OT(kinda): Space program/2001

[trekgeezer]

I guess everyone heard about  Bushie boy's space program announcement today. If it were someone else I would believe he's doing it because it is worth doing.  I just hope it does inspire a few folks to get behind some real exploration.

I  have been an unabashed supporter of  space exploration since I was in elementary school back in the stone age.  I remember going to the  local theater  in  1968 (I was 13) and seeing a little movie called 2001:A Space Odyssey. This movie still stands out as probably the most realistic portrayal of  space flight on film.  I remember how spooky  it  was when Dave went out to fix the antenna  and the only noise was his labored breathing, the way Frank Pooles body continued rotating after he was murdered and pushed away from the Discovery  by HAL the paranoid  computer.

Most critics at the time found it boring and confusing, hippies found a great movie sequence to drug out on, but  it inspired a lot of awe and probably a few  future astronauts and scientists.  The year after  it was released we landed  Armstrong and Aldrin on the moon  and the future looked bright . But the people got bored with space and not much happened until the shuttle started flying. No moon bases, no flying cars, no trip to Mars.  What the hell happened?

Sorry if I sound maudlin, but damn it  I wanted to go to the moon when I grew up! Well I guess I can look at it this way , most people that know me think I'm 48 going on 14 anyway , so at this rate maybe I will get to go by the time I grow up.

p.s. If anyone wants to rant about the money  being better spent on something else,  please note that even with the very modest increase Bush is giving NASA, they still make up less than 1% of the federal budget.  I will be glad to point out a lot of other stupid ways our taxes get p**sed away.

[Mr_Vindictive]

You are 100% correct about 2001.  It is by far the most realistic portrayal of space to be put onto celluloid.  Beautiful well made film.  

As for going to space, my wife and I were recently watching a show about inventors on TechTV.  One of the inventors featured on the show had built his own personal rocket.  The rocket is large enough to fit one person, and actually pretty safe.  The guy also built his own centerfuge to get used to the high g-forces.  So, if you have a couple million then you could always become your own astronaut.



Side Note: While taking a Film Lit. class in high school, I noticed that 2001 had been marked off of the list of films we would be seeing.  I confronted the teacher about it after class and he said that although he loved the film, he decided not to show it for fear of boring the students.  

It is incredibly sad when you can't show 2001 to a group of students for fear of boredom.

[ulthar]

Interesting, since I was just thinking about this this morning.  I think our space program died with the Shuttle, more or less.  Don't get me wrong, I think the Shuttle has been a good program, but for whatever reason, our space 'exploration' program has become a 'do a launch to fix a broken satellite' program.

The successful landing and reception of pictures from Mars Rover has sparked imaginations again, but I fear it won't last.  As soon as the pictures start looking like all the others (ie, no signs of life), the 'public' will get bored.  I think they already are.  I mean, it has taken a week for the thing to crawl out of it's own crater.

In short, I think the problem with the public view (and hence the political ramifications) of our space program is that folks just don't have a concept of our complicated it is.  We have seen too many tv shows/movies like "Star Trek," "Star Wars," etc etc that completely gloss over the real engineering difficulties.  Getting an object TO Mars is no easy task.  Getting one to land on Mars is orders of magnitude harder.  Getting one to land intact and transmit pictures, harder yet again.

This 'understanding gap' became clear to me last year when STS 107 was lost.  So many people wanted a quick and easy answer, a single person (or very few) at which to point the blame, etc.  Deconstructing that accident was an ENORMOUS engineering problem that took man-years of effort.  Suggestions of 'why could they not eject and parachute down' by lay people told me just how sad a state our modern science education really is (I have taught college Chemistry and Physics off and on for the past ten years).

Like you, trek_geezer, I dreamed of going into space when I grew up.  I was only 4 when Armstrong touched his feet to the moon, but I do remember the Apollo missions, and images of them on my family tv.  It was awe inspiring.  That was one of those events experienced in my lifetime that was a HUMAN achievement, transcending race, nationality, etc.  I too am saddened by the fact that we went from first flight to man on moon in less than 70 years, but have not done much since.

Sad.

[ulthar]

2001 is a great movie - a real head scratcher, too.  Boring?  Not really.  I bet your teacher showed some other films of significance that were 'just as boring.'

The first time I saw it I was 18, and in the hospital.  I was all alone except for a nurse who came in to sit with me.  I did not know what was wrong with me, and while watching that movie, little did I know that within twelve hours I would "flatline."  The lonely, desparate mood of that movie has always stuck with me.

[Ash]

Would you believe that I have never seen 2001 ?

It was one of those that slipped through the cracks for me.

[Mr_Vindictive]

Ash you should really go hunt it down.  Fantastic film.

[Eirik]

Unlike a lot of people on this forum, I generally support Bush and I think he's doing as good a job as can be done in a lot of arenas.  But going back to the moon and landing on Mars?

Unlike some Democratic commentators, I can grasp the complexity of finding a skinny guy with a beard hiding in a mountainous, inhospitable nation of skinny guys with beards.  I think he's hunted Al Qaeda very well so far and am not critical of the efforts.  But let's concentrate on slaughtering the rest of these a***oles and then we'll talk about Mars.  Keep your eye on the ball, George.  Mars isn't going anywhere.

Oh, and I thought 2001 - the book and the movie - was boring.  But not as boring as the sequel.

[ulthar]

Eirik, I too am "pro Bush," at the very least on foreign policy.  However, I don't think the War on Terrorism and Space Exploration necessarily have to compete with each other for the President's attention.

First, the space program is something in which the president has virtually no direct involvement.  He says "we want to do this" and the rest is delegated.  Aside from making a few speeches to keep public support up, there is very little he does.

Second, it could be argued that the space program has implications for the military.  In gearing up for a Mars mission, we will have the opportunity to put better satellites into orbit and testing orbit-based weapons platforms (or counter battery platforms).  NASA has always been closely tied to the military, especially the Air Force which means SAC.  I believe a lot of the Shuttle missions have had some military significance.

Do we NEED space based military operations for the war on terror?  Well, probably not, but it could not hurt.  The big weapon in the war on terror is intelligence, and satellite technology is a big part of our intelligence gathering.  It ultimately comes down to human intel right now, but as I say, the technology cannot hurt and may help.

Finally, the concept of terrorism is largely a psychological one.  The things that defeat terrorism (not individual terrorists, which I agree have to be hunted down and killed) are a strong economy, a strong sense of national pride (which is not the same thing as thinking your country/government is perfect) and a somewhat unified population.  A strong space program will likely unify the US and make it that much harder for the terrorists to 'attack' us psychologically.   For a few moments in the 1960's (Glenn's first orbit, Armstrong on the moon), America was 'one' and our enemies took pause with the thought 'wow, look what they can do.'

[trekgeezer]

It's funny but during the 60's when I was growing up we took the Space Program from shooting a guy downrange a few hundred miles and picking him up to putting a man on the moon and bringing him  back.  During this same period the Viet Nam  went from simmering to full escalation, the Civil Rights was passed, schools were integrated, Medicare was put into place along with the Food Stamp program.

If we could do it then, we can do it now.  I keep hearing this is going to cost  from $750 billion to a trillion dollars (he actually is only increasing the NASA budget by about a billion right now), but this would be spread over an almost 30 year period, so I don't  think  the money argument flies.  We don't appear to have been too distracted back then, so I don't think we will be now.  

Although, as with anything suggested by a politician I am dubious of Bush's actual motives for bringing this up now, but I do hope it enough people get behind it to make it a reality.

[raj]

Even more so, a space program gives us a reason to keep going forward.  Getting rid of Bin Laden et al., is necessary for the short term, but long term we (as a species) need to keep growing.  Is getting rid of terrrorism just so that we can grow up, go to work, get married, have kids, die, and the kids grow up, go to work, get married, have kids. . . and so on.
   As for the argument that we must end poverty/disease/etc. first, well those things have been around for along time, and I doubt they'll ever be eliminated.  Did Ferdinand & Isabelle --coming off a war (against Moslems, no less) say they needed to get their house in order before backing Columbus?  No, and Spain benefitted immensely for about a century afterwards.  Plus, Bush is pledging more money to fight AIDS, especially in Africa.  No reason why we can't do multiple things.

I think a space program will help us in terms of new environmentally friendly technology, and its cost will force nations to work together; it is too expensive for the US to do alone, plus good ideas tech-wise are not just going to come from America.


2001 I got to see on the big screen in 1992(?); it is such a good movie on the big screen, I can't watch it on a tv.

[ulthar]

You raise a very interesting side point that I think is an issue in politics these days (perhaps moreso than in the past).  If Bush does something you agree with, do you say "good job" even if you (a) did not vote for him or would not vote for him again (b) disagree with his other policies and/or (c) just because he is a Republican and you are a Democrat?

[The "you" in the last paragraph is generic, not you Trek_geezer or any other individual].

The Court Nominations are a good example.  Estrada was endorsed by the ABA (traditionally viewed a dominantly liberal group) but was opposed by Senate Democrat, nearly down party lines.  It has been commented many times in the past year that many of our state legislature votes have split down party lines, moreso than in the past.  If this method of governance continues (voting party rather than ideal), is there really any 'hope?'

What aggravates me to no end is when politicians (and members of the public, for that matter) support a policy when it comes from 'their' party, but oppose it from the other side.  This has been seen many times in the War on Terrorism and its opposition.  If a Democrat supported military action when Clinton was in office, they darn well should support it now.  I think such flip flopping only kills one's credibility.  Completely.

Anyway, sorry to digress, your post just got me to thinking - that WAS its point, right??   :)

As for Bush's motivations, I think they are simple.  First, the time is right.  We are pretty much 'high' on the landing of the Rover and the cool pictures from Mars (especially after Beagle died).  Second, ramping up NASA will ramp up private sector contracts.  This means jobs:  Tech jobs.  Good for the economy, good for individuals.

[wickednick]

Im not as old as many of you, so I have to do alot of reading and research into finding out what happened in are history.The reason I think are space program changed from going to the moon to servicing satelites was:
 1.We beat Russia to the moon, which was are primary reason for pushing the space program.It became clear that Russia could not reach the moon, because there space program was so inept that the rocket they made to reach the moon never left launch site and blew up on sevral occasions, killing hundreds of people.
2. While the idea of going to the moon is cool, the missions we sent up there pretty much learned about as much as we can about it.Its bassiclly a big rock.And for the time there was no reason to go back. The space shuttle took perogative over the Apollo missions because now we needed to do experiments that couldn't be done while we were sending missions to the moon.
The tragedy with Columbia re-awakened a intrest in the space proggram.Many people have taken the space proggram as something that was routine, but as Jim Louvle(I probabbly misspelled his name) said "There is nothing routine about going to the moon".Its the same with anyone going into space.I was rather annoyed with many peoples reactions to the tragedy.Many were surprised by what happened and even began to question the validity of the space program.People have to realise that these tragedys will happen again, we can try to prevent them but we can not stop them.We have to support the space proggram despite the risks because it is the next leap for are species.
It is time that we start going back to the moon.We most prepare for are eventual trip to mars and the moon is the best place to test out new technologys.

[Scott]

I didn't get a chance to read all the post here, but I will soon.  I liked the Bush speech and his vision for the future. If the world dosn't go into a strange form of total human enslavement then he will be remembered as one of the greatest presidents in history. If Bush and his people are being up front then I believe all he has done so far is awesome. I just don't like the idea of giving Iraq and Afganistan back and perhaps they don't intend to. Hopefully.

Even with this space program the world(universe) still needs a true goal.

I'm still wondering if an alien harvest season isn't just before us. : ) They sure are fattening us up for something. Alot of useless eaters just taking up space. Makes you wonder. How far can the human population go. How many resources are available. Space is the only hope without infringing on human rights. Who knows what they will find out there. The Lewis and Clark anolagy is fitting for the space program. Don't you think?

[Prophet Tenebrae]

I have to say that honestly some of the things said in this thread probably show why more than a few of us are extremely worried about the US being a democratic republic and the most powerful nation in the world.

Give Iraq and Afghanistan back? George Bush one of the best presidents? Massive public expenditure good for the economy? I hold these truths to be less than self-evident.

While we could put a man on Mars - really, unless you're going to try and establish a proper colony there, what's the point? Just sending some people over there to suffer massive doses of radiation isn't really going to give you any real technical breakthroughs.

[Scott]

The idea would be to colonize Mars eventually, but first things first. As one astronauts said we need to get our DNA into outer space before a world disaster happens.

From "appearances" Bush is the greatest, but time will tell as those with the real financial powers in the world will prove more diabolique in the end. World leaders are the puppets of those who hold greater monetary intrest. The best slave is the one who believes he (or she) is free.