Mars will not be militarily significiant for a long time. However, it will become offordable because of near Earth competition.
]]>An Australian space centre could be linked to Star Wars-like battles if NASA and the US Airforce Space Command begin fighting wars in space, activist groups say.
A demonstration to protest against the militarisation and nuclearisation of space has been held in Canberra.
Not sure where this is but I think this has more to do with kistler but no company is mentioned.
While this next one lodes its coming.
Tech gets grant for space science center
The center will study "dusty plasma," collections of tiny particles that are suspended in gases hundreds of miles above the Earth.
The shuttle allowed large number of people into space. Hubble allowed everyone to see far. Robotic missions allowed all of us to explore. And the Moon will allow several nations to have bases close to Earth.
Zurbin is a good faciliator and promoter, and we should appreciate him for the effort.
Kennedy wanted man on the Moon because it was hard.
Nowdays, people want it to be fun and easy.
This later version is the one I'll address as far as robotic missions.
I'm not sure where Zubrin advocates two things I've read here: a). focusing on piloted Mars missions exclusive of other destinations (excluding the Moon) or b). "racing" to Mars.
I'd also like to quickly comment on the money issue. The public loves space exploration. That's no problem, as long as no one scares them with numbers like $100 billion or $40 billion (not mentioning that's over 10, 20, or even 30 years). That's been pretty well established before elsewhere.
Back to what I was saying - I'm no big fan of Zubrin's (might be if he would have replied to my questions - assuming they were received), but he's often shown insight into the issue of NASA and it's management that most of us should have realised on our own - and I appreciate that. He's not as smart as he thinks he is, but he's no slouch either.
In the most recent version of this article Zubrin makes mention of two robotic missions - Hubble and JIMO. His points on both are spot-on. What is the need for a 150-100 kw reactor for JIMO - not to mention it taking 9 years to get there - when 20 kw would do and getting there earlier would lessen the possibility of failure?
Why ditch Hubble (although the proposed Hubble II is interesting - assuming it gets built in an era where $4.6 million/year for Voyager is stretching things) for supposed "safety reasons"?
Zubrin correctly points out that over 40 interplanetary missions were launched during the 60's/70's while during the last decade only a half-dozen have been launched (not all successfully mind you). Being Mars-centric is a false objection to Zubrin's points.
Zubrin's assertions about the goal/destination driven focus versus the technology-first focus are also dead-on when you consider other things he says - including the use of the technology for Mars also being useful for Lunar or NEO missions.
He specifically makes it clear in the article that exploring many avenues for reaching the destination are the point of his contention - except that making it time-definite will also force NASA to choose the best, most cost-efficient method of reaching all the goals.
On the other hand we have what we have now. The shuttle, the space station, and some MLV's. What was/is the Shuttle good for? What was/is the ISS good for? What will the Moon offer that will be of use for a Mars mission (much less missions to NEO's - other destinations being uncertain - we aren't talking about outer solar system or interstellar flights here)?
Besides a training/testing ground that requires the same technology to acheive as a Mars mission (another valid point by Zubrin) - I would very much like to know.
The Moon may have water (or hydrogen deposits) but only at one or both poles. Yes, there is O2 to be found in the rocks, but you still have to do some heavy processing to extract either - and a polar mission is highly unlikely considering the safe-mode NASA talks about but rarely follows when inconvient.
Why develop a secondary technology to pursue the Moon, and potentially sacrifice Mars exploration which will need another technology-base (thanks to spending billions on the Moon alone) when developing a cohesive technology within a set period of time around the primary goal that can also be useful for other destinations will save time, money, and as important - the experience of the people who work at the various NASA centers?
I believe Zubrin's insights in both versions of this article are all valid - including his assertions on the reasons for this lengthy planning (to satisfy the aerospace industry interests among other things).
I hope the new Admin. Griffin sees that as well so we can move boldly into the future rather than continue running around in circles in LEO - talking about grand adventures once again - and doing nothing more that we have for the past 25 years.
]]>Where there's a will, there's a way. Has NASA lost its will?
It's much worse than that. NASA answers to Congress, Congress answers to the largest voting block within their constituencies.
If anyone has lost their will it's us, the American people.
*Yes, I know. (sad smile)
Don't want to beat a dead horse, but NASA could do more (in the "speaking up" department).
<SNIP> a bunch of stuff I've already said previously, elsewhere. Blah, blah, blah...don't want to be redundant. :-\
--Cindy
]]>Where there's a will, there's a way. Has NASA lost its will?
It's much worse than that. NASA answers to Congress, Congress answers to the largest voting block within their constituencies.
If anyone has lost their will it's us, the American people. NASA will do whatever they're told and funded to do. It is the American people that need to be motivated and "re-willed" if NASA is to get to Mars.
Which comes back to why do we want to go to Mars to determine the best way to reach that goal. If we just want to beat the Chinese, Mars Direct is ideal. If we want colonization something more robust is needed.
ADP* I'd say both, get there firstest with the mostest, but when you actually have to convince voters on a regular basis it gets harder and you have to settle on one easily packaged vision.
*Assuming Dictatorial Powers.
]]>Back in the sixties, NASA managed all sorts of space research while methodically progressing through 'Mercury', 'Gemini', and 'Apollo' to get men to the Moon.
We could have Mars Direct up and running for about $4 billion a year over 10 or 12 years, so I'm told. There's still plenty of cash left over for the unmanned stuff, isn't there?
*Oh for the good old days of the work ethic.
Yep, NASA was in its glory days in the 1960s.
And I should think there'd be $ left over for the unmanned stuff.
Where there's a will, there's a way. Has NASA lost its will?
--Cindy
]]>Zubrin is in a rush.
Me too!
A brilliant but blind man.
A blind visionary! :laugh:
Sorry, John. It just struck me as funny, that's all.
I don't know that Zubrin wants to cancel everything except the Mars thing. Back in the sixties, NASA managed all sorts of space research while methodically progressing through 'Mercury', 'Gemini', and 'Apollo' to get men to the Moon.
We could have Mars Direct up and running for about $4 billion a year over 10 or 12 years, so I'm told. There's still plenty of cash left over for the unmanned stuff, isn't there?
I suppose it all depends again on whether we're connecting two posts economically or just selling rope.
???
Why must we forgo "historical" research, and a plethora of other opportunities on the Moon, and in near space to the sole exclusion of answering a single question about the history of Mars?
It is not science that motivates soon as possible trip to Mars, but prestiege.
If others arrived before US, it would be a clear sign of the US decline.
Moonbase may be the logical choice for long term space expansion,
but the thrill is in the competition to implant the first bootprint.
Thank you Cindy. You're just lovely.
*Why thank you, Clark. It's always nice getting a compliment from one of Dr. Zubrin's astronautical engineering colleagues like yourself.
--Cindy
]]>I'm especially glad to see -his- comments pertaining to the Moon in conjunction with all this.
I think it's all very well reasoned out, straightforward, etc.
--Cindy
::EDIT:: One of my fellow New Mars members seems to enjoy asking the same questions and trying to raise the same points of debate -repeatedly-, over and over...haven't we "been there, done that" already? More than once? Not all of us suffer from short-term memory. :laugh: Whatever.
]]>Yet there are some fundamental assumptions within his argument that don't pan out. The main sticking point is simply, "why should anyone care about going to Mars right now."
Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see it, but try and take a step back and look through the eyes of one who sees a barren red rock in a sea of stars. These are the people that must be convinced. The ones who are blind must be made to see the rainbow.
Life on Mars, and it's origins is a fundamental question, but is it a question that needs to be answered right now, at great expense, and at great risk? Why must we forgo "historical" research, and a plethora of other opportunities on the Moon, and in near space to the sole exclusion of answering a single question about the history of Mars? Does a human mission to Mars, now, pave the way for greater exploits in the future, or might it hinder it? It seems that the Moon might not make a great launching point for a Manned Mission to Mars. This point I will not contend (yet others, some very bright people, seem to think otherwise). However, let's take a step back, instead of gazing at the lone red star in the sky, and remember that our solar system, and our galaxy is filled with a myriad of stars, and planets, and possibilities. I do sincerely believe that the Moon will provide a better spring board for solar system wide exploration by humanity. This is the fundamental premise behind the plan as outlined by Bush. It's not about a particular destination, but about the journey itself. The sensible program is not to rush here and there over this or that, but to build our capabilities to go here and there to do this and that.
Shall we rush to Mars, as we did to the Moon some 30+ years ago? Shall we make our space program about a destination, instead of about the journey? We have seen the historical results. The results are a race to the finish line, then we pack up, go home, and wait until there is another clarion call to head towards the next destination, the next dream. We have had to wait 30 years in LEO for this. Dare we invite another decades long wait for the stars to align once more so we can once again push the boundaries?
That path has been traveled, it has been done, and we have lived with the results ever since. Do not make space exploration about a destination, space is infinite- it is the journey that never ends.
Let us go to the Moon to prepare the way for us to go further. Not to just Mars, but to all planets. Not just to the asteroids, but to the edge of our solar system. Not just this solar system, but the entire galaxy.
Just enjoy the ride.
]]>