Is Bush's Moon-Mars Initiative a New Space Frontier?

[Phobos]

So, what do you think?

Here are some highlights (paraphrased from his speech)...

- Restart the shuttle program ASAP so the ISS can be completed by 2010.
- Focus ISS research on the effects of long-term space travel on humans.
- Retire the shuttle program in 2010.
- Develop and test a new spacecraft , the Crew Exploration Vehicle, by 2008, and to conduct the first manned mission no later than 2014 (to be used as a ferry to the ISS and also to go to the moon & Mars).
- Return to the moon by 2020, as the launching point for missions beyond. First, a series of robotic missions to the moon no later than 2008 to research and prepare for future human exploration.
- Do extended human missions to the moon as early as 2015, with the goal of living and working there for increasingly extended periods.
- A human mission to Mars would take place at an unspecified time thereafter when the necessary technology is in place and financing allows.

 

[Njorl]

Baby-boomers start turning 65 in 2011. It is absolutely ridiculous to think that the government will be increasing funding of any non-essential programs at that time. I would not be suprised if all non-commercial launches cease by then.

Bush's speech was not about a moonbase or a manned mission to Mars. It was about not paying attention to the world around you now. Considering how obvious this maneuver is, I am amazed that the vast majority of people have fallen for it.

Njorl

 

[mathman]

I haven't seen any polling data, but I have seen enough negative commentary that I doubt the vast majority of people have fallen for it. It is too obviously an election year gimmick that will get nowhere.

 

[Njorl]

I haven't seen any polling data either, but I also haven't read or heard any mainstream media come out and call it what it is. There are many, many stories in the mainstream media that obviously swallow the ploy hook, line and sinker. For every post to a blog or BB that calls this a political ploy, there are twenty excited about going to Mars.

Njorl

 

[Phobos]

Even if it's a political ploy, if it gets funded, NASA will go and do good science.

The Apollo moon missions were a political ploy too. Back then, competition with the USSR was the driving force. Now, we have several other countries eyeing moon missions and the U.S. not having left low Earth orbit in 30 years (except of course for many great robotic missions).

Certainly, the question funding is a good one. So far, Congress seems to agree with the plan (that too could be a political ploy).

Maybe we'll at least get (1) some more robotic missions & (2) a clearer purpose for the ISS.

 

[Phobos]

Bush Sr. tried to motivate a Mars mission too back when he was in office, but it never get funded & flopped. Perhaps this is W carrying another torch for his dad?

 

[Adrian Baker]

Is it political? A man leading in the polls with an approx 60% positive rating from the public? The democrats putting up no sensible candidate...
Maybe Bush is a visionary who sees the value of scientific endeavours? There surely aren't many votes in VAST expenditure on NASA.
Whatever the reason - I'm all for it! What was it Faraday said when asked what was the point of his research into electricity ... "what point is a baby?"

Politics, spin, deceit, visionary, whatever - I don't care.

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by Phobos
Maybe we'll at least get (1) some more robotic missions & (2) a clearer purpose for the ISS.

On the contrary, these things would probably have to be eliminated to make funding available for the manned flight program.

Njorl

 

[Njorl]

The more I consider it, the more I believe we should not got to Mars without a specific purpose in mind. People have pointed out that we went to the moon without a real purpose. They have stated that it is in our nature to dare to do great things just for the sake of it. I agree. I think it is one of the better aspects of our nature.

We went to the moon, primarily, to show we could do it. Some suggest we go to Mars for the same reason. I think it would be pointless. I have no doubt that we can send a man Mars. Going to the moon answered the question of whether it was possible or not. Going to Mars will answer only two questions - how long will it take, and how much money will it cost. Neil Armstrong walking on the moon was a living demonstration that the impossible was possible. Someone walking on Mars will be a living demonstration that the very difficult is very expensive. Is that worth it?

Njorl

 

[russ_watters]

I tend to agree with Njorl and think there are other things within the space program that would be a better use for the money. http://origins.jpl.nasa.gov/index1.html for example.

 

[selfAdjoint]

What do you think of the new idea that we should cut the cost of going to Mars by just leaving the personnel there (and resuppluing them with robot drops). The purpose of such a project would be to establish a permanent human inhabitation of Mars and to determine the human problems that woul arise from such a thing.

I am sure that this purpose would not impress you, because you are fixed on the idea that scientific knowledge outweighs unquantifiable human aspirations. But it is still a purpose, you can't deny.

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
What do you think of the new idea that we should cut the cost of going to Mars by just leaving the personnel there (and resuppluing them with robot drops). The purpose of such a project would be to establish a permanent human inhabitation of Mars and to determine the human problems that woul arise from such a thing.

I just heard about this yesterday for the first time. My first reaction was shock and disbelief. Then I was rather impressed with the ambitiousness of it. It would actually outdo unmanned efforts in "bang for the buck" scientifically speaking, if we could pull it off. Keep in mind, space is unforgiving to biological organisms. Prolonged survival requires nothing serious going wrong for a long time. As we have seen in space so far, it is easier to do something magnificent in the short term than to avoid mistakes in the long term. It would also be condemning the astronauts to die on Mars many years before they would have died on Earth.

I am sure that this purpose would not impress you, because you are fixed on the idea that scientific knowledge outweighs unquantifiable human aspirations. But it is still a purpose, you can't deny.

You misunderstood me. I did not say that doing something glorious is not worthwhile. I said that sending a man to Mars is not glorious.

Njorl

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
What do you think of the new idea that we should cut the cost of going to Mars by just leaving the personnel there (and resuppluing them with robot drops). The purpose of such a project would be to establish a permanent human inhabitation of Mars and to determine the human problems that woul arise from such a thing.

I am sure that this purpose would not impress you, because you are fixed on the idea that scientific knowledge outweighs unquantifiable human aspirations. But it is still a purpose, you can't deny.

That would increase the cost by an order of magnitude (or two) even if we weren't planning on ever bringing them back or sending anyone else there to follow them. And what would we do when they turn 90 and need a pacemaker? You might be able to send some guys to Mars (its a 5 year round trip at least) in a craft the size of an RV, but if you're going to leave them there, you need it to be a lot bigger than that.

More on what Njorl was getting at:
I think people forget where we were technologically in 1961 when Kennedy made his speech. We had just put our first person in space several weeks before and Sputnik was only 4 years earlier. We didn't really even know if it was theoretically possible to send someone to the moon at the time. So many things had never been done - landing anything on another world, navigating in orbit (getting to orbit), navigating in deep space, rendezvous, eva, living in 0g for extended times, and lots more issues we didn't even know about. ANY of those issues could have been a party crasher and today, none of them exist. There is nothing distinctly new about sending a man to Mars, its just an extension of existing capability.

That said, its a big extension, but we are already sure it can be done.

 

[mouseonmoon]

got a variey of ideas in response

"we" need better robots-not another golf course!

Rock stars and the rich vacation on the Moon
at the expense of the masses=forget disease
and ignorance
If the old folks die off quickly-saves Big money

Put some real effort into Fusion

and the dddd traffic jams

seriously,
it's really all a cover for "war games"=
(surprised Gerge didn't come out and say
we're looking for Ladin and his 'stash'...

furthermore,
maybe we better get up there and put a 'real flag'
on the Moon before the Chinese get there and
prove Nixon was a liar!

check this site out, a real hoot! worth -3,2 min.

http://moontruth.com/clips/moontruth.mpg

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by mouseonmoon
maybe we better get up there and put a 'real flag'
on the Moon before the Chinese get there and
prove Nixon was a liar!

Just to be clear - do you actually believe that?

 

[mouseonmoon]

russ asked above
-----
"Just to be clear - do you actually believe that?"
----------

Do I "believe" Nixon was a liar? I certainly do-quite serious about it too!
but to continue would be way off topic...

(btw,are you serious?)

Seems the consensus here is , in spite of the 'rally round the Flag, boys,
hip,hip hooray, let's go ' speech---no one's fallen for it...

i remember Rev. Jesse Jackson giving a speech against the space program on
the 'grounds' that we had too many problems here-the poor etc.
and my response to this then was -'you're losin it'...

i'm for the Space program-i'm for more monies for NASA
(in spite of the reality that it is heavily influenced by 'hawks'-
heck,consider how many Shuttle missions are 'secret')

and it's a good point that 'things will change' in the future-so it's
just politics' now, but NASA will get some bucks...
.
yet 'they' (powers that be) will get the bigger slice...
obviously I'm a little jaded.

yeah, I'm for it but i don't believe it-trust me
every body will lie to you!
(insert ironic smiley face!)

anyway,bottom line, today i think the costs of any 'manned' mission
(heck, even a Lesbian mission) would be absurd!

Hope I've clarified my 'position',
and Russ_,hope you really check out
the MOON Truth!

btw: where did the craters on the Moon come from?
hint: the greenest tastes best

=====
edit:added quote at top

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by mouseonmoon
Hope I've clarified my 'position',
and Russ_,hope you really check out
the MOON Truth!

Well, you really didn't answer the question - a simple question requires a simple yes or no answer. I think I know the answer though.

In any case, that was a clever video - not a very good fake, but clever anyway.

 

[mouseonmoon]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Well, you really didn't answer the question - a simple question requires a simple yes or no answer. . .

yes or no is kinda like either /or...
life ain't that simple

and, you obviously didn't "explore"...
try this: take it to "dot com"-

(guess i'll have to clarify-try "moontruth.com"
i think you may 'really' get a better picture,
trust me!)
don't be scared!

you didn't answer my question either,btw...

best!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Mars Mission a Trojan Horse?

"Everyone here this morning is sobering up," McCurdy said, characterizing the scene Thursday in Washington. "There was a lot of celebration in the space community last night, but now they're realizing what they've gotten themselves into. Because of the deal they've had to cut, there will (be) no new funding at least for the near term, and perhaps the long term.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,61937,00.html

 

[ZZ Boson]

Looking ahead, a Moon base would provide a safer place to refuel nuclear space craft, such as Promethius. Launching large amounts of nuclear fuel from Earth will always be a real bad idea, as one little untimely explosion might muck-up the Van Allen belt for eternity +/-.

So, if the US, er NASA could build a nuclear mining and refining facility on the Moon, it would provide an endless supply of power for many purposes.
And jobs...
Hmmm...
Yeow!

 

[Phobos]

mouseonmoon - Don't start a moon-hoax discussion in this topic. Start a new topic if you want (or, better yet, go to the PF archives). thanks

 

[Phobos]

Originally posted by Njorl
On the contrary, these things would probably have to be eliminated to make funding available for the manned flight program.

The more I think about it, the more I agree. Unless there is a significant goal to have a human presence on Mars now, then the money would probably be better spent on other NASA programs. (Eventually, it may make more sense when spaceflight is cheaper, etc.)
But part of me would really like to see it happen in my lifetime!

 

[LURCH]

Originally posted by ZZ Boson


So, if the US, er NASA could build a nuclear mining and refining facility on the Moon, it would provide an endless supply of power for many purposes.
And jobs...
Hmmm...
Yeow!

I don't think mining would be possible. It's believed that the Moon has very little in the way of metals, and especially the heavier metals. However, it might be safe to launch Uranium in its natural state, and enrich it on the Moon. This way, vehicles with nuclear propulsion systems would never be launched from Earth. Enriched Uranium could be used for propulsion of interplanetary craft (launched from the lower gravity of a Lunar base), And the depleted uranium left over could be used for contruction.

 

[selfAdjoint]

What the Moon apparently does have a lot of is Helium 3, which would make a very good nonpolluting medium for controlled thermonuclear fusion. I would say that if and when fusion is proven to be possible on commercial scales and cost-effective, then it will be cost-effective to import Helium 3 from the Moon.

 

[Phobos]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
What the Moon apparently does have a lot of is Helium 3, which would make a very good nonpolluting medium for controlled thermonuclear fusion. I would say that if and when fusion is proven to be possible on commercial scales and cost-effective, then it will be cost-effective to import Helium 3 from the Moon.

Isn't that step 1 of Pres. Bush's space initiative? Invent cold fusion?

 

[Nereid]

The most depressing news ever

Originally posted by Adrian Baker
Is it political? A man leading in the polls with an approx 60% positive rating from the public? The democrats putting up no sensible candidate...
Maybe Bush is a visionary who sees the value of scientific endeavours? There surely aren't many votes in VAST expenditure on NASA.
Whatever the reason - I'm all for it! What was it Faraday said when asked what was the point of his research into electricity ... "what point is a baby?"

Politics, spin, deceit, visionary, whatever - I don't care.

I would be soooo glad to eat my hat (or perform some equally meaningless, public, humiliating act) if I'm wrong, but Dubya now announcing a goal of a man on Mars has made me sooo depressed; bye-bye GLAST, Pluto-Kuiper Express, JWST, ... Yes the announcement of Hubble's demise was entirely on the cards, but do you think a man (yes, he's not a woman) as smart as Mr K.R. wouldn't have taken that into account?

Adrian, your dreams (seems they're much the same as mine) are dead! 'Tis a black, black day.

Bush? a scientific visionary? Show me ONE THING in his record which supports your hypothesis!

Votes? I've got four words for you: "Florida, Texas, Karl Rove"

 

[Nereid]

mouseonmoon wrote: maybe we better get up there and put a 'real flag' on the Moon before the Chinese get there

Thank you mouse, thank you, thank you, thank you

Bush, the alpha male, competing even now against the long-dead JFK. Just as with JFK ('to hell with science; we've got to beat those *** Ruskies!'), so maybe with Bush (after all, Condie has surely done the numbers; the US's 'day in the Sun' has passed its noon; China's turn is a'comin').

If Dubya has his eye on history - can't let JFK get bigger and better write-ups in the history books, right? (I'm told it's a male thing) - then eyeballing Hu Jintao over the Moon and Mars (how many months is it since Long March 2F carried Yang Liwei into orbit?) makes a whole lot more sense than George W suddenly understanding the deep importance of planetary science and astronomy.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
What the Moon apparently does have a lot of is Helium 3, which would make a very good nonpolluting medium for controlled thermonuclear fusion. I would say that if and when fusion is proven to be possible on commercial scales and cost-effective, then it will be cost-effective to import Helium 3 from the Moon.

That's a big "if". I also don't think mining anything from space will ever be cost effective considering the cost of getting it back to Earth (currently $10,000/pound if its in LEO).

However, it might be safe to launch Uranium in its natural state, and enrich it on the Moon. This way, vehicles with nuclear propulsion systems would never be launched from Earth.

The scale of what Bush is proposing is at least an order of magnitude increase in NASA funding - probably considerably more. The scale of what you guys are talking about it as at least an order of magnitude more than that. I just don't see the US devoting a trillion dollars a year to such an endeavour any time in the next 50 years.

Maybe the commercial exploitation of fusion power (if it ever happens) will result in a second industrial revolution, but again - looooong way off.

 

[qwantum_phlux]

im all for space exploration don't get me wrong...

poor economy, 'war' with iraq, goose chase for bin laden, building an illegal oil pipeline to uzbeqistan to ship oil to the chinese market...

and now
He wants a summer home for mega corperations to lay claim to the moon
sounds like america is on the 'rght' path

 

[Adrian Baker]

Originally posted by Nereid

.....
Adrian, your dreams (seems they're much the same as mine) are dead! 'Tis a black, black day.

Bush? a scientific visionary? Show me ONE THING in his record which supports your hypothesis!

Hmmm... now that is what I call a challenge! I think you've got me there

 

[mouseonmoon]

State of the Union

"too many steroids"...

(agh, excuse me,but...Manned Mission to Mars...)

i repeat..."a real Flag..."

(at least 'one' person understands me!)

thanks!

thought i was 'alone' ...

 

[Phobos]

Originally posted by Nereid
Bush? a scientific visionary? Show me ONE THING in his record which supports your hypothesis!

Well, he supports research for more oil drilling in Alaska.

(Yes, I'm kidding.)

 

[LURCH]

Originally posted by Nereid


Bush? a scientific visionary? Show me ONE THING in his record which supports your hypothesis!

I've been looking for somewhere where Bush is referred to as "a scientific visionary". To whose hypothesis are you alluding?

Also, much has been made in this Topic about the idea that Bush may be doing what he's doing just to get votes. Isn't that what he is supposed to do? It is the job of the president of a democratic nation to actualize the will of the people. The people make their will known by voting for the candidate whose programs most closely match that will. If Bush gains votes with all his talk of reinstituting a manned space program, then a manned space program must be what the American people want.

 

[Nereid]

LURCH,
Adrian said: "Maybe Bush is a visionary who sees the value of scientific endeavours?" This is his hypothesis. I asked him to provide evidence to support it.

LURCH: Also, much has been made in this Topic about the idea that Bush may be doing what he's doing just to get votes. Isn't that what he is supposed to do?

Of course. What made me depressed is 'the vision thing'. If he had the vision, he'd work on a policy that would have a reasonable chance of success, and if he were to continue in office (or influence those who followed him), there's a fighting chance the vision would see the light of day.

OTOH, if he's merely a vote-seeking automaton, given that a 'man on Mars' is hugely expensive, would take decades to realize, and kill funds for almost all other space science (look at the Shuttle, the ISS), can you construct a realistic scenario under which serious space-based science grows?

LURCH: If Bush gains votes with all his talk of reinstituting a manned space program, then a manned space program must be what the American people want.

The American people's wants cannot be manufactured? The leader is purely passive? The leader has no agenda other than 'do the will of the American people'??

 

[jimbot]

Mars? Nah

But the moon, on the other hand, makes sense. Look back to history, how many cities started off as a lonely fort in a hostile environment? This could start a new land rush, gold boom, etc. But I seriously doubt that hookers or moon shiners will be the first civies there

On a serious note, I would think that someone could produce new alloys, uncontaminated by trace elements that are unavoidably added by smelting in our atmosphere. This could be one of many reasons for colonizing the moon.