New Mars Forums

Ok why did all the posts stop? Was that last one of mine over the top? Sorry if anyone was offended, I was just being silly. I don't want to see anyone killed. I may disagree with darn near everything that comes out Bush's mouth. His space policy is a joke, so I'll take a chance on the unknown (kerry). If anything were to happen to him, god help us, Cheney would be the next p-resident*.

I know the Bush camp meant Kerry's goofy expression and appearance in the photos of his NASA tour to be uncomplimentary, however I see the most honest, unforced looking smile on his usually Lincolnesk, deadpan face. Does anyone else not see that as a plus?

* (I)My usage of the term 'p-resident' refers to anyone not voted for by the majority of Americans. We should have known we were in trouble when no one even suggested that Bush should honorably refuse the office since he was not in fact elected.

Hopefully, when China does become a mobile society, they won't do so using combustable engines. I don't think it's unrealistic to predict that by the time the majority of China has long range transportation, the combustable engine (gas using) will be obsolete (perhaps even frowned upon by industrial nations).

James Cameron is a fine man who isn't afraid to risk his reputation saying goofing things like 'lets go to Mars!'. I'm sure if an organization found enough people to pledge funds for a Mars mission,  JC would give more than his fair share.

'And it is easier to get access to the asteroids from the Moon than it is to get there from Mars so consider the Moon as our best way to industrialise space.'

Please explain. Aerobraking is an excellent means of slowing a spacecraft upon reaching its destination. The Moon has no atmosphere, therefore no aerobraking.

'The advantage the Moon has with Mars is that it is close. Our communication and control of devices working on the Moon is exponentially easier that Telerobotics controlled from Earth can be done on the Moon where it is impossible with our current technology for Mars. Solar power is so much easier to get on the Moon than on Mars the problem of the 14 day cycle of night/day is easily sorted by use of a grid of solar panels around the Moon.'

Or we could simply use solar arrays in space and not worry about the two-week cycle. The Moon is close, yes, but is this really an advantage? Who will be more independant, Luners or Martians? The Moon will always be a suburb of Earth.

I know you are enthusiastic comstar03, and that's awesome. I wish more people had a passion for humanity settling the solar system. However, settling Mars from the Moon makes no sense.

Five hundred years ago, which would you rather have tried to build a colony at: North America or the Sahara Desert? The Moon does have metals, but is poor in everything else needed for a colony.

It might have a few lakes worth of water. This is enough to provide for a small colony of people with excellent recycling tech, but not enough to provide useful amounts of hydrogen and oxygen for air and fuel over any decent period of time.

The Moon has no atmosphere, true. But this is a minus, not a plus. Most aspiring spaceship builders would rather deal with atmospheric drag than have no protection from micrometeorites and hard radiation. In this case it makes much more sense for automation to use an asteroid than the Moon for resources.

As for colonizing Mars from the Moon, it can't happen. Don't forget the gravity difference. Somone used to the Moon's gravity would have a very hard time on Mars (if not fatal). It would be like trying to live under 2gs here on Earth. There is also the matter of dependancy on Earth for most of a lunar colony's supplies. Mars offers its colonists a chance for freedom and independance, the Moon does not.

And this is important. To be a true space-faring race our decendants must depend on themselves and the resources at hand. The Moon cannot offer this, Mars can.

If the conditions of fascism are apt in China, then we are even more fascist.

I saw a shirt on a man yesterday that was white with a bible colored like the american flag and it said 'If God is on our side.....then who is on their side?'

Too many Americans believe that we are somehow blessed by god and that we are god's choosen people. Is this not a misplaced sense of superiority? Afterall, if god is choosing us, then everything we do must be right!

I always find it comical to hear preachers spouting out text from arab countries written thousands of years before the US existed in Old English. 

We already know the Moon isn't made of cheese.

There is no good reason to send humans back to the Moon just to rediscover that fact.

Send humans to build a permanent base? Yes.
Send humans to build an automated telescope on the farside. Yes.
Send humans to play golf, plant a flag, and come home. No.

We shouldn't even be considering sending people back to the Moon if we aren't going to do one of those first two things. Any information we need about the Moon can be achieved by sending 2 orbiters and a telerobotic science lab to the surface. Anything else is just more waste and misdirection.

And as that article you pointed out correctly states, we can learn more about China's intentions through cooperation than by ignoring them.

John, I think the spacetug is still in development stage.

GCN- let me ask you this: In a family of four, does it make more sense to throw away the sedan when you buy a SUV, or is it better to just give/sell it to one of the teenagers? (and don't say you would use it as a trade in cause you cant trade in the HST for JWST  )

I always value your opinions GCNRevenger, as they are educated and provide excellent arguements that one may face. However, in this case, I feel Spacenut is correct. You have a an enormous feild of scientists all struggling to get some time with instruments like HST. Many wait years for a chance to prove or disprove something simply because there is only one Hubble.

But, as you say, ground-based telescopes are nearing a point where they rival the HST. If the time should come when HST is no longer the leader in the feild of visible light astronomy, then yes, I painfully agree that it then makes little sense to spend that kind of money on HST. My point is, and as you have also stated, this is years away if it happens.

Ok, now to some of your recent statements. When I made the comment about HST being serviced for millions, not billions, I was speaking of future servicing missions using the same robot. I believe the cost of the rocket it needs to launch on is in the neighborhood of 60 million. Of coarse you need a room and staff to perform the telerobotics from so you are probably looking at about 200 million for a servicing mission every two years or so. Does this not seem reasonable to you?

As for the eventual death of Hubble due to irreplacable parts or damage in orbit, you have a point. There are parts to Hubble that no robot constructed in this decade would be able to repair. But this is why Hubble was designed to fit inside the shuttle, so it could be carried back. I am not going to launch into another angry spectacle of why the ISS is junk not worthy of a shuttle mission and Hubble isn't. Suffice it to say, I feel NASA is being damned stupid.

Bringing Hubble back to Earth and updating its hardware will eventually be needed if the HST is to stay the leader in optical astronomy, but this doesn't appear to be in the cards. I can't explain the decisions of NASA, because I don't understand them. They seem content to waste good money on projects with no obvious benefit, and yet decide to 'tighten their belts' when it comes to productive equipment.

In short, why is it worth 1.5B to save Hubble for the next few years?

Hubble is a tried and true workhorse. Its flaws have been dealt with. A new telescope is going to take at least a year to callibrate and test, even if everything works perfectly.

Allowing Hubble to deorbit or just plain die means years of science and progress lost before the JWST is up and hopefully ready, and a gap of who-knows-how-many years before another telescope working in visible light is put up.

Even allowing that a telescope of Hubble's abilities is up and running while the HST is operational, you still have an incredible need for more like Hubble. Our scientists don't have the tools they need to do science. This is unexceptable.

While I am in favor of a manned mission to Hubble, I do see the merit in practicing our telerobotic skills in LEO (I just wish they weren't practicing for the first time on HST).

GCN- as always, your points have merit and logic. However, the HST isn't a pile of junk. It is a much more capable machine today (even with failing equipment) than it was at its launch. Since its deployment, the HST has gained much in software and optical muscle that wasn't forseen in its original design.

My point is, the HST is a very valuable resource, that while costly, does yeild incredible scientific information. It never need be obsolete or out-dated. Should something better in the visible light spectrum come along, wonderful! But until then, and even after, there is no reason to scrape Hubble.

Should this telerobotic experiment be successful, it will be interesting to see if NASA offers contracts for regular service missions. As you have stated (GCN) the first mission is always the most expensive. I have no doubt that Hubble can be serviced robotically for millions, not billions.

The MER's have been wonderful, don't get me wrong, but they aren't getting us fundamentally closer to walking on Mars. We can 'study' Mars for years (we have) and send dozens of probes (we have) and be no closer to taking that first giant leap (we haven't).

By comparison, the HST makes world shaking discoveries every few months. So yes, the science HST collects in a few years is ultimately much more valuable and important.