Uh, no. Look, we're not making **** up here. The ride to Mars is much longer than a trip to the moon and back, and most everyone thinks the Mars-a-nauts would be unto melba toast in that time. Do you know the safety limits for, say, gamma radiation? I can type those out if you're interested. They ain't that high, as in: smart people on earth limit their medical/dental x-rays and long flights. To say nothing of time in interplanetary space. Now, if you want to be proactive, and like old-school NASA, you plan to go to Mars, and you make new shielding technology a necessary step. You just plan for scientific and engineering breakthroughs. That would be cool, and I could buy in if I saw that type of leadership. Deckard, sorry if I seem cavalier. I don't have any say in the matter, so my opinions luckily don't matter beyond this bbs. And sorry for the movie reference... just thought it was funny. And it was two movie references, by the way.
I'm not saying any names and I'm not just talking about the older posters, but some of you guys are living in the past. either NASA straigtens up and defines its goals well or someone starts defiining them for them.
What on earth (or in space) are you talking about, Sishir? I never said that. What are earth (or space) are you carrying on about here? You have a problem with my wanting the United States to maintain its lead in space technology? An assertion B-Bob may not agree with, but that I certainly do? Is it because I mentioned China? I also mentioned the EU and Japan, but you seem fixated on the PRC. Who cares? I want the US to maintain its preiminence in science and technology. So shoot me! That is only one facet, and not the primary one, about wanting to maintain and fund, hell, increase funding, for the manned space flight program. I have many others, the primary one being foolish enough to romantically believe that mankind should leave this planet and inhabit the Moon, Mars, and any other body buzzing around out there that is possible to get to when we can, and to someday reach the stars. International cooperation in exploring outer space is groovy, but I don't like depending on Mr. Oligarch, Putin, and his comrades in the Chinese government, to supply the international space station, or to supply our manned space flight vehicles. With the coming retirement of the shuttle, that is exactly what we're looking at for a number of years, which has the potential to be disasterous. Do you think it is a good idea? You are most confusing on this issue, Sishir, and making way too much out of parts of my posts on this subject and way too little of others. I'm proud of my country. I'm also an internationalist that believes in democracy, and doesn't want to be dependent on "one party oligarchies" who have their own interests, which do not, in many instances, coincide with ours. Is there something about that you don't get? If the EU or Japan had a manned space flight program, I would be ecstatic. They don't. Impeach Bush for Creating Idiots in Mass Quantities.
not. talking. bursts. Yes, burst and rare and they could wipe out life on earth, nevermind a tin can. If you could follow the nice links Otto provided (thank you, Otto), you can see that NASA takes this very seriously and they're thinking of strategies to combat the problem.
We will devise a magnetic force field to deflect the evil Gamma Rays!!! Or something! Seriously (well, I'm more than half serious about coming up someday with a shield of some sort that doesn't require materials in bulk), we need major (as in MAJOR) improvements in drive technology to decrease the time to make such a trip, regardless of the shielding we come up with. And we will have to solve the shielding dilemma. Short term and long term, that is a killer problem. Literally. It is one of the best reasons for creating a permanent base(s) on Luna, if we can find the materials to create shielding that works. A very weak gravity well would allow materials in bulk to be lifted from the surface, and it doesn't need to look great... it just needs to work. Think about it. If we do it that way, we could have meters of shielding material around the crew quarters, leave the ship in Mars orbit, and use technology we already possess to go back and forth from the surface. I don't think that is a wild idea. I think it may turn out to be the most viable short term solution. (until the "force field," or whatever we devise eventually) Impeach Goofus for, well, being such a damned goofus.
Except that any manned mission to Mars might take years and we are talking about eventual Martian colonization that would require humans living there for years or even decades. If astronauts on Mars were to get sick its not like we could rapidly evacuate them to the safety of Earth.
There's no problem with that except that he has previously criticized other posters for having a nationalistic attitude. Anyway my point is if his concern is about humanity what does it matter if it is Euros, Japanese, Chinese or Americans who deflect the killer asteroid. I don't know what the budget is for Constellation but I'm presuming the planning stage is in the billions and a manned mission will be in the tens of billions. As someone from inside the beltway once said, a billion here a billion there and sooner or later you are talking about some real money. Sure lets challenge ourselves. Lets colonize the Moon and Mars, lets repair our infrastructure, lets pay off the debt, lets fix social security, lets secure our borders, lets fix Iraq, lets have get everyone insured, lets have fully fund education, lets rebuild New Orleans and so on and so on. Look there's tons of things we should be striving to be the best at yet we are not and like it or not we can't afford all those things. Out of that list that I just put most of those are far more pressing than colonizing the Moon yet we can't even address those so in a time when our infrastructure is crumbling, millions don't have health care and one of our cities still lies devestated, and we are fighting a war on two fronts what makes spending billions on colonizing the moon so important? I agree but at the same time there are tons of other things that should be funded too. I mean should we take money from research into understanding the human genome for space flight? I'm a trekkie and my dad's a scientists. I love the idea of space exploration but I also happen to like the idea of fiscal sanity and believe in the free market too. In the end we don't have unlimited resources and tough budget choices have to be made. Well you can download technical specs for the space shuttle online and its kind of hard to keep things secret when you show the launches on TV. For that matter how did the PRC get hold of the Russian technology to base their space program on? Other countries might not share their technology but if they want national prestige from it they are going to have to publically show that technology in action which will make it hard to conceal. For instance early on in the shuttle's development the Russians had their own based off of our design. They didn't follow it because it was too inexpensive and inefficient compared to the Soyuz not because they couldn't get technical info. Anyway we've already licensed off a lot of our technology to other countries and private corporations. I highly doubt the PRC and Euros wouldn't want to make some cash that way either. On a related note do you believe that if an impending disaster from space was facing us and another country was preeminent in space they wouldn't try to save humanity from it? I'm not sure but from Deckard's posts he seems to think so.
Well you've found me out I really am a fellow traveller of the Red Chinese. I am also a YOF and I believe Adelman should be fired for not having the Rockets pass Yao the ball on every posession and I would rather have Yao score 50 points and the Rockets lose than they win and Yao score 10. Have you considered that out of the three groups you mentioned only the PRC has an independent manned space program so in terms of a discussion regarding three rival programs to the US I am going to fixate on the one that actually has their own manned space program? Again though do you really think that the only way humanity will colonize space will be through Nasa? Do you believe that if the PRC, EU, Japan or Botswana was the preeminent space power they wouldn't save the Earth from a killer asteroid? Its not if you are dead set on keeping the US as the preeminent space power but as I've noted already I'm not that bothered by that possibility. Anyway if you want a cheap and practical way to develop supply and transport ships for space throwing money in the government bureacracy isn't the way to do it. Perhaps I might be making too much of it but then again I love to debate but also I am frankly mystified by how vehemently you hold this position to the point of engaging in juvenile moves like calling me "judobooper." Deckard I've seen you criticize other posters for having a parochial and frankly illogical attitude about things which is why I'm so surprised that you are so hard set on this to the point that you wouldn't vote for a candidate that you have professed to like and agree on 95% of the issues over this. I mean I can understand Meowgi's view as this hits his family in the pocketbook. I will state my position though. I love the idea of space exploration. I'm a geek who loves to watch Star Trek, heck I like watching Stargate Atlantis. But there are tons of things we need to address some of which I listed in my reply to CaseyH. Given that we don't have unlimited resources and the fact that Obama's program would setback but not dismantle the space program I have a hard time understanding the vehemence on this issue. Let me ask you this. How should we pay for the space program? Should we raise taxes, should we borrow more money or should we make cuts to other programs. If so where do we cut?
I thrilled that you are a Star Trek fan (Stargate Atlantis?? ). Again, you are grossly exaggerating some of my positions and giving short shrift to others in this instance. I am well aware of who has manned space flight programs and even said as much in my post(s). I do not like depending on Putin or China, should that arise, for supplying the ISS. Do you, given Putin's behavior? I have no problem with China joining the ISS program, if they pony up for the ticket. If they are able to provide transportation of supplies and/or people, great. Add modules, terrific! I simply do not trust their government. Paying for it? I've already addressed that. Do some digging. The reason I said you seemed fixated on China came from you passing over my other comments relating to the same subject. I don't think you are a fan of the Chinese government. China, yes, but so am I. I dearly wish I could travel there some day and regret that I've only been to Hong Kong and then when it was a Crown Colony. I'm tired of having to defend why I want my country to remain preeminent in science and space technology. The reason should be self-evident. If you don't "get it," I don't know what else to tell you. I apologize for repeating Judobooper. I should have left it with the original post. It was a joke. I have hell remembering how to spell your moniker and keep thinking of you as Sishir. Obama? I don't like his stand on some of the issues as the campaign has evolved. I certainly don't like his stand on this one, and I've said I feel very strongly about it. Another bit about Obama from a columnist I admire... November 30, 2007 Op-Ed Columnist Mandates and Mudslinging By PAUL KRUGMAN From the beginning, advocates of universal health care were troubled by the incompleteness of Barack Obama’s plan, which unlike those of his Democratic rivals wouldn’t cover everyone. But they were willing to cut Mr. Obama slack on the issue, assuming that in the end he would do the right thing. Now, however, Mr. Obama is claiming that his plan’s weakness is actually a strength. What’s more, he’s doing the same thing in the health care debate he did when claiming that Social Security faces a “crisis” — attacking his rivals by echoing right-wing talking points. The central question is whether there should be a health insurance “mandate” — a requirement that everyone sign up for health insurance, even if they don’t think they need it. The Edwards and Clinton plans have mandates; the Obama plan has one for children, but not for adults. Why have a mandate? The whole point of a universal health insurance system is that everyone pays in, even if they’re currently healthy, and in return everyone has insurance coverage if and when they need it. And it’s not just a matter of principle. As a practical matter, letting people opt out if they don’t feel like buying insurance would make insurance substantially more expensive for everyone else. Here’s why: under the Obama plan, as it now stands, healthy people could choose not to buy insurance — then sign up for it if they developed health problems later. Insurance companies couldn’t turn them away, because Mr. Obama’s plan, like those of his rivals, requires that insurers offer the same policy to everyone. As a result, people who did the right thing and bought insurance when they were healthy would end up subsidizing those who didn’t sign up for insurance until or unless they needed medical care. In other words, when Mr. Obama declares that “the reason people don’t have health insurance isn’t because they don’t want it, it’s because they can’t afford it,” he’s saying something that is mostly true now — but wouldn’t be true under his plan. The fundamental weakness of the Obama plan was apparent from the beginning. Still, as I said, advocates of health care reform were willing to cut Mr. Obama some slack. But now Mr. Obama, who just two weeks ago was telling audiences that his plan was essentially identical to the Edwards and Clinton plans, is attacking his rivals and claiming that his plan is superior. It isn’t — and his attacks amount to cheap shots. First, Mr. Obama claims that his plan does much more to control costs than his rivals’ plans. In fact, all three plans include impressive cost control measures. Second, Mr. Obama claims that mandates won’t work, pointing out that many people don’t have car insurance despite state requirements that all drivers be insured. Um, is he saying that states shouldn’t require that drivers have insurance? If not, what’s his point? Look, law enforcement is sometimes imperfect. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have laws. Third, and most troubling, Mr. Obama accuses his rivals of not explaining how they would enforce mandates, and suggests that the mandate would require some kind of nasty, punitive enforcement: “Their essential argument,” he says, “is the only way to get everybody covered is if the government forces you to buy health insurance. If you don’t buy it, then you’ll be penalized in some way.” Well, John Edwards has just called Mr. Obama’s bluff, by proposing that individuals be required to show proof of insurance when filing income taxes or receiving health care. If they don’t have insurance, they won’t be penalized — they’ll be automatically enrolled in an insurance plan. That’s actually a terrific idea — not only would it prevent people from gaming the system, it would have the side benefit of enrolling people who qualify for S-chip and other government programs, but don’t know it. Mr. Obama, then, is wrong on policy. Worse yet, the words he uses to defend his position make him sound like Rudy Giuliani inveighing against “socialized medicine”: he doesn’t want the government to “force” people to have insurance, to “penalize” people who don’t participate. I recently castigated Mr. Obama for adopting right-wing talking points about a Social Security “crisis.” Now he’s echoing right-wing talking points on health care. What seems to have happened is that Mr. Obama’s caution, his reluctance to stake out a clearly partisan position, led him to propose a relatively weak, incomplete health care plan. Although he declared, in his speech announcing the plan, that “my plan begins by covering every American,” it didn’t — and he shied away from doing what was necessary to make his claim true. Now, in the effort to defend his plan’s weakness, he’s attacking his Democratic opponents from the right — and in so doing giving aid and comfort to the enemies of reform. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/o...-Ed/Op-Ed/Columnists/Paul Krugman&oref=slogin Frankly (there's Frank again), I'm bothered by that. Obama wants to have it both ways. I shouldn't be surprised, but I am. Impeach Bush.
Well the moon VISIT is 2020 so thats puttin a colony like what 50 years? oh yeah thats crazy talk! some things cost ALOT (medicare 30 trillion or so) social security (10 trillion or so) some stupid medical program. Some things don't cost so much, (border fence, space program) Freaking out with these arguments is akin to political talk. I'm sure since you hang out here you know the numbers. Entitlement programs are the problem (medicare,SS) and nothing else even comes close.
I would never say the space program doesn't cost much... it just isn't all that much as a percentage of the budget. Not as much, I would imagine, as it was in the 1960's. And in case you haven't noticed, political talk, especially in the runup to a Presidential election, is pretty popular here. Trim Bush!!
NASA Budget - $16 Billion Annual interest on national debt - $406 Billion It is a drop in the bucket. You could completely close down NASA and put all the money to the debt and the debt would laugh at you and keep growing. The US has spent nearly $500 billion in the past 10 years on weapons systems for the military that never even made it off the drawing board. Annual military R&D budget is $73 Billion dollars. We spend $23 Billion dollars annually maintaining our arsenal of nuclear weapons. Annual 'black budget' secret spending is somewhere between $40 Billion and $1 Trillion!!! If we are going to worry about the debt, perhaps we should look at ways of cutting money that will actually make a difference in the debt.
