 |
|
« Is the Mobile Workforce Working? | Main | Light Friday: The We're-Heading-Into-The-Abyss Special Edition »
August 11, 2005
The Moon/Mars Mission: "Take-Off Is Planned for the Year 2020, or Later if They Let Dubya Do the Final Countdown from 10 to Lift-Off."
With media coverage of the recent Discovery mission fresh in our minds, let's consider primarily the Moon element of President George W. Bush's plan to send astronauts to Mars.
The headline quote is from an article in The Guardian, UK, entitled Bush's Mars Plan Attacked. (Referenced below, that article is hysterically funny and so well done that I won't quibble about years: 2018 vs. 2020). We all know Bush wants to send astronauts to Mars. Where does the Moon come into it?
Paraphrased and excerpted from an excellent article, NASA Sets Its Sights on Mars…
The Moon is NASA's first step leading to a six-person voyage to Mars. The NASA plan is to "build a lunar outpost, most likely at the south pole, the living quarters, power plants and communications systems." Astronauts will scour the landscape for supplies, bounce around in high-tech clown cars searching for the answers to scientific riddles. Leaving the moon, the 'nauts will utilize new rockets derived from those of the Shuttle fleet, and parachute back to earth in capsules similar to those used during the Apollo program. The Moon deal is to be a precursor to a 500-day expedition to Mars.
Here's a rundown of some of the details of the plan:
• Estimates indicate that the program will cost $217B through 2025. NASA's overall budget is expected to reach about $17B in 2006. If the agency averages only $20B annually during the next twenty years, it will receive a total of $400B.
• Initial launches will be unmanned.
• Shuttle-derived rocket boosters would be used based on lower costs and better lifting ability.
• Five of the Shuttle's main engines—and larger versions of its main rocket engines—would power the launcher. Comparable to the cost of a Shuttle flight, each Moon launch is estimated to cost $540M.
• A giant booster, or Earth Departure Stage, would be designed from the Shuttle's fuel tank and equipped with an upgraded pair of the same engines used on the Saturn 5's upper stages.
• Engineers are already developing a cone-shaped CEV (Crew Exploration Vehicle), a 12-ton capsule/command module similar to those of Apollo. Instead of the Apolloesque water splashdown, however, the new CEV will 'thump down on land.'
• The ships could transport cargo to the Lunar Outpost and larger, future versions would take four people to the moon and six-person crews to Mars.
• In June, NASA awarded a pair of $28M contracts to Lockheed Martin and a Northrop-Grumman-Boeing team to design the new ships. One of these proposals will be selected in March.
• Engineers are 'looking at designs' for the lander that will carry astronauts from lunar orbit to the moon's surface and back. Maybe this one will disturb some of the moon dust upon landing.
Some of the media commentary about the Mars plan is interesting, to say the very least, ranging from it being a grand distraction from Iraq and the deficit, for example, to a political gimmick. The Palestinian Authority said, "The U.S. is preparing for the invasion of Mars and other planets. … What are the other planets chosen for the U.S. invasion? Are they an axis of planetary evil?" A columnist for Australia's Age said in regard to the enormous price tag, "If it doesn't get spent on travel to Mars, it'll go for bombs and freeways, not education and healthcare." Canada chimed in, of course, with one Globe and Mail columnist spitting, "Oh what possible use to humanity are the Moon and Mars? Both are barren, lifeless places, with conditions utterly inhospitable to human habitation." Austria's Der Standard said, "A national mission to a faraway place where glory awaits and no rebel movement lurks…and portray the President as a peaceful visionary." India, of course, was very positive about the plan, as the country will no doubt reap millions in outsourcing contracts.
Slate's Carl Shrag, formerly the editor of the Jerusalem post, wrapped it up nicely, in a 'voice' with which I can only hope to someday compete…
"The Indian enthusiasm is refreshing in a sea of global media cynicism. If not for them, how would we know that some of those famous red rocks have been named after cartoon characters—including Scooby Doo and Barnacle Bill—or that Total Recall is just one of 20 Hollywood films that have featured Mars and Martians? If that isn't enough to make you want to sign up for the six-month journey to the red planet, maybe nothing is."
Stay tuned for "How Can We Go Back to the Moon If We Never Went in the First Place?" Wow. Is this fun or what?!
READING ROOM
NASA Sets Its Sights on Mars
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002430794_moon10.html
Mission to Mars Is as Exciting as Looking at Rocks
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2004/01/18/2003091871
Bush's Mars Plan Attacked
http://slate.msn.com/id/2094103/
Bush to Seek Manned Flights to Moon, Mars
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/09/bush.space/
Let's Go Back to the Moon!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/164660.stm
Epilogue: When Might We Go Back to the Moon?
http://www.solarviews.com/eng/apoepi.htm
Forward to the Moon – Why We Should Go Back There
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/Columnists/danamackenziecolumn1.htm
Should We Go Back to the Moon?
http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=890
Should Astronauts Go Back to the Moon and Mars?
(Time Question of the Week, with reader responses.)
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,575159,00.html
Moon Has Space For Us...
http://www.news24.com/News24/Technology/News/0,,2-13-1443_1689082,00.html
First Class to the Moon
(Space Flight Commercialization)
http://www.news24.com/News24/Technology/News/0,6119,2-13-1443_1595590,00.html
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://news.thomasnet.com/mt41/mt-tb.cgi/151
|
Advertisement
|
Comment
34 CommentsWhy is any of this considered remotely humorous? After reading this article and the one it referenced as being so funny, I have yet to even crack a smile, let alone elicit a giggle or laugh. While space exploration is essential, in our supercharged political times, it is merely another polarizing subject.
Sadly, it seems like those arab voices quoted cannot even agree with the West on how to feed hungry people, let alone explore the universe. When will civility and concern for the common good return?
August 11, 2005 2:32 PMMars may offer international opportunities for political recognition for certain members of our government. It does not recognize nor benefit the 40 million children without health insurance or the millions of families living below the poverty level in the richest nation in the world. Where are the compassionate conservatives who espouse family values in order to gain office? Why do our religious organizations support the unchristian actions of this administration?
If we stay here we die. Our hope for survival as a species lies out there, in the cosmos - unless of course we learn to live in harmony with one another and the planet. Like I said, if we stay here we die. As far as GW's plan to back to the moon and then to Mars, I'll wait for someone who shows a bit more dedication to the idea and ideal, and has a plan to fund it. I think that comercial interests will be the impetus that really gets the ball rolling as far as space exploration is concerned, and the moon or Mars won't be their first targets. Think a little further out. The astroid belt with all it's mineable minerals, and the moons of the gas giants with all their available fuel sources. Or maybe it will be the Chinese that beat us to all of it, because they're not spending half their GDP on defense, or half brained schemes to control the middle east oil supply.
August 16, 2005 1:11 PMWhat it comes down to is this: Earth is a cradle and not a tomb.
Despite an overabundance of one-dimensional problems (many of them self-imposed by Man), we still live in a four-dimensional universe. It is our duty -- as both stewards and the best hope for the planet -- to guarantee the survival of life beyond its present planetary boundaries.
Every one of us alive today is an inheritors of a destiny guaranteed by an unbroken line of succession. Any break in that line -- anywhere -- and we would not be here. We owe it to those who passed the mantle to us to continue that relentless and successful march of life.
Don't like that line of reasoning? Then do it for the dinosaurs. Help guarantee the survival of the planet, because they couldn't.
If we are still trapped on this two-dimensional surface by one-dimensional problems when the Sun swells, then no one will care who won the Pulitzer Prize in 2005, or the Nobel Prize in 1926, or Super Bowl XL.
It's a big universe out there. Let's get off the planet.
Between now and the time the Earth is pummelled by an asteroid, flamed by the Sun, or gamma-rayed by a distant supernova, let's keep our cradle intact long enough to leave it behind when we reach for the stars.
Reaching the stars is not necessary for one-dimensional constructs.
But for living, four-dimensional creatures, it is an imperative.
August 16, 2005 1:22 PMI think Bush needs to come back down to earth and have our educational needs and unemployment rate handled first. I come to realize if our goverment can waste money it will!
August 16, 2005 2:10 PMMost of the posts remind me of the thought patterns in the 60's, and if we hadn't gone to the moon back then, none of us would typing on our computers now, because they wouldn't exist!
40 million uninsured children, I don't think so, but if there are 40 million uninsured people in this country its probably because 80% of them don't belong here, a.k.a. illegal aliens, sorry but if parents can't afford their children, why are they having them?!
Double the NASA budget every year for the next 5 or 6 years, by getting rid of the federal EPA and dept. of Education, and lets get the show on the road. USA #1. Keith
What I can't understand is why all of the complainers about the space program who can't connect the dots and see the results from the technologys developed for the space program will have a more than 100 fold payback to our community after they are finally transfered and used by the priviate sector and enhance our living conditions and economic standards. Spinoffs from prior space programs are computers, calculators, digital watches, digital optical technologys, computer memory equipment, CNC metal working, a host of new metal alloys, new ceramic materials and technologys, composite materials for aircraft, and a lot of other unlisted technology spinoffs. The GI education bill after WW 2 and the space program starting in the late 1950's transformed America to a degree that was unprecedented before in history. Continuing to fund space research will have a technological, social, and economic paybacks beyond what any prognosticator of the future could even dream about when the technologys are finally transfered to the market and everyday use by members of the public. Going to war has in the past been the fastest way to get new technology to enter the market, the second best way has been through the previous space programs and the technology transfer from the space programs has had a far greater effect in our lives (and for the better) than going to war.
August 16, 2005 4:34 PM Consider that the Helium 3 Isotope, a fusion energy source, is abundant on the surface of the moon and will pay for all exploration there.
Reference:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/helium3_000630.html
"Back to the Moon", Hickam
Save Hubble first!
August 16, 2005 6:03 PMThe Mars mission is a political boondoggle,
Geared to keep a select few employed at the expense of millions. Regardless of what the economists are saying; this country will be in a recession within the next six months. This country needs jobs for the masses. We need to learn to live on this planet and conserve our resourses. The cost of living on a planet with a hostile environment is ludicrous.
Let's see, spin offs from the Moon/Mars project which might indirectly benefit us in the short to intermediate term vs. a focused program to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil with all of the immediate, direct and indirect benefits of doing so.
You decide which has the better return on investment.
August 16, 2005 7:46 PMWhy don't we ask our kids what they feel about this? They are the ones who will 'inherit' the results of this decision.
It is our duty to give them a positive vision for the future and what better than a mission to Mars?
I recall how the whole world was excited about the moon landings decades back. It had a very positive influence on humankind. Wars, conflicts, rising prices, etc. existed even back then and will continue to do so in future but that did not prevent a few enterprising individuals from dreaming big, living their dream and giving hope to millions across the globe.
There are a whole lot of people who are going to have to work very very hard to make this a reality. A little positive support from all of us will help them and us.
Nobel endevavor to go were no man has gone before?
But in light of the problems here on our world
Mr.Bush should considre rebuilding the middle class first, make health care for all peaple mandatory and try a new approach to get along
with (the) other folks..
Get the economy going in the right direction and save,encourage to save! soo one day in the future (We) people can say Yes Mr.President it is a great idee to go to Mars.
I personally dream of seeing the first manned mission to Mars. However, I see it as low on the priority list of things that really need to be done on this world before we can extend further out. Let's set a smaller goal of returning to the Moon first, and setting up a research and development colony there. Then, in due time we can launch a Mars mission from there, using local minerals and materials from the Moon, and have only a fraction of the gravity well to contend with that we would have directly from Earth.
On the other hand, we have the problems of social and economic implication to be concerned with. Several of the comments already posted indicate that we need to solve these prior to going to the planets and stars. We have really diverse ideas on how to go about solving these problems. Social injustice, global warming, lack of economic opportunity, ... the list is awesome to contemplate.
The real problem we have with all of these is generally how to solve them when we have self-seeking individuals trying to feather their own nests in the process. We seldom have people in charge of making the decisions that don't have a personal opinion of how to fix things. Often that opinion is wrong, and the "cure" can sometimes be worse than the condition it's supposed to fix.
There will never be progress in the right direction until those responsible for finding the right answers will seek those answers with the interests of humanity in general most firmly imbedded in their minds.
I agree with those who think that only education will ever help us to solve the problems that confront us all. Help to get everyone a first-class education from kindergarten through high school. Get unions out of the education business, because they and opinionated "educators" are the greatest impediments to a proper education that exist. When we finally realize that we need to get back to basics, (Readin', wRitin', and aRithmetic) and then let the kids find their own social agenda (instead of having it pushed on them by an over- liberal educational establishment), is when we will start to make progress.
What does this have to do with a Mission to Mars? Nothing and everything. The social agenda is very high on the priority list, even for a staunch conservative such as I am. But, so is a science agenda, because only through research and development can we deal with some of the problems, such as worldwide hunger. Even here in the U S of A!!! If we can't get a good handle on the easily solvable problems we have on this ball of dirt, what gives us the idea that we can go to another one and do better? I know that is over- simplistic, but it makes sense. I have to say that we need to solve social and economic problems here first. Then, go shooting off into space.
I urge the powers-that-be to set education as goal Number One, and make sure that we start with the basics. Yes, Reading, wRiting, and aRithmetic. Get those basic things down first so the kids can get through life, whether they're budding geniuses, or just smart enough to get dressed every day and find their way to a job slinging burgers or cleaning hotel rooms. Make sure everyone can read, write, and do basic math. Then, worry about instilling them with a social conscience, after they've become self-sufficient. And that talk about the 40 million uninsured? It will always be a problem as long as there is a profit motive to be considered. As long as we must pay for care, and there is money at the bottom of the health care pyramid, there will always be people who will lack medical care. And regrettably, there will always be people who cannot handle a high-tech job, because there will always be people who will not be blessed with a high IQ. This is not to say they don't deserve a high standard of living, because they do just the same as anyone else. It is only to say that we need to face reality and recognize that this is a fact of life. The problems that are social are always related to money and/or power. The desire for these two things, and all things related to them, is at the bottom of the outstanding bulk of the difficulties in this world. Anywhere the direct solution cannot be simply better science or technology, we will always have a problem because the pursuit of money, power, etc., will stand in the way of progress. Only when we can override these basic motivators and rise above them can we move forward. I truly wish it was different. I'd love to see us land people on Mars, and get those benefits for humanity that it would produce. But, we need other things much more than the euphoria this mission would produce.
August 17, 2005 4:57 PMThe only space exploration we need to concern ourselves with is the space between George Bush's ears. Earth's resources are precious and finite and our precious tax money is no exception. Why are we so focused on getting a crew of three or four people to Mars when families can't afford to buy gasoline for the family car to go to the grocery store where they can't afford the groceries for the family anyway. Where the heck are our priorities? This isn't the govenments money (it's our money) nor is it a constitutional requirement that we go to the moon or mars. So why are we spending money like drunken sailors? Money in my household is a finite resource and I would rather it be treated as such. Am I missing something here? Thanx for the opportunity to vent.
August 17, 2005 5:42 PMEducation is a good thing, and we should aspire to provide it to those willing to receive it.
However, the issue here is whether Moon/Mars is the right direction for NASA. The answer is No--not even close. Except for M/M being an identifiable goal, it has minimal purpose.
If we want to mine He3, we should seek to do that. We'll get to Mars eventually. Rushing it is not cost-effective.
There are many other sources of energy and valuable materials in space. They are not free, but they can be obtained with programs that generate break-even's down the road. The best of these should be identified and pursued. Even if they fail, the research generated will have its own payback. Those that succeed will pave the way to a pay-as-you-go process. Space is the new "West". Sadly, we still view it as a profoundly hostile environment, just as the colonists to this country viewed the East Coast. Another analogy is the railroads. We subsidized these with huge giveaways of land. We need to subsidize space transit and enterprise to gain the same benefits the railroads brought.
August 23, 2005 7:35 PMI've always been a fan of your newsletter and it's timely and up to date information. I was sorely disappointed with your latest issue, which was full of non-sense and biased columns written by ill informed political hacks. Mark Devlin's piece on the proposed Mars mission was obvious from the head line where it's slant would lie. Rather than discussing the possible benefits vs. costs, the article is written in a tone that makes it very clear that Devlin is a liberal democrat that is probably still running around the office decrying Bush's win in 2000.
Come on! You are supposed to be a newsletter that is FOR industry, letting us know what's happening around the world and where industry is going. There is no doubt that if we go ahead with the Mars plans that it will be good for industry, and ultimately the economy. Let's drop the political viewpoints and whining about a national heath care plan and concentrate on real news. We don't need another liberal whiner column. I can get that in my local newspaper every day.
