The manned missions can be inspiring and have their uses. But I would rather see space elevators to low orbit, cheap and reliable methods to high orbit, a telescope on the moon, etc compared to setting foot on Mars. It would be awe-inspiring to do that, but first build an infrastructure that would allow us to do anything we wanted more easily!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Space Program Announcement Imminent
- Thread starter Durandal7
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Call me crazy, but i would have NO PROBLEM staying in one night of the year, so NASA can have the $40 I would have spent on alcohol. Multiply that by 280,000,000 people in the US and you get $11.2 billion. I know that does not get you to Mars, but do that for 5-6 years, and you have enough. Small sacrifice for such an achievement.
Oh, I agree. Can you imagine if they just added $200 per year for every American. How much would that be in say 10 years?
it's a good thing we're going to spend the money on another failed space program, before we have the proper technology to make it successful, when that money could have been wasted on things like ANYTHING here on earth. No, little Jimmy, your medicare has been cut, you don't get your asthma medication anymore-- the president got a wild hair up his ass to go to a barren rock.
paul
paul
I'm not a huge fan of manned space missions, but an economic argument could (maybe) be made for it. I'm for drug treatment vs prison, public health measures vs paying for medicines to treat symptoms. The pay-off for space is less direct, but the science involved would spur hundreds of technologies that would permeate our lives and make things better. And the chance for giant pay-offs like mining asteroids, free energy from space solar, etc, is nil until a space program is functioning.
We won't see Space elevators in our life times.....that's just way to tricky and we don't have the materials that could withstand the tension for the cables going all the way to orbit.
The best bet is a single stage to orbit space plane. Something that can be more than a person carrier, hold a decent cargo, place 200-300 miles above the earth. Then we're in business.
D
Very well, let's discuss the budget for this program.
First off, the R&D money for the propulsion system is already allocated to NASA. Budget for the Prometheus Project (Nuclear drive) was already given to NASA and this will form the basis of a Mars mission.
Secondly, most of NASA's budget is going to the ISS and the Shuttle fleet. Both of these will be scrapped freeing up many billions of dollars per year to go to the new manned program.
Finally, most of the technology is there contrary to popular opinion. People overlook the fact that the Shuttles are 1970s technology that cannot be upgraded and the the ISS is mostly late 1980s and early 1990s technology and designs.
NASA already has the money for the propulsion system and they can divert immense amounts of money from the Shuttle and Space Station. Even then we will be paying the price over the course of at least a decade.
Next year NASA will probably recieve an increased budget of $1-5 billion dollars. We will not be paying $400 billion at once and it is doubtful we will ever have to pay that much. The manned space program will be downright cheap next to things like Medicare and the Pentagon.
LOL or perhaps lil jimmy the president wanted to start a war in Iraq. how many billions?? how many lives?
what if they sold the iss off to private interests? is there a company out there that could take control and keep it running? perhaps as a tourist mecca for uber-rich people, ala dennis tito? couldn't hurt...
I don't know about Doomed... but The russians haven't been helping much recently (read: not at all)... but it doesn't mean it failed.
Mir II ... I hope not, how much did we spend on that to let it crash into eath and burn up?
Hell no.
Because it supplys a very large portion of national railways... and um... its national?
Going to Mars is a pipe dreammm only cause it would take what 7 MONTHS TO GET THERE?
I don't know about you -- but I can't see Mars when I step outside... or even in the slightly-less poluted Upstate...
Can you see it?
idkew -- Not everyone spends $40 dollars on alcohol in one night, heck many people don't drink it... or are underage (meee)
$5,600,000,000 Dollars a Year.
Thats 56,000,000,000 Dollars in Ten Years.
Also I think increasing taxes across the board by $200 is insane.
With that money we could give 1/3 of the country medical coverage... Or something better.
ex-communist country has nothing to do with it...
Its that they needed money for their space program...
Mars -- Good for the Rovers... Bad for the billions going to be allocated to pay for it.
lets not forget Skylab another station allowed to burn up, i guess when you have endless amount of tax dollars you can do this stuff. to bad Nasa cant seem to build those building blocks to space. Perhaps the military is doing a better job out in area 51.
Or perhaps
The interstate highway system should be sold off to private investors, and be forced to make profits or disappear.
Truthfully, though, the two modes of transportation should be held to the same standards. All taxpayers fund the interstate and other highway systems, so shipping companies using them are heavily subsidized. However, the rail companies own the land and pay for the construction of the railroads, as well as taxes on them. Either each should be subsidized equally, or neither should be.
From a standpoint of energy efficiency, and personnel efficiency, railroads are far superior. So, if uneven subsidies have to continue, at least subsidize the more efficient option!
The interstate highway system should be sold off to private investors, and be forced to make profits or disappear.
Truthfully, though, the two modes of transportation should be held to the same standards. All taxpayers fund the interstate and other highway systems, so shipping companies using them are heavily subsidized. However, the rail companies own the land and pay for the construction of the railroads, as well as taxes on them. Either each should be subsidized equally, or neither should be.
From a standpoint of energy efficiency, and personnel efficiency, railroads are far superior. So, if uneven subsidies have to continue, at least subsidize the more efficient option!
zamyatin: Shouldn't that post go with the political discussion of space policy?
The sad thing is that a lot of places are showing pics of what a Moon or Mars base will look like. Its quite laughable, actually. Its more like camping, with inflatable habitats and such. While a viable idea and easily setup and transported, its not exactly what you would call permanent.
That's one reason why some of these 'plans' might be a little thin. Harkening back to the bold missions of Apollo nostalgically is fine, but its not the way to go to secure a foothold in space. More thought and research needs to be done on using natural resources on the Moon, Mars and in space (asteroids). Use rockets to get men and machines into orbit - build the rest of the stuff off planet.
Other wise things are just going to be too expensive.
D
The sad thing is that a lot of places are showing pics of what a Moon or Mars base will look like. Its quite laughable, actually. Its more like camping, with inflatable habitats and such. While a viable idea and easily setup and transported, its not exactly what you would call permanent.
That's one reason why some of these 'plans' might be a little thin. Harkening back to the bold missions of Apollo nostalgically is fine, but its not the way to go to secure a foothold in space. More thought and research needs to be done on using natural resources on the Moon, Mars and in space (asteroids). Use rockets to get men and machines into orbit - build the rest of the stuff off planet.
Other wise things are just going to be too expensive.
D
You are correct Mr. Anderson, some great thought and planning needs to go into this project. To really use the natual resources and have a permanent station on the Moon will probably require a partnership. Private enterprise is definitely needed to make full use of a Moon project. Making a success of that might bring more support from our citizens.
According to a recent poll Americans are evenly split on another space effort. Somes successes are needed to encourage more support and a fully thought out grand scheme like Kennedy proposed in 1961.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/13/space_plan_gets_2_stars_in_poll/
Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
zamyatin: Shouldn't that post go with the political discussion of space policy?
The sad thing is that a lot of places are showing pics of what a Moon or Mars base will look like. Its quite laughable, actually. Its more like camping, with inflatable habitats and such. While a viable idea and easily setup and transported, its not exactly what you would call permanent.
That's one reason why some of these 'plans' might be a little thin. Harkening back to the bold missions of Apollo nostalgically is fine, but its not the way to go to secure a foothold in space. More thought and research needs to be done on using natural resources on the Moon, Mars and in space (asteroids). Use rockets to get men and machines into orbit - build the rest of the stuff off planet.
Other wise things are just going to be too expensive.
D
Somehow, I find that it would take a quantum leap in energy efficiency to run an iron smelter using only solar energy.
Don't you think that if the Moon had oil that we'd have Shell stations there already?
have you ever seen a solar furnace on earth? there are ways of using mirrors to direct and focus sunlight on a spot - do this in space - no clouds, 24/7 sunlight - you could generate some serious heat. It wouldn't be an issue.
http://rhlx01.rz.fht-esslingen.de/projects/alt_energy/sol_thermal/flux.html
That solar array isn't all that big - and it wouldn't need to track the sun if you set it up at a lagrange point.
D