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.
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.
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.
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.
Would you believe that I have never seen 2001 ?
It was one of those that slipped through the cracks for me.
Ash you should really go hunt it down. Fantastic film.
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.
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.'
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Prophet Tenebrae wrote:
> Just sending some people over there to suffer massive doses of
> radiation isn't really going to give you any real technical
> breakthroughs.
I think this is an extremely short sited comment. The very act of TRYING to put a man on Mars, even if it is not accomplished within 100 years, will almost certainly advance our technological knowledge in ways we cannot even dream at this point.
We have people in space now for extended periods of time, so I doubt protecting against radiation is a big issue. Mars is farther from the sun than Earth, so radiation density would decrease as the trip is made if a simple orbital transfer is done.
Prophet Tenebrae wrote:
> Massive public expenditure good for the economy? I
> hold these truths to be less than self-evident.
>
Sorry, I went back and reread your post, and wanted to clarify something. You obviously don't understand how 'public' research works in the US.
NASA is a large government agency that essentially provides the administration and organization roles, but much of the actual R&D work, as well as manufacturing, is done by PRIVATE contractors. So yes, a public INVESTMENT (not expenditure) does in fact translate to good for the overall US economy.
Also, the economy benefits by improvements in manufacturing processes (the clean room stuff developed for satellite assembly was adapted to that needed to make small cpu's for cheap microcomputers, for example), new products, better engineered materials, etc, etc ,etc.
You cannot distill a cost to benefit ratio to simply "how much did it cost the budget this year" in a realistic analysis of a 20-50 year project.
Okay, fair points on the value of the Space program and our ability to walk and chew gum at the same time. I'll concede the point.
wyckednick, a history lesson: The Soviet space program put a satellite up first, they put a man up first, they put a lasting space station up first. They also beat us to a lot of other less spectacular milestones in the space race. That we got to the moon first is a great testament to us, not because the Russians were "inept."
Eirik if you do a little research on the Soviets space program, you will find that they were very inept.They may have put a satelite and a man up there first but they have had more fatalitys and failures with there space program than we ever did.The reason they decided to put a space station up, was largely due to their inability to get the rocket that was supposed to take them to the moon off the launch pad.
You also have to realise that we did everything they did in a far shorter amount of time.Shortly after they sent up their satelite, we sent up one of are own,shortly after they put a man in space we also put a man in space.The reason we got to the moon first was the countinous failures in their own space proggram.
wyked, they beat us in several races and no excuse making can change that. It wasn't like Sputnik was orbited and suddenly we decided to do it to and did so a few months later. We were working just as long - if not longer - than them to get a satellite and a man up there, and they did it first. And I wouldn't call hitting a snag in space travel "ineptness." There were tons of people on each side who had a genius you or I couldn't even begin to comprehend. Their failures weren't because the scientists were inept, it was because they were treading on totally new ground and pioneering technologies and methods with no practical basis. Bottom line: the Soviet space program is a source of great national pride in Russia, and deservedly so.
Frankly, I think the fact that their scientists did what they did in a political environment so harsh on creativity, innovation, and free thinking makes them all the more amazing. Give the devil his due.
ulthar wrote:
> We have people in space now for extended periods of time, so I
> doubt protecting against radiation is a big issue. Mars is
> farther from the sun than Earth, so radiation density would
> decrease as the trip is made if a simple orbital transfer is
> done.
Just one quibble, it isn't necessarily solar radiation that we need to be concerned about (though there is that too), but things like cosmic rays which originate outside of the solar system. Shielding against that (and things such as solar flares) is a big problem, when you want to lift all that mass off the earth and get it moving; think lots of lead.
Ben Bova wrote a pretty good novel on this, called Mars.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/055356241X/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-1195231-9337618#reader-link
Read the Mars series by Kim Stanley Robinson, it has a lot of good science plus a lot of political intrigue.
raj wrote:
> ulthar wrote:
>
>
> Just one quibble, it isn't necessarily solar radiation that we
> need to be concerned about (though there is that too), but
> things like cosmic rays which originate outside of the solar
> system. Shielding against that (and things such as solar
> flares) is a big problem, when you want to lift all that mass
> off the earth and get it moving; think lots of lead.
>
Most of the radiation does indeed come from the sun. Radiation density decays as the inverse square of the distance from it's source; since the sun is by far the closest source to us, it is our biggest 'worry.'
Cosmic rays are more technically called gamma rays, which are a by-product of the sun's fusion reaction. True, there is background radiation from other parts of the galaxy, but that is generally small compared to what we receive from the sun.
I think it would be better to continue the shuttle program than to focus on landing people on the moon again or putting someone on Mars. A lot of good has come from the shuttle program over the years.
>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.
One thing I always wondered about; Why is it that for a few thousand dollars, the car companies can build a truck that will travel over rough terrain, through mud and water etc, at speeds up to 50+ MPH, all with relatively little maintenance required. NASA spends several million dollars to build something 1/10 the size, that travels at about 10 feet per hour, gets stuck on anything bigger than a golf ball and will fail if it gets bumped with about the same force as someone kicking it.
Now I know that building something to work in an airless enviroment, or on another planet is a little more complex than building your average SUV, but it seems to me that they should be able to come up with something a little sturdier than what they have now. I mean, it only has like a 90 day life or so. Why can't they use solar panels to recharge the batteries and keep the thing working for the next year or so?
JohnL wrote:
> Why can't they use solar panels to recharge the batteries and
> keep the thing working for the next year or so?
You really cannot power much on solar panels; electronics are one thing, but actuators and motors use a lot of current. Here on Earth, they need to be quite large to generate much useful power (100's of watts), and the radiation density on Mars is even less.
On the other hand, we are still receiving data from Voyager (I read about this a week or so ago), and that spacecraft has less the solar system completely. It is amazing some of the data it is transmitting.
I wonder how much of the slowness is data collection? I read that the soil mechanics where Spirit deployed is different from anything encountered here on Earth (or at least anything understood). I wonder if they go slow to get lots of pictures, and lots of readings with the various spectrometers that are on board.
JohnL wrote:
> One thing I always wondered about; Why is it that for a few
> thousand dollars, the car companies can build a truck that will
> travel over rough terrain, through mud and water etc, at speeds
> up to 50+ MPH, all with relatively little maintenance required.
> NASA spends several million dollars to build something 1/10 the
> size, that travels at about 10 feet per hour, gets stuck on
> anything bigger than a golf ball and will fail if it gets
> bumped with about the same force as someone kicking it.
>
There are a couple answers to your question.
1. A car is built very solid, much more solid than the rovers we send. The reason are space craft and the rovers that acompany them are so fragile is because of weight consederations.Sure Nasa could build a two ton land vehicle to roam around on mars, but it would be far harder to launch the vehicle into space and more expensive.
2.You have to understand that mars is millions of miles aways.At the speed of light a radio signal coming from mars to earth, or from earth to mars takes about 10 minutes.When the rover is moving about on mars, all the information on what it is seeing and doing is delayed, so that if there is a problem with the rover, by the time we know what happened it often to late.
Thats why it moves so slow.If there is a problem with were it is going we can catch it faster and stop it from running into a rock or a big hole.
The rover is also not very smart.It can do some very simple atempts to avoid a object and keep its self on the wheels, but its largly up us to determine were it is to go.
You know, in the 6th grade we had a project to build a "space lander" that would be dropped from a second story window onto concrete with an egg in it. If your egg didn't break, you would get a good grade. My project had a small central compartment for the egg and was surrounded by inflated balloons. My egg did not break, but the teacher only gave me a B, stating that it was much to unwieldy and cumbersome and would likely not work in reality. Twenty years later, my unwieldy, cumbersome idea that would not likely work in reality landed a rover on freaking Mars! F%&$ YOU, MR. ANTANORE!!
Prophet Tenebrae wrote:
> 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.
You know, I was just reading through this thread, and I wasn't going to comment until I got to the end, I really wasn't. But I can't pass this up. I just can't.
We are currently an occupying force in Iraq and Afghanistan. Weather you like it or not, or weather you like the decisions that were made that got us here or not, that's the current circumstance. In this case, I mean "we" as in the coalition forces that took up the war on Iraq/Terrorism, not just America.
What do you want us to do, then? Hold on to the countries? Envelope them into our "empire"? (A section has been edited from this post due to the fact that it was very, very rude.) It's not really America's style, though. We tend to ask for only enough land to bury our dead. Hell, with modern means of transport, we most likely won't even ask for that anymore.
So, the nations will be "given back" to their people. At least, if America has any say in the matter they will.
As far as there being no point in expanding the space program - wait, I need to re-quote you here, since I can't even believe you said it...
"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."
Yeah. Wow. Okay, everything from Tang to modern athletic shoes to artificial hearts came out of the space program. It's just plain (and I AM sorry for saying this) ignorant to think that the process of taking a man to Mars and back won't spawn enormous technological innovations.
And, finally - Bush may not go down as one of our greatest presidents. I got may own doubts about that. But as far as massive expenditures - NASA represents - even after the budget increase - less than 1% of the United States national budget. I guess that's still a lot of money - but it's definately not enough, comparatively speaking, for me to put up with your snide remarks without comment. "I hold these truths..." How very clever. How very droll.
Eirik said:
>Twenty years later, my unwieldy, cumbersome idea that would not likely work in >reality landed a rover on freaking Mars! F%&$ YOU, MR. ANTANORE!!
That's funny. I mean it - that's bloody hilarious.
trek_geezer wrote:
> 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 guess i can't help but find humor in it. Just a couple of years ago his #1 priority was spending $7 billion dollars to put missiles in space