ever heard of the US Congress? Here's a link...
Thanks, but I created my own webpage with information on legal research. And here's some relevant information from http://thomas.loc.gov/home/lawsmade.bysec/sourcesofleg.html :
---------------
In modern times, the "executive communication" has become a prolific source of legislative proposals. The communication is usually in the form of a message or letter from a member of the President's Cabinet, the head of an independent agency, or the President himself, transmitting a draft of a proposed bill to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate....the Constitution imposes an obligation on the President to report to Congress from time to time on the "State of the Union" and to recommend for consideration such measures as the President considers necessary and expedient....The President's budget proposal, together with testimony by officials of the various branches of the government before the Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate, is the basis of the several appropriation bills that are drafted by the Committee on Appropriations of the House.
---------------
I would blame whoever supports sending men to the moon and mars, including congress.
These elected officials are the ones who appropriate money for the various publicly funded endeavors in America. They will continue to do so on at least a yearly basis for the foreseeable future. Do you understand what that means to "presidents so far in the future?"
It means that not only might future presidents put a stop to long term projects, resulting in a loss of the money already spent, but congress may too.
If anyone's interested, you can read the full text of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005 by going here and clicking H.R.3070.RFS.
Barry
http://www.polisource.com
I forgot that the 100 billion is spread over 13 years. I recalculated the budgets of the major medical research organizations, assuming there are five of them and their yearly income is equal to the American Heart Association's, which is $532 million. Over 13 years, that would be about $7 billion for each organization, and $36 billion for all five of them. It no longer looks like it "could probably be increased 10 fold" but maybe it could be doubled. With so great a difference between the American Cancer Society's budget and the American Heart Association's budget, it's hard to say, and it's not as easy to find an official source of the ACS's income.
May I design the fuel tank insolation - it wont be falling off all the time. I'll also just want a billion $ for doing it. Pretty please
QUOTE (Guest_Barry+Sep 20 2005, 09:49 AM)
I forgot that the 100 billion is spread over 13 years. I recalculated the budgets of the major medical research organizations, assuming there are five of them and their yearly income is equal to the American Heart Association's, which is $532 million. Over 13 years, that would be about $7 billion for each organization, and $36 billion for all five of them. It no longer looks like it "could probably be increased 10 fold" but maybe it could be doubled. With so great a difference between the American Cancer Society's budget and the American Heart Association's budget, it's hard to say, and it's not as easy to find an official source of the ACS's income.
Thank you Barry for being more honest with your numbers. Sorry for the sarcasm in my last post. You have a right to your opinion. Obviously I disagree. Throwing VSE money to the various medical associations you have listed would entail cutting NASA's budget in half. And the end result is highly debatable. I am of the mindset that NASA's budget should be doubled to $30B a year. I hope I don't sound too much like a broken record but if you want to complain about something why not take a shot at the defense (war) budget? How can you justify cutting NASA's budget? NASA is arguably the greatest exploratory entity man has ever devised. Don't you wonder about our place in the grand scheme of things? Don't you feel the drive to explore the world(s) that are a part of our reality? Don't you think the human race is important enough to try and perpetuate it's own existence? Sure we do some terrible things. But when it comes down to it human life is the most precious thing that has ever existed, at least to a human. What good is saving the poor and weak if the whole race is ultimately doomed to extinction anyway?
Thank you Barry for being more honest with your numbers. Sorry for the sarcasm in my last post. You have a right to your opinion. Obviously I disagree. Throwing VSE money to the various medical associations you have listed would entail cutting NASA's budget in half. And the end result is highly debatable. I am of the mindset that NASA's budget should be doubled to $30B a year. I hope I don't sound too much like a broken record but if you want to complain about something why not take a shot at the defense (war) budget? How can you justify cutting NASA's budget? NASA is arguably the greatest exploratory entity man has ever devised. Don't you wonder about our place in the grand scheme of things? Don't you feel the drive to explore the world(s) that are a part of our reality? Don't you think the human race is important enough to try and perpetuate it's own existence? Sure we do some terrible things. But when it comes down to it human life is the most precious thing that has ever existed, at least to a human. What good is saving the poor and weak if the whole race is ultimately doomed to extinction anyway?
Rep. Boehlert...
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17840
Rep. Calvert...
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17839
Rep. Hutchison...
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17837
The Plan...
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17836
Just in case anyone is interested.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17840
Rep. Calvert...
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17839
Rep. Hutchison...
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17837
The Plan...
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17836
Just in case anyone is interested.
QUOTE (spacejunkie+Sep 20 2005, 01:06 PM)
What good is saving the poor and weak if the whole race is ultimately doomed to extinction anyway?
Do you have proof of this supposed "extinction"? There's no sense in raising false hopes; humans are about as difficult to eradicate as cockroaches. What are you going to do; bombard the planet with large rocks, until the released kinetic energy raises the planetary surface temperature several hundreds of degrees for a duration of several hundred solar orbital periods?
Good luck with that. Still; it is nice to dream...
Do you have proof of this supposed "extinction"? There's no sense in raising false hopes; humans are about as difficult to eradicate as cockroaches. What are you going to do; bombard the planet with large rocks, until the released kinetic energy raises the planetary surface temperature several hundreds of degrees for a duration of several hundred solar orbital periods?
Good luck with that. Still; it is nice to dream...
Yes I have proof. It’s a logical imperative. It may even be unavoidable if we do colonize other planets but our chances of indefinite survival are increased with every new colony. If we stay on this one rock next to this one star eventually we will cease to exist. It may not happen until the Sun goes super nova but it will happen eventually.
You may be ill-informed. The sun has too little mass to go supernova, though it will turn into a red giant at some point before ending up as a white dwarf. However given the progress one can expect from humanity over the next few thousand years, it is much more likely that we will perform star-lifting (removing material from the sun to slow its rate of hydrogen burning) which will lengthen its life to trillions of years (one wants to change the sun from a type G5 to something like an M6 to significantly lengthen its lifetime). And before anyone goes getting bent out of shape over these comments, I'd suggest you do your homework first, reading papers by Criswell & Dyson on various ways to lift mass out of gravity wells and review the literature on Matrioshka Brains.
QUOTE
I hope I don't sound too much like a broken record but if you want to complain about something why not take a shot at the defense (war) budget? How can you justify cutting NASA's budget?
Because defending ourselves is more important than learning about the moon and mars and creating teflon, or whatever argument is being used these days. I don't know when to stop spending on defense, but I know when to stop spending on space exploration. Now.
On saving the human race, we have plenty of time. Lets look at this moon and mars stuff again in 100 years. We can probably keep pushing it back for millenniums. When it looks like earth will be habitable for only about 200 more years, we can start working on something, and it probably won't be to move people.
QUOTE (rbradbury+Sep 20 2005, 05:01 PM)
You may be ill-informed. The sun has too little mass to go supernova, though it will turn into a red giant at some point before ending up as a white dwarf. However given the progress one can expect from humanity over the next few thousand years, it is much more likely that we will perform star-lifting (removing material from the sun to slow its rate of hydrogen burning) which will lengthen its life to trillions of years (one wants to change the sun from a type G5 to something like an M6 to significantly lengthen its lifetime). And before anyone goes getting bent out of shape over these comments, I'd suggest you do your homework first, reading papers by Criswell & Dyson on various ways to lift mass out of gravity wells and review the literature on Matrioshka Brains.
Not ill informed, just writing quick and carelessly. Thanks for the correction. Do you have a link to the mass lifting stuff you sited? Sounds interesting.
Not ill informed, just writing quick and carelessly. Thanks for the correction. Do you have a link to the mass lifting stuff you sited? Sounds interesting.
QUOTE (Barry+Sep 20 2005, 05:22 PM)
QUOTE
I hope I don't sound too much like a broken record but if you want to complain about something why not take a shot at the defense (war) budget? How can you justify cutting NASA's budget?
Because defending ourselves is more important than learning about the moon and mars and creating teflon, or whatever argument is being used these days. I don't know when to stop spending on defense, but I know when to stop spending on space exploration. Now.
On saving the human race, we have plenty of time. Lets look at this moon and mars stuff again in 100 years. We can probably keep pushing it back for millenniums. When it looks like earth will be habitable for only about 200 more years, we can start working on something, and it probably won't be to move people.
Well apparently you see little to no value in the exploration of space. I say exploring the unknown reaches of the universe is the most important task man has ever embarked on. People like you would likely be much happier in a time long ago when man thought the world was flat and modern day Europe and Asia were it. Don't sail to far out. Ok. We wouldn't want you to fall into the abyss at the edge of the world. I suspect you are just trying to piss me off so goodbye.
Seems to me that we should strive for a balance of acheivements.
To little exploration and we would not have made it out of Africa to Europe and from Europe to America or discoverd new medicnes from Sea life.
To little efforts to improve farming technolog to feed the hungry and new medicines and we would be a sickly lot with high infant mortality rates and little will or capability to explore or achieve.
To little exploration and we would not have made it out of Africa to Europe and from Europe to America or discoverd new medicnes from Sea life.
To little efforts to improve farming technolog to feed the hungry and new medicines and we would be a sickly lot with high infant mortality rates and little will or capability to explore or achieve.
I am really bummed about this CEV.
what ever happened to STOL?
Go Delta Clipper!!!
what ever happened to STOL?
Go Delta Clipper!!!
QUOTE (Carbonflux+)
I am really bummed about this CEV.
what ever happened to STOL?
If we already have a way to safely get the job done we should use it. Spending longer time in development of a STOL will only hurt the progress of the initial missions.
I do think they should be developed in parallel with the current plan, but not developing STOL's first then going. It'll just halt everything.
Dr. Zubrin has shaped most of how I view all of this. So dunno how he is viewed around here.
what ever happened to STOL?
If we already have a way to safely get the job done we should use it. Spending longer time in development of a STOL will only hurt the progress of the initial missions.
I do think they should be developed in parallel with the current plan, but not developing STOL's first then going. It'll just halt everything.
Dr. Zubrin has shaped most of how I view all of this. So dunno how he is viewed around here.
I agree with the basic point, we should do what is quickest and get a foot-hold the rest will come.
My understanding has an outsider to the whole process was that the delta-clipper was ruled out due to some kind of internal power strugle at NASA and not technical grounds.
Although I would be open to the argument that the computing resources were just not there in terms of what had to be done on board the craft itself.
anyway, here is a link:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/x-33/dc-xa.htm
Best Regards.
My understanding has an outsider to the whole process was that the delta-clipper was ruled out due to some kind of internal power strugle at NASA and not technical grounds.
Although I would be open to the argument that the computing resources were just not there in terms of what had to be done on board the craft itself.
anyway, here is a link:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/x-33/dc-xa.htm
Best Regards.
Using known technology is the logical way to go. This time round, the Lunar orbiter and lander will have real computing power to help with the safety aspects so they should be able to do much more real science.
I do not think many people really realize how brave the astronomers of the '60 were. The 8 bit processors of today have more computing power than thy had to their disposal.
Sometimes just wish that I was not stuck is a God forsaken African communist state where corruption is more important than advancing technology. How I would have loved to work for a orginazation like NASA.
Go for it Yanks !
I do not think many people really realize how brave the astronomers of the '60 were. The 8 bit processors of today have more computing power than thy had to their disposal.
Sometimes just wish that I was not stuck is a God forsaken African communist state where corruption is more important than advancing technology. How I would have loved to work for a orginazation like NASA.
Go for it Yanks !
Well, we know one thing for sure, and that's that the earth is slowly dying. Why is it dying? Because we are killing it. Yes, yes, we are provoking a mass extinction like nothing seen before. And if we cannot stop or escape it, we will be part of the extinction. Why will we be part of it? Because the fact is, if we keep reproducing more people than we currently have (this is a natural strategy to where even though so many children die--in the wild--we will still have enough to keep the species going), we will run out of room to put them. The result, nowhere to grow food, no food--famine. Isn't that what you said the money should go to to be more useful? If we keep reproducing like we are and don't have anywhere to go (because we are dumb enough to trash the Moon exploration plans) we will have a famine like none other, and society will collapse. Of course, we could escape this inevitability by doing one of 4 things:
1. We could start randomly shooting people until the population is down to where we can continue to feed it.
2. We could start castrating and tying tubs until the reproduction rate decreases, and only let a select few reproduce--bummer.
3. We could start shooting and "fixing" until the population is in check.
4. We could find places to put all these people and generate food outside of the earth, and we keep everyone, and relieve the famine. (Most humane choice).
Note that the these countries which are famine induced have populations that are way out of whack. Now, if we take these people, and put them on...oh I don't know, the Moon, they will be able to produce their own food, and won't need to be fixed or shot.
If we thin the population on earth, other places will have economies, other places outside earth that is, and fewer people will be in poverty.
We can't do any of this unless we explore the Moon and Mars. Or would you rather be shot?
1. We could start randomly shooting people until the population is down to where we can continue to feed it.
2. We could start castrating and tying tubs until the reproduction rate decreases, and only let a select few reproduce--bummer.
3. We could start shooting and "fixing" until the population is in check.
4. We could find places to put all these people and generate food outside of the earth, and we keep everyone, and relieve the famine. (Most humane choice).
Note that the these countries which are famine induced have populations that are way out of whack. Now, if we take these people, and put them on...oh I don't know, the Moon, they will be able to produce their own food, and won't need to be fixed or shot.
If we thin the population on earth, other places will have economies, other places outside earth that is, and fewer people will be in poverty.
We can't do any of this unless we explore the Moon and Mars. Or would you rather be shot?
Corruption is everywhere friend
My implecation by bringing up the x33 is that I am suggesting that NASA is being manipulated by certain defense contractors and their needs.
I submit that AreoJet research should have been going on this entire time.
Look at the issue with Morton Thiacol and the solid fuel booster for the shuttle.
I don't think NASA has it stands is credible, not because of NASA itself but because of how admins influence it.
Guess we all know that tho.
I was just really bumed when the x33 project was canceled so that money could be channeled to a 'bigger better shuttle' that never got built, and now the CEV is back and using the same kind of propulsion has the shuttle and a russian reentry system.
Sheesh.
My implecation by bringing up the x33 is that I am suggesting that NASA is being manipulated by certain defense contractors and their needs.
I submit that AreoJet research should have been going on this entire time.
Look at the issue with Morton Thiacol and the solid fuel booster for the shuttle.
I don't think NASA has it stands is credible, not because of NASA itself but because of how admins influence it.
Guess we all know that tho.
I was just really bumed when the x33 project was canceled so that money could be channeled to a 'bigger better shuttle' that never got built, and now the CEV is back and using the same kind of propulsion has the shuttle and a russian reentry system.
Sheesh.
QUOTE (Carbonflux+)
I don't think NASA has it stands is credible, not because of NASA itself but because of how admins influence it.
Guess we all know that tho.
I was just really bumed when the x33 project was canceled so that money could be channeled to a 'bigger better shuttle' that never got built, and now the CEV is back and using the same kind of propulsion has the shuttle and a russian reentry system.
Well, politics got us to the moon in the first place, but then it removed it just as fast. It would be great if the private sector picked up a bit. Affordable means to LEO and beyond is going to make the difference as far as the public is concerned ( at least the rich public ). Hell I'd be in the first group to move to Mars if it was possible (even though it is a desert, and hostile all round to us humans).
The moon would be great too (not as habitable though). I can't imagine what an observatory would look like on the dark side. Especially if there was a huge array. Just-- WOW...
13 years is a long time though. It is not like we are inventing all of this stuff from scratch. We have an entire history/technology for getting to the moon. It just seems too lax and prone to politics blowing the other way in the next years to say, "There is nothing useful out there. Everything is down here. We need the money for this other project. Oh, and the public isn't all that pysched up about it either." Hell over half of the public in the US doesn't even think evolution occurs ("don't yea know, god didit")! They can't see past their car payment, let alone developing a whole frontier.
All of this should have happened 20 years ago.
I guess I am hopeful but pessimistic. If that makes any sense.
What we need is a hoax. Like what they thought in the movie Contact (sorry haven't read the book). Just make up something to drive public opinion a certain way to get what we want. "There is an asteroid the size of a quarter of the United States that will crash into us in xx years. We must develope our technology to evacuate people. Nothing will survive, and it is soooooo *** large there is no hope in changing its orbit to not collide with us. Mars is safe though, lets go there!" Desperation is the mother of invention. Or something like that.
Guess we all know that tho.
I was just really bumed when the x33 project was canceled so that money could be channeled to a 'bigger better shuttle' that never got built, and now the CEV is back and using the same kind of propulsion has the shuttle and a russian reentry system.
Well, politics got us to the moon in the first place, but then it removed it just as fast. It would be great if the private sector picked up a bit. Affordable means to LEO and beyond is going to make the difference as far as the public is concerned ( at least the rich public ). Hell I'd be in the first group to move to Mars if it was possible (even though it is a desert, and hostile all round to us humans).
The moon would be great too (not as habitable though). I can't imagine what an observatory would look like on the dark side. Especially if there was a huge array. Just-- WOW...
13 years is a long time though. It is not like we are inventing all of this stuff from scratch. We have an entire history/technology for getting to the moon. It just seems too lax and prone to politics blowing the other way in the next years to say, "There is nothing useful out there. Everything is down here. We need the money for this other project. Oh, and the public isn't all that pysched up about it either." Hell over half of the public in the US doesn't even think evolution occurs ("don't yea know, god didit")! They can't see past their car payment, let alone developing a whole frontier.
All of this should have happened 20 years ago.
I guess I am hopeful but pessimistic. If that makes any sense.
What we need is a hoax. Like what they thought in the movie Contact (sorry haven't read the book). Just make up something to drive public opinion a certain way to get what we want. "There is an asteroid the size of a quarter of the United States that will crash into us in xx years. We must develope our technology to evacuate people. Nothing will survive, and it is soooooo *** large there is no hope in changing its orbit to not collide with us. Mars is safe though, lets go there!" Desperation is the mother of invention. Or something like that.
Ya, like Reagons speech to the UN about how fast an ET threat would untite humanity...
But it can't be ET's, to complex.
I think the best hoax would be to have a sat. find a huge mineral deposit on the moon.
GOLD!!! heh...
But it can't be ET's, to complex.
I think the best hoax would be to have a sat. find a huge mineral deposit on the moon.
GOLD!!! heh...
Well, I don't know who you all are, but take a qualified answer from a physicist and a farm kid. You aren't going to grow any food on the moon. Mars, that's a maybe, but a seriously doubtful maybe.
Why not the moon? You'd have to create a sealed atmosphere to grow anything in, and then the day cycles wouldn't work very well, plants don't need just light, but certain numbers of heat days, it's a calculation thing. If you could succeed to do so, you'd have to constantly "truck" supplies to the moon to sustain the growth of anything you try to raise as a crop. There is no way to sustain a large community with current technology. That's why raising plants in zero g studies that have been done are so vital. These plants would require less supplies to grow them.
Of course we have to move on to edible plants to sustain this too. Meantime, there won't be any large civilizations up there. We'll have to make due with what we got.
Why not the moon? You'd have to create a sealed atmosphere to grow anything in, and then the day cycles wouldn't work very well, plants don't need just light, but certain numbers of heat days, it's a calculation thing. If you could succeed to do so, you'd have to constantly "truck" supplies to the moon to sustain the growth of anything you try to raise as a crop. There is no way to sustain a large community with current technology. That's why raising plants in zero g studies that have been done are so vital. These plants would require less supplies to grow them.
Of course we have to move on to edible plants to sustain this too. Meantime, there won't be any large civilizations up there. We'll have to make due with what we got.
QUOTE (cwes99_03+)
Well, I don't know who you all are, but take a qualified answer from a physicist and a farm kid. You aren't going to grow any food on the moon. Mars, that's a maybe, but a seriously doubtful maybe.
Moon -- agree. No atmosphere, would have to import all of the soil(?). I'm not sure about the daylight so I'll assume your right.
However, once initially imported could it be sustained (assuming you could get around the daylight issue, if there is one) with minimal amount of further imports?
As for Mars, I haven't heard of any reason why we couldn't grow vegetation on the planet. Most of the atmosphere is CO2. Its atmosphere is too thin, but plants do not need as much atmospheric pressure to survive as we do. Inflate a plastic hemisphere with a fraction of the pressure humans would require and they'd be fine. Water is existent (frozen). As far as soil is concerned, according to: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=books&n=507846 pg196, the nutrients lacking in martian soil for plants are potassium, molybdenum, boron is unknown, and Nitrogen is an unknown (at the time of the writing, 1997). There is nitrogen in the air though so I don't see it as a show stopper. According to the table on the page Martian soil is much richer in all of the other nutrients needed for plants.
It's been since sophmore year of high school since I've read up on any of it so take it as you will.
I see Mars as more compelling than the Moon (although it certainly does have its uses), but I was converted to being all go for space since I read that book I linked above, The Case for Mars, and another book Entering Space, both by Robert Zubrin when I was a sophmore in high school. It's actually why I am an aerospace major at university. The only way to open up space is to get the private sector involved, and to do that we need affordable launch capabilities as well as some possible profit to be made in space. So my dream at the moment would be to provide the former. To make launch affordable, and if you can't think of any way to make money by utilizing space then you can just stay grounded.
Moon -- agree. No atmosphere, would have to import all of the soil(?). I'm not sure about the daylight so I'll assume your right.
However, once initially imported could it be sustained (assuming you could get around the daylight issue, if there is one) with minimal amount of further imports?
As for Mars, I haven't heard of any reason why we couldn't grow vegetation on the planet. Most of the atmosphere is CO2. Its atmosphere is too thin, but plants do not need as much atmospheric pressure to survive as we do. Inflate a plastic hemisphere with a fraction of the pressure humans would require and they'd be fine. Water is existent (frozen). As far as soil is concerned, according to: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=books&n=507846 pg196, the nutrients lacking in martian soil for plants are potassium, molybdenum, boron is unknown, and Nitrogen is an unknown (at the time of the writing, 1997). There is nitrogen in the air though so I don't see it as a show stopper. According to the table on the page Martian soil is much richer in all of the other nutrients needed for plants.
It's been since sophmore year of high school since I've read up on any of it so take it as you will.
I see Mars as more compelling than the Moon (although it certainly does have its uses), but I was converted to being all go for space since I read that book I linked above, The Case for Mars, and another book Entering Space, both by Robert Zubrin when I was a sophmore in high school. It's actually why I am an aerospace major at university. The only way to open up space is to get the private sector involved, and to do that we need affordable launch capabilities as well as some possible profit to be made in space. So my dream at the moment would be to provide the former. To make launch affordable, and if you can't think of any way to make money by utilizing space then you can just stay grounded.
QUOTE (Carbonflux+)
I think the best hoax would be to have a sat. find a huge mineral deposit on the moon.
GOLD!!! heh...
I think you're on to something! Millions of tonnes of PLATINUM just sitting there on the Moon! A large asteroid must have impacted and deposited it!
GOLD!!! heh...
I think you're on to something! Millions of tonnes of PLATINUM just sitting there on the Moon! A large asteroid must have impacted and deposited it!
Hi All,
Going to the Moon would be great. Really... I would not hope for anything better. All that wasted money going on Wars - those of you should be speaking about that instead of coming down on Moon Missions ($360 Million a day). But I do not think that George Bush cares what is being said as long as it provides the right level of "domestic" distraction. He has "problems" and he has no solutions. The important words to listen to is "no extra funding"... not one cent. It is supposed to be paid for using current budgets and current technology. Well I dunno.... George W. Bush will no longer be President when this program is supposed to start. Well I doubt if it will ever "get off the ground" since there seems to be little justification for it other than a one off "stunt". Next year all will be forgotten... there is no "space race" to the Moon anymore and the US has gotten itself into deep do-do with their British and Australian mates eh!
Decades ago when they quickly "trashed" all twenty four remaining Moon Rockets so that it would be "impossible" to go to back to the Moon again, there was a promise then to return by 1985... then 1990... then 2005 now it's 2018.... Pick a number any number less than 200.
Lets be realistic... without any "pressing" reason the US is not going to the Moon for one very good reason... the administration that starts this venture has to pick up the tab and some other administration... not necessarily their own Party... will reap the benefits. This is "politically" unacceptable and with current economic and political rationalist philosophy that will be the end of it. Unless "new" technology is discovered that allows a Moon Mission within two terms of Office "arrives", forget it. This is Peter Pan stuff... "All this has happened before and all this will happen again... this time it is happening to "Generation-X"."
Sorry but Cheers
Going to the Moon would be great. Really... I would not hope for anything better. All that wasted money going on Wars - those of you should be speaking about that instead of coming down on Moon Missions ($360 Million a day). But I do not think that George Bush cares what is being said as long as it provides the right level of "domestic" distraction. He has "problems" and he has no solutions. The important words to listen to is "no extra funding"... not one cent. It is supposed to be paid for using current budgets and current technology. Well I dunno.... George W. Bush will no longer be President when this program is supposed to start. Well I doubt if it will ever "get off the ground" since there seems to be little justification for it other than a one off "stunt". Next year all will be forgotten... there is no "space race" to the Moon anymore and the US has gotten itself into deep do-do with their British and Australian mates eh!
Decades ago when they quickly "trashed" all twenty four remaining Moon Rockets so that it would be "impossible" to go to back to the Moon again, there was a promise then to return by 1985... then 1990... then 2005 now it's 2018.... Pick a number any number less than 200.
Lets be realistic... without any "pressing" reason the US is not going to the Moon for one very good reason... the administration that starts this venture has to pick up the tab and some other administration... not necessarily their own Party... will reap the benefits. This is "politically" unacceptable and with current economic and political rationalist philosophy that will be the end of it. Unless "new" technology is discovered that allows a Moon Mission within two terms of Office "arrives", forget it. This is Peter Pan stuff... "All this has happened before and all this will happen again... this time it is happening to "Generation-X"."
Sorry but Cheers
You can grow food indoors you stupid b'stards. It's called green houses. NASA is already able to grow stuff in outerspace.
My Dad worked for a bunch of defense contractors in the 50-60s, he told me there was a plan floating around where a low yeld nuke using an element with a short ( ms long ) half-life would be set off undergrond, this would create a hollow space which would be pressurised and lit...etc...
There were complex plans for growing food in this space.
Its my understanding that some of the underground nuke test sites are now salt mines, etc.
Best Regards
There were complex plans for growing food in this space.
Its my understanding that some of the underground nuke test sites are now salt mines, etc.
Best Regards
2018? Could it be any farther away? For Christ's sake, NASA needs to get a little more serious. 2010.
Honestly, 2018 is so far away that NASA is going to get trumped by some private conglomerate who will land people on the moon several years before that, and start planting flags and claiming property. 2018?! No wonder people dn't want to pay for it. Many of theem will be dead before they can even see it. Move it up to 2010 and people would say, wow! NASA's back! 2018? Whatever. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
QUOTE (Carbonflux+Sep 21 2005, 03:25 AM)
I agree with the basic point, we should do what is quickest and get a foot-hold the rest will come.
Didn't we do that in 1969? The rest hasn't come yet!
Didn't we do that in 1969? The rest hasn't come yet!
You go build your green-house. When you need the water, nutrients and everything else that gets removed everytime you harvest you will understand. If you don't understand the food production process then maybe you should can the attitude and take someone's advice when they have more incite and knowledge than you. The plants grown in space are not for human consumption. Most of them are aquatic plants, grown in zero-g with little or no soil, and the amount of energy spent by the whole process means that the plants are started on earth and grown for considerable amounts of time before being sent up in space for a whole three days to see how they handle the stress. 555Joshua, every forum you comment on you make such stupid and assinine points.
First let me say that I am NOT advocating anything that 555Joshua has said on this tread. However you are incorrect about past greenhouse experiments in space...
http://brp.arc.nasa.gov/GBL/Habitats/bps.html
I do agree with your assessment of the current need to replenish fundamental resources from earth. This is exactly why NASA et all are looking for and finding natural resources on extraterrestrial bodies. Obviously the idea here is that eventually the space born resources will be utilized on future missions as required. Try not to sound so smug in the future unless you actually have a good handle on what you are trying to communicate. If space advocates can't at least respect each other then the whole movement is doomed. We are few and far between and every believer counts.
All my best,
The Spacejunkie
http://brp.arc.nasa.gov/GBL/Habitats/bps.html
I do agree with your assessment of the current need to replenish fundamental resources from earth. This is exactly why NASA et all are looking for and finding natural resources on extraterrestrial bodies. Obviously the idea here is that eventually the space born resources will be utilized on future missions as required. Try not to sound so smug in the future unless you actually have a good handle on what you are trying to communicate. If space advocates can't at least respect each other then the whole movement is doomed. We are few and far between and every believer counts.
All my best,
The Spacejunkie
QUOTE (cwes99_03+Oct 3 2005, 02:44 PM)
You go build your green-house. When you need the water, nutrients and everything else that gets removed everytime you harvest you will understand. If you don't understand the food production process then maybe you should can the attitude and take someone's advice when they have more incite and knowledge than you. The plants grown in space are not for human consumption. Most of them are aquatic plants, grown in zero-g with little or no soil, and the amount of energy spent by the whole process means that the plants are started on earth and grown for considerable amounts of time before being sent up in space for a whole three days to see how they handle the stress. 555Joshua, every forum you comment on you make such stupid and assinine points.
It's a work in progress. There will be a time when we figure out how to grow plants in space from seed. There will be a unit which prevents water loss by capturing the vaper.
FYI, I have a pretty good Idea of the farming process. I just so happen to live on a farm. I know it needs firtilizer, light and water to keep the plants alive. Not to mention the different gravity on the moon, but since scientists don't have a moon base, they can't learn anything about the way plants react to the moon. Thus, they cannot move forward.
I think I have made my point clear.
It's a work in progress. There will be a time when we figure out how to grow plants in space from seed. There will be a unit which prevents water loss by capturing the vaper.
FYI, I have a pretty good Idea of the farming process. I just so happen to live on a farm. I know it needs firtilizer, light and water to keep the plants alive. Not to mention the different gravity on the moon, but since scientists don't have a moon base, they can't learn anything about the way plants react to the moon. Thus, they cannot move forward.
I think I have made my point clear.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.