New Mars Forums

I see a lot of critism of Kerry because his plans lack bold plans for 'high technology' including space exploration. Unfortunately, if he does start announing bold spending programs for NASA then Republicans will again toss the myth of 'big spending Democrats' out there again.
Historically, it has been Republicans that have over spent the budget. Due to this most recent president, Kerry will have to be finacially responcible in much the same way Clinton was to make up for the over-spending of Bush Sr.
Weither Kerry increases spending for NASA or not isn't really important in the long run. What is needed is a President who will make education a higher priority than it has been. Only when we start turning out better educated Americans will we see public support of NASA and space exploration in general increase.

Well Clark, I guess things are just fine the way they are. I mean, what's the big deal? Who cares that 1 out of 5 boys and 1 out of 4 girls are molested before adulthood. Parents are doing a bang-up job teaching their children about sex and maturity.

Let's just all close our eyes and let whatever is going to happen go on and happen. High school students are so sensitive to other peoples needs.......these school shootings aren't a big deal right?

Ok yea I remember the lame SUV comment he tried to squirm out of. Hey, I'm not saying the guy's perfect. These are the kinds of choices we get for president when the public is so stupid about politics.

How about this: 'Ms. Rice will not be testifying before the 9/11 commission........well ok.'

And Bush didn't want to testify either until public pressure forced him to and then he had to do it in secret and with Dick Cheney! That's waffleing isn't it?

What about our invasion of Iraq?
'Saddam has missles that violate UN resolutions. He must disarm them or we will make him.'
Saddam disarmed, but was still attacked.

My point is that politicians will say anything the public wants to hear. Kerry hasn't changed his poisitions anymore than Bush has. Well maybe a little more, it is an election year after all 

Hi Dook!

I read an article the other day in USAToday where Kerry laid out his plans for Iraq. He was very articulate and wasn't slandering. In fact, he didn't bring Bush's name up once. Of coarse they had Bush's cheif campaign advisors spin on it and he so much as said that Kerry was politicizing the events in Iraq.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Kerry running for a position currently held by Bush? The reporter asked Kerry what he would do if he were president and he answered. Since when are we not allowed to offer our opinions on matters?

I remember supporters of Bush in the 2000 election saying 'the votes have been counted and re-counted' over and over till the public believed it. The facts are that all the votes were never counted. Today, there are thousands of missing ballots in crucial counties of Florida.

I don't think Kerry has bashed Bush nearly as much as Bush has bashed Kerry. In fact, campaign spending records show that the Bush campaign has spent about four times the money on negative ads as the Kerry campaign.

On 'waffling':
As soon as Kerry emerged as the Democratic leader, the Bush camp decided to use his long service in Congress against him. If you look at anyone's record over 20 or so years, you are going to see changes. Can anyone honestly say that they feel and think the same way they did 20 years ago? I can't.

The Bush camp spent something like $40 million to paint Kerry as someone who changes his mind constantly and apparently it has worked. It is really frightening how easily people are swayed.

-Quote 
Perhaps it is time to scrap reading, writing and arithmetic and start teaching people how to be literate, intelligent, independent thinking adults?

How exactly do you create independant thinking adults who are intelligent and literate without teaching them reading, writing, and aritmetic?

Clark, what I meant is that there is no emphasis on independent thought, in fact it is discouraged. Yes you need the basics, but we don't live in a basic world. There is no room in modern schools for growth of the mind beyond what someone else has said to be true.

-Quote 
I believe it is rooted into the very nature of our culture. From a very earlier age we are encouraged to conform. 

No, it is our nature to conform in order to develop an identity by which we are able to understand and navigate within the world.

I couldn't disagree more with you here. Show me a parent that gives dolls to their son, and I'll show you an uncle that says his brother is raising a 'fag'. Countless times through the ages parents have echoed the phrase 'why can't you be more like [insert name]'. Never do you hear 'why can't you be different than.....'. Conformity is safe and secure, independent thought is reckless and dangerous.

-Quote 
In school and at home, I was told countless times that the way to make more money was to get a better job. To get a 'better' job you have to have a 'better' education. 

Universal education and meritocracy allows for the greatest amount of choice and opportunity for an individual. It's up to you to make the most of it, and it isn't anyones fault if you were told differently. Get a therapist and hash out your complaints about your parents.

Ah but if only schools were universal...
Public education and colleges are as different as people. Many schools offer a different classes beyond the basics. Since where you are born determines what school you go to, it also determines if music and foreign languages are available. Schools that consist of mainly minorities offer fewer choices than white schools. I'm guessing you are white Clark, since you don't see a problem.

As for my parents, they weren't perfect but I was blessed to have intelligent, open-minded parents. If you look back at my post earlier you will see that I was and am talking about public education. Perhaps you have need of a therapist since you assumed my parents were at fault?

-Quote 
Also I must point out that the most important thing that most of us will ever do is to raise a child. Not one parenting class is offered at the high school level.

I think of important things like finding the cure for cancer, ending world hunger, bringing about peace in out times, finding goodwill among men, making heaven here on Earth. Maybe we should teach classes on that.

Good causes to be sure, but don't you need intelligent open-minded people to tackle these problems? My point is that most people, including yourself Clark, don't think that raising a child is all that important. Anyone can make a baby, but to produce an intelligent, healthy adult is much harder.

Cobra, you know as well as I that Democrats try to paint Republicans as greedy ba$tards, and Republicans try to paint Democrats as 'wafflers'. Politicians in general have a problem with consistency so Kerry isn't the exception to the rule.

Clinton was often critisized for changing his stance on issues based on popular opinion and I never understood why. Isn't a representitives job to represent the public? If the public majority thinks a certain way, don't you want your leaders taking that stance? Is it better to have a politician tell you what is right and wrong and to take a stand regardless of what the public wants?

The only time that a leader should take a stand contrary to what america (and the world) wants is when the public is stuck in ou-tmoded thinking such as discrimination.

And btw, as much as I support space exploration I would vote for Kerry because I disagree on Bush's policy on 90% of the issues. So even if Kerry wanted to burn NASA to the ground, I would still vote for him.

Ok, my math may be a little fuzzy here but aren't you over-estimating how large martian solar panels will need to be? Ten times bigger seriously? How are those little rovers getting by with such small solar panels to travel hundreds of feet a day and transmit all their data and use their scientific packages?

It was my understanding that they carry radioactive elements to keep electronics warm by radioactive decay. Are the producing nuclear power as well?

I know that Mars recieves only 40% as much sunlight as the Earth. I also know that solar panels in orbit produce roughly ten times as much energy as their ground based counterparts because there's no atmospheric scattering effect.

Doesn't Mars' thinner atmosphere make up for the fact that it is farther from the Sun?

Don't get me wrong GCN, I would hope that a mission to Mars DOES include nuclear power of some variety even if only as a heat source. However, I think it foolhardy to rely on just one source of power. Nuclear reactors have their own problems you know. Nothing is fail proof.

Bill, doesn't Japan have orbital launch capacity?

IMHO.......grrrrr

The Pentagon needs to quit making space access harder than it is. Is any progress being made on updating or killing the Iran Non-Proliferation Treaty that is keeping NASA from buying Soviet goods?

Gosh, look at Mr. Grumpy-face in the morning 

Just kidding GCN, I know you love to play devil's advocate and we do need to counter these kinds of arguements if an effort like this is to come true.

I think both of you, GCN & amanda, have valid points about Pillinger. Yes, he was taking chances with $40M of others people money, but any mission to Mars is a risk or Mission Control wouldn't go bonkers everytime a rover touches down safely. I think it is unfair to blame him exclusivly for the failure, but as project leader it was his responcibility on the whole. Just think how different the world's reaction would have been had it succeeded. 'NASA spent 820 million and they can do the job for 40 million?'

On NASA's resources:
In a perfect world, it would indeed be wonderful to have all of NASA's resources at our disposal, but it is not a perfect world. All the extra facilities that NASA uses to store and test components cost millions and millions of dollars. Is it really all necessary? I know that it is not. Most of NASA's accidents or failed missions have not been hardware failure, but rather human error. 

As far as a crawler goes, why? What use would you have for a rocket transporter if your rocket is assembled on site?

NASA uses the complicated launch pads that they have because they are reuseable. Decades ago it was believed that space travel would be an easy, consistant task with shuttles going up several times a month. We now know this isn't the case, so launch pads as complicated as NASA's aren't needed.

A mission to Mars does not require nuclear reactors. I don't know why nuclear is being held up as the 'Holy Grail To Mars'. Everyone seems to think that we must have this stuff, why? What is so wrong with solar power? If dust storms kicking debris into the atmosphere and blocking sunlight are such a concern, then beam microwaves from space to the surface with a modest unfolding solar panel array.

Recently, a new breed of rocket was designed that uses CO2 and I believe methane for fuel. Mars has plenty of CO2, and we can make methane rather easily so there you go.

Judging from hundred of images of what appears to be water leaking onto the surface from underground and traces of methane in the atmosphere that need constant replacement, I think it is safe to say that Mars is still geologically active. This is also a possible source of energy for our would-be explorers.

I believe what amandacruising is saying is that the status quo has done nothing to move us closer to landing people on a different planet for the first time. It is time to think outside the box, because what we have now isn't working. Should we mount the support and funding needed for NASA to send people to Mars I think we will just have a repeat of the Apollo era because the public losses interest rather quickly and we can't sustain an expenditure like this for long.

Here's a story that helps put thing into perspective. Several years ago Nissan decided to reduce the number of parts in their cars by 1/3. Their cars are now made with dozens of fewer parts and are more reliable for it.

The space shuttle is THE most complicated machine ever built by humans. It literally has to be taking apart, each part inspected, and reassembled after each flight. It is simply too complicated to ever be the quick-turn-around vehicle that it was meant to be. The more parts and people a project requires, the more that can go wrong with it.

GCN, so if I read your post correctly you site two problems: organization and launch facilities.

Organization is VERY important. This is why I recommended that an alliance be formed from already existing organizations like the Mars Society. Before the first requests go out a chain-of-command would have to be established. Surely this is simply a challenge not an impossibility.

As for a launch pad, it need not be reuseable. A supporting structure and a large hole in the ground would suffice quite nicely.

Oops, I see another question, who is qualified? That is also important to consider. It would be nice to see college students volunteer their spare hours to assembling the craft under the supervision of more experienced engineers.

Perhaps the rocket project could be divided into several teams with each team being responcible for only a small part of the rocket. Then each section could be inspected and tested before assembly.

I have to say, I really like the idea of students being involved in a nationwide effort to build a real useable rocket comparable to the Saturn V. Talk about hands on training!!

Well, see that's my point Clark. if you have to provide light and then shade, you are better off doing both deep underground without the fear of micrometeorites.

I want to see people on the Moon as well as Mars, don't get me wrong. My concern is that if the government(s) do mount a seroius effort at colonization it needs to be in an environment where humans can eventually be self-sufficent. I don't see the Moon ever severing its dependancy on Earth until the colonists develop their own space travel abilities. Meanwhile on Mars, our colonists could be well on their way to terraforming the planet by then.

Clark, no one is saying that Mars is perfect. I'm simply saying that it comes the closest to being 'Earth-friendly'.

On the Moon, greenhouses aren't possible. Two weeks of day followed by two weeks of night mean plants can't adapt. Micrometeorites would also punch holes in your dome until it resembled swiss cheese.

Sunlight isn't a problem. Once you leave Earth's atmosphere you are recieving 10x as much solar radiation so you can see that our thick atmosphere blocks and reflects a lot of sunlight that never reaches Earth. On Mars the air is thinner and more incoming light reaches the surface. Plants should recieve as much if not more light on the surface of Mars than they do Earth.

Air pressure problems are solved by a dome. Some terrestrial plants can survive on Mars albeit microscopic ones.

Amandacruising, I too read both your posts so far and am relieved that I am not alone. For some time now I have tried to convince people that putting people on Mars is a task for this generation and not future ones.

All the technilogical hurdles have been leaped and all that remains is a willingness to do the unthinkable. Too often, this is a step that most cannot take. It is frightening to attempt what has not been done before.

I believe that if a coallition were formed comprised of the leading space advocates and their message were clear and united, we could fund and build missions to Mars in ten years.

Bear with me for a moment and imagine this. The Mars Society, Planetary Society and many others unite under the cause of settling the red planet. A grass-roots effort to launch the first of many missions to Mars begins. After choosing a design for a rocket and lander our coallition puts out a call for public support. Design specifications are posted on a website that any company can check on. If a certain company can make a part cheaply or free, then they supply our coallition with said needed part. After ten years, we should have all the needed equipment for our first journey. More importantly, we now have a database of companies can produce the part they excell at in large quantities making future missions very affordable.

As you stated, legitamacy is the key. If our would-be providers believe these missions have a chance, they would do it for the sheer advertising rights alone. Funds would only be needed to pay for advertisers and support staff.

Personally, I could contribute the website to get it all started for a modest fee. I know several people that make eye-poping websites that are beautiful yet easy to navigate and understand.