New Mars Forums

By the way Ian, thank you for your voice of reason. We often talk about what NASA could and should be doing, and the reason is always a lack of funds.

I believe too, that this war, and the many before, and the many sure to follow, are sucking this country dry. NASA isn't the only program feeling the squeeze. Our power grids need updating. Our highways need more money. Our school spending keep dropping while colleges make more. Our vetrans almost never get the benefits promised to them. Drug costs are sky-rocketing.

All the signs point to a capitalist system out of control. Companies are starting to tell the government what it can and can't do and this is very bad. If we think that the government doesn't care enough about us, how are companies going to treat us when they are totally in charge? They already lobby to reduce EPA and FDA restrictions. To make a dollar, there are people out there that would pump our bodies full of trash.

Im currently fleshing out an outline for my own martian government. Things are still up in the air for the most part, but I'm going to base it on democracy, but it won't be voluntary. People will be drafted to their postions like jurors in court. Key to this government working is an absolute rule that there be no appointments. In other words, someone in power can't create judges or any other position of power.

Kerry does not support manned missions to the moon or Mars.

The SEI (space exploration initiative) is going to be killed before it starts. Several members of Congress have already voiced their pessimism, and they number more than the supporters.

Was it just a political pie-in-the-sky? Yes and no. Lot of thought was put into it and the plan does show fiscal responcibility that most in Congress would normally support, but the timing was horrible. If Bush had made this proposal just after Columbia blew up, then I think it would have passed.

The biggest problem though has been NASA's responce to the SEI. Two days after Bush's speech, Sean O' Keefe announced that Hubble wouldn't be serviced. The reasoning for his decision makes NASA look like they are scared to ever fly again let alone go to the moon or Mars. And even now the debate in Congress is going on, and NASA seems satisfied to wait and twiddle their thumbs until the decision is made.

If O' Keefe would tell Congress that members who vote against the budget increase are killing future astronauts then I think they'd find it hard to vote no.
:band:  :band:  :band:

My intention was not to discuss Iraq. However, my question was/is what is taking so long. I feel that there is no end to military spending increases in sight and this disturbs me.

All I am going to say about the issue is that people must learn and do things for themselves. True change only comes from within. I know that this attempt to give the people of Iraq has already failed because we have gone about it the wrong way. It makes me furious that we can't even accomplish this simple task, which is costing half a trillion dollars so far, and the effort won't be noticable in 10 years.

I would just like to see the people of this country hold their military accountable. We waste so much money with it and everyone seems to feel that it's a sin to question the status quo. I have had to personally fight for my freedom. On 4 seperate occasions I have been attacked for my opinions so naturally I feel quite strong about it. It shouldn't be this way.

From now on I will not bring up our military. It seems the problem is too far gone anyway to change anything anyway.

GCNRevenger, there is no point in holding a debate with you. Again, you continue to misinterpert or misrepresent what I have said.

You support this war and probably all wars, this much you have made clear. I won't respond to things you say, please don't respond to what I say.

Bill- Cash, I ain't that stoopid.

Clark-

First point, there is a large enough market for rockets and if they were cheaper there would be more of a market. Fact: five years ago NASA owned the satelite lauch industry, now the only have about 24% of the market. Why is this? Becuase cheaper alternatives are abundant now. There may not be much of a market in the US now because Boeing and Lockheed haven't lowered their prices as they promised.

Second-England benefits today from a relation it formed with country hundreds of years ago. Colonists have always developed new technology that others have benefited from. Ever heard the saying 'necessity is the mother of all invention'? It has proven to be true throughout all human history. When has anyone EVER attempted to use space for resources? Was there an attempt to create a solar power station that I missed? You can't say this is a moot point without trying. This country was pulled out of the Great Depression in part by creating highways. It was expensive at first as most infastructure is, but the payoff well and still is well worth it.

Third- They may compete with each other but only to a point. Insurance companies do the same thing. they compete to a point and they don't cross it. Profit is always assured, and not just a little profit. Yes alternatives are coming but  our government isn't building the infastructure they need to make money.

And yes, laugh if you will, but this country has been in a downward spiral since WW2. The government is collecting much more money, even after adjusted for inflation, than they ever have while our benefits like social security are drying up. Highways aren't maintained like they used to be, now we have to pay toll. A single parent can barely support two children at the poverty level when one income used to provide for a family of four. And the reason is that we are spending about 25 cents on dollar to fund a military that starts wars that have nothing to do with defending our freedom. Vietnam, Korea, Panama, Bosnia, Iraq (twice), Afganistan which of these countries were a threat to us? Still laughing?

'NASA buys from Boeing and Lockheed because it is in our national interest to have aerospace companies.'

If this is true, wouldn't more aerospace companies be better than two?

And shouldn't our national interest include a prosperous future? Isn't securing more resources part of our national interest? Isn't spreading our culture and language part of our national interest?

And for the record, they aren't aerospace companies, they are military contractors who make pocket change with what meat they can tear from NASA's rotting corpse.

Let's see, wasn't Microsoft put on trial recently because claims were made that they were creating a monopoly in the market of software? Why isn't the United Space Alliance put on trial as well? We have two giant 'aerospace' companies that service all of NASA's rocket needs and they are working together to create one entity. That's a monopoly by any definition.

People need to wake up and realize that greed runs this country, not some touchy feely love of people and a wish to see everyone tucked in at night.

Bill, my thoughts exactly. I seriously believe there's no coincidence between the timing of this major shake up with NASA and the sudden burst of intrest by the Air Force in making 'the next frontier safe from terrorists'. I believe that the militarys desire to have sole access to space is the biggest obstacle to commercializing LEO and beyond. What is the Air Force going to do when the private sector can shuttle people and equipment to LEO for a vaction? I smell a new branch to the military coming, we already have land, air, and sea covered, next will be space. Just remember you heard it here first  :bars2:

Go Bill go! I was going to answer Clark but you pretty much did it for me thanks.

Clark-I know NASA has done some great things for people here on Earth. I won't argue with you there because I agree that NASA is, overall, one of the BEST government agencies as far as getting your moneys worth. But come on, over a billion per shuttle launch? Scrapping MIR intentionally for the ISS which probably won't get past the 'Core Complete' stage? Not to mention all the spacecraft lost due to stupid errors, its inexcusable. There are countless benefits from NASA that we apply down here on Earth, but that's the point. NASA isn't doing enough to benefit themselves. They spend 15 billion a year flying circles around the Earth (lately they can't even do that) because Boeing and Lockheed sell them over-priced, out-dated rockets. There is no competition in the aerospace market and therefore no incentive to lower costs, increase efficency or pursue better methods of transportation.

The shuttle and ISS should have never been built and we should seriously consider scrapping them both. Fly the remaining shuttles as is till something better comes along. And why is over 300mill of the requested budget increase needed to return the shuttles to flight anyway? They are sitting in storage with billions already set aside to fly them and they aren't, so where is this money going? The bigger issue is why we are waiting so long and spending so much to fly the remaining fleet which will be retired in 5 years! NASA has had two tragedies with the shuttles in 24 years right? Then chances are they can fly for 5 more without a problem. And NASA wonders why they have no public support....

Robert-In your opinion, which greenhouse design is best for aspiring colonists? I know of three designs.

First, we have a traditional half-sphere dome that could be anchored to the ground. Advantages are a design that allows lots of sunlight to penetrate the dome from all directions, except below, and a large grow area. Drawbacks are the need for some for a air-tight door to allow gardeners in and out, no sunlight from below, and limited versitility.

Next, there is the bubble or cone option. Advantages: sunlight from all directions including below (mirror), a sealed environment requires no gardener coming in and out and therefore no door need (just deflat, eat, store, reuse), and  versitile (need more food, just make more tubes of the same size). Disadvantages: only thing I can come up with is fragility, any serious storms could knock this design around.

Finally, we have the crater design. In this design a hole is dug or existing craters might prove useful, and a hard plastic cover is layed across the depression. Most of the same advantages and disadvantages of the dome design apply. However, this design is sturdier at the cost of some sunlight which could be replaced with mirrors.

I personally favor the second and third designs. Perhaps the second design would be ideal cause it is inflatable and therefore could be transported to Mars in the initial mission. the third design is more what colonists would create using In-Situ resources. Also the second design lends it self to a hydroponic gardening method more readily than the other two.

Also I would like to see the Mars Society create a database for would-be Martian colonists. Besides including relevent information about safety, mental and physical health, agriculture and other concerns it needs to have a step-by-step guide on how to make equipment from scratch. Like you mentioned, aluminum can be extracted from feldspar. An efficent machine that could seperate rocks into useful elements could and should be tested here on Earth. It needs to be automated so that colonists won't have to devote too much time to maintaining it. Perhaps Dr. Zubrin's brick-making machine could be modified to sift out impurities which would mainly be metals.

Now we are getting to the root of the problems:

idiom-So NASA has become so stagnent that keeping the status quo is more important than real progress. How do we fix that? Put a cap on specialized scientists and recruit more versitile engineers? Maybe. I believe, however, that the biggest problem is NASA's reluctance to deal with anyone besides Boeing and Lockheed.

Bill-Those are all important issues, but not deal breakers. History has shown that when a parent government supports it's colony and treats it reasonably, peaceful co-development ensues with each party benefiting. In the case of the US-England colonizing effort, there were two wars, and still Great Britian is the US' closest ally. Perhaps the lack of public support is partly due to the return aspect of a trip to Mars. There are still many people alive who remember the dissapointment of the Apollo program. If Bush wanted major support for a Mars effort, he needs to bill it as a colonizing effort. People like expansion almost as much as war.

Robert-This is what I'm ranting about! It seems to me you want to perform REAL science modeled from REAL conditions on Mars and are facing resistance in your own quarters. What good is proving that we can grow vegtables in the Canadian summer going to do for martian colonists? A real test would involve a simulated base near the equator at high altitudes, perhaps in the mountains of South America. High altitude test sites won't accurately depict a martian winter because the days get so short that growing crops is impossible. Are there any greenhouse attempts using simulated martian air? Apparently, we are going to be pumping a lot of CO2 into martian greenhouses. Is anyone doing this inside the MS? Are CFC's and their more powerful cousins harmful to plants? Remember that the inside of the greenhouse will be balmy compared to the outer coating. How does Tefzel and Teflon FEP stand up to extreme temperature differences on both sides? Also, is any research being performed involving martian 'soil' and its usefulness in producing mirrors? Mirrors are going to be vital to a martian colony. Two uses come instantly to mind: more sunlight/heat for crops and greater energy production for solar panels. Dust storms are going to be a major problem to any long term greenhouses and solar panels. Our colonists will need every bit of nuclear and solar power available. Finally, we come to wind-power. Can the wind be harvested for energy in the extremely thin martian atmosphere, I have seen nothing on this.

Ian-Any suggestions on how to open up NASA to marketing?

Dook-A lot of problems are raised about NASA's 'culture' when ultimately it is the american culture that is in real trouble. I believe the last meeting on the SEI discussed this in depth. How do we get people excited and supportive of a Mars colonizing effort? Do we bring back indentured servants who work on Mars to pay for their trip there? I can only hope that China puts a man/woman on the moon soon, cause its going to take another space race to wake this country up. We are losing, and some would say lost, our lead in space.

Alright, here we go:

Clark-NASA's been around since the 50's and its now 2004, that's half a century stuck in LEO besides (69-72). How many billions of dollars is that? Well over 200B. That isn't acceptable. I can count NASA's great achievements on 1 hand! Apollo, Viking, Hubble, Voyager and Spirit/Opp.  Too much for too little.

Ian-NASA is that bad. You can't excuse wasting countless billions because 'its a government agency'. NASA is supposed to be better than that. Instead of debating on if a mouse or fungus experiment should go up on the next shuttle, they should be saying....'we pay how much for a 25 year old design rocket???'

Robert-I personally don't have a problem with what the MS does. More cooperation with similar organizations would be ideal, but scientists have their pride too I realize. My suggestion is that the Mars Society team up with like minded organizations to produce REAL working hardware for Mars. Make a solar powered machine that can split water into its components and store for fuel. Make another machine that creates soil automatically by introducing microbes, then earthworms and algea perhaps. Test plastics for optimal domes. It wouldn't hurt to put a dome over any stationary bases, as you said, Mars is cold and a lot of energy is spent just keeping things warm. I know that all over the globe these things are being tested in smaller version, but why not go ahead and make actual hardware that can function on Mars? And why plan a mission to Mars that includes people coming back? Why not stay? It would certainly do more to colonize the planet plus costs are much cheaper if the trip is one-way.

Bill-Good points. And if the public supported space exploration half as much as they do wars, we'd be there already and any politician trying to cut NASA's funding would lose reelection.