New Mars Forums

To me it looks also like that the President has power to set NASA's goals. As he just changed it some months ago. However still no Mars Direct.

I wonder what the long term goals of the space initiative are?

It looks like the ESA keeping a Mars Human mission as a possibility, well thats what I got from their http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Aurora/ESA9 … tml]Aurora Programme in which they plan a manned Mars mission in 2025. Thats eleven years from now and its better then what NASA has to offer us.

Good idea, if you need help with your plan here is a http://www.rosaviakosmos.ru/english/eindex.htm]who will happily help you. Just transfer $30 billion to a Swiss bank account.

Ooh you want the taxpayers to pay for your paranoid schemes!?

Are US local governments such as states, cities and counties allowed to borrow money in the same way that the federal government does?

Thats what I meant they threw more money at it.

They threy money at it until something came out of it that would sell. If you would have given Boeing the same budget as them, Boeing would have come out with freaking faster then light death star.

Just cause they are selling something now doesn't mean you can ignore the initial investments, R&D and prototypes costs. As they being a socialist based conglomeration being paid by tax payers money, people seem to forget about these little thingies.

And if their products were so good, why the government funding?

The ESA and Airbus are two huge conglomerates of several European companies funded by European taxes.

In American words they are big bureaucratic socialist agencies that make things happens by throwing more money at it.

They make NASA look like a free, highly oiled and productive agency, which has no problems.

Ooh they did have successes but that’s because they threw more money at it.

I think they did it for the Dollar not oil. Iraq wanted euros for oil and other opec countries may have followed.

You do realize that after a few Apollo missions people hardly watched or followed them. The same things with the space shuttle.

Who says that the news reporting would be interesting to anyone else then a scientists?

And what traffic control?

Yep thats why you don't need an outpost (ISS like wast of money).
Go for a colony or not.

If you would draw your outpost on a graph with an Y and X axis. with on one axis the years and on the other things being done. Your plan would be a single dot and so thats not continuity.

That may be and I doubt it. As just launching and maintaining the rovers (which are small and light) cost almost $200 million dollars. But anyway what would the added value be to the space program? Remember we are talking about an outpost like what the ISS is.

If you are considering an outpost as a colony then yes. But just some guys in a hab (MIR/ISS) doing silly stuf doesn't interest me.

As I think that they will have proven their worths in the initial two years stay on Mars. After 48 months basically they should be able to tell whats on Mars and whats not. Rovers will tell them where its exactly.

However if in the mean time some cheap space flight technology or NASA has drawn up plans for a self sufficient colony then yes let them stay.

If not I rather see that money spend keeping those 4-6 people alive into development of cheap space access.

As far as I remember, at least where I'm from, you could form a government with just one party but you need 51% of the votes. But I'm not sure of it. But to be sure most of the time they do form coalitions to be sure their “legislation” (is that the word?) passes as not everyone from the government’s party agrees with every plan.

But shouldn't the congress control the president’s government? I read once that if you have a democratic president with a majority republican congress you will have a really hard time.

And a lot of times the president and the congress members do form casual coalitions. Such as ok I will pass this but you must make such and such changes and next time you will pass my plan. As the president can’t do a lot without congress’s approval.

No I don't like his war or spending taxpayer’s money like there is no tomorrow. Anyway I do think that’s its good for the Iraqis that Saddam is gone but I also think that the US should now just go, no if's or but's, leave now! Give Iraq foreign aid and let them manage their own business.

But it’s also mostly Germany and France making most of the noise coming from Europe. A lot of eastern European countries supported Bush but were threatened by Germany-France to shut up or loose money from the EU. And I didn't like that, Germany and France playing the boss, countries should decide for them self who they agree with and not be bullied into some other peoples views.

Well I agree somewhat but Kerry just doesn't have it for me. He is just more of the same.

But I think Nader is just trying to get noticed so that people that share his views may have a bigger chance with the Kerry camp. Like I said Kerry should just adopt certain issues from Nader to make the would be Nader voters more attracted to Kerry. Not blackmail them with: "If you don't vote for me, Bush will rule for another 4 years and the country will go to hell."

The Kerry camp should think about how they will attract Nader voters.

The world community will never be happy; there will always be other issues. But they could be perhaps satisfied. But then they should also respect whom the American people choose as president. Even though if he is a minority president, it still means that a lot of Americans support him. Bush still represents a lot of the American people else we wouldn’t have this discussion about how to scrape every possible voter to vote for Kerry.

You are acting like that people that vote for Nader are obliged to vote to Kerry. They are not or that they would have voted for Kerryif he didn't run, maybe they would have not voted at?. Nader has nothing to do with Kerry or his goals. He just wants to give people a way to show that some people care about other issues. If Kerry wants Nader votes well then do some stuff that Nader proposes not cry about it, Nader is not a traitor, he has every right to run! If Nader wouldn't have run then people supporting his ideals would have never gotten a chance with Kerry. Just support a few key points of Nader's issues or shut up. If they want republican votes they will add some issues. If they want churchgoers then will add. If they want Nader votes then just do the same.

By saying that Nader shouldn't run you are basically you are telling people to vote for the less of two worse, in their view. People know that Nader doesn't have chance and still vote for him. If they cared about getting Kerry that much in to office, then they would vote Kerry, if Nader ran or not.

And really who has any proof that Kerry will be a lot better then Bush? I mean the US army is going to stay in Iraq and Gulf with Bush or not. The deficit is going to continue to grow unless he raises taxes. And what magic wand is Kerry going to wave to restore the economy, remember there is no money to spend?

I read the transcript of Nader with the radio talk show host and I think he has some good ideas and I would vote for him if I were American, just to show I don't want to keep the status quo, I want to improve. Actually I thought that the talk host would rip him apart as he is right winged and a lot of times leftist ideas are to far fetched but Naders plan looks ok to me.

To me it shows that he is not interested in Kerry's nor Bush's policies and thinks there are people like him.

Perhaps in his eyes Kerry sucks as much as Bush so he couldn't care less if Kerry lost the elections to Bush.

I just read http://www.cincypost.com/2004/06/25/edi … .html]this article

I'm sure that when the next goverment is forced to make cuts, they will blame NASA for spending to much and its budgets gets cut. Why not cut the salaries of the people in the congress and senate who approved this bill?