You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
"Recent reports from the Los Angeles Times and Space.com indicate that President Bush may announce a spectacular new Mars initiative, aimed at putting humans on Mars by 2010."
What do you guys think? hype, or is there going to be any real work done?
Link
Offline
Like button can go here
Sounds like a bunch of hype to me. From what I see in the news Bush is more interested in war than anything else. I wouldn't plan on any political leaders getting us to Mars. They just don't tend to think long term. Maybe if we had another cold war they would do something! :;):
Offline
Like button can go here
It may all be hype, or it may be exagerated- but it should be noted that this administration is focusing on space more than many other previous administrations.
Bush is signing off on an increase in NASA's budget while requesting cuts in all other areas. The Quadriennial review (military review) noted that Space is the next big thing in terms of military development. O'keefy as the NASA administrator falls in line with a larger goal of developing projects to budget.
Not to mention that Bush and his Brother home states would benefit economically from any space pork. California will to- which is in an economic downturn (great way to pick up some CA votes for the next election).
And if that dosen't convince you, I for one think Bush is just stupid enough to think that sending a man to mars is a good idea! ???
Offline
Like button can go here
Kinda makes you wonder if Bush reads fourms like this after an anouncment eh?
even if it's a lie, i think it will help raise the posibility to the general public.
Offline
Like button can go here
The 2010 date is all hype. I'm certain that it stems from remarks made by O'Keefe that were taken out of context or twisted. This practice is common in the world of journalism, and it's a pernicious cancer on that industry, IMHO.
I do believe that we will see an unmanned spacecraft powered by the Prometheus engine by 2010. But it will take at least ten more years before such an engine is ready for humans.
"I'm not much of a 'hands-on' evil scientist."--Dr. Evil, "Goldmember"
Offline
Like button can go here
I will be about 40 then... Sound like a good age to go. Here's for hoping.
Offline
Like button can go here
The 2010 date is all hype. I'm certain that it stems from remarks made by O'Keefe that were taken out of context or twisted.
It should be noted that this administration is making multiple plans on several fronts that all involve the consolidation of seperate programs into larger, more coherent wholes.
Shuttle privitization is only one such effort, however, you should take note that the Shuttles are expected to last till no longer than 2012. This is an important date to remember, since NASA is slated to have RLV in place by 2012 to replace the current shuttle. Policy papers and research timetables indicate actual development of RLV to begin in 2006.
Alone, this is business as usual, and utterly meaningless.
However, there has been work prior to 2000 and more so after 2000 to align similar tech programs of the military and NASA to leverage the most "bang for the buck".
Airforce research labs are already well along in various phases of developing RLV to meet their own needs- unimportant really, what is important is that various components and technology that contribute to RLV are being developed on seperate testbeds- the SLI, and the national aerospace intitive will combine the fruit of these programs to meet the oevrall needs of all participants.
One of the objectives of DOD and Airforce research is the creation of space based military assessts for missle defense and information technology. Airforce research labs are currentyl developing the next generation of microsattelite constellations- nano-satalittes groups that can function in tandem- part of the requirement though to makle it work is cheap access to LEO, soemthing envisoned by RLV.
Also, the missle defense aspects require by neccessity, nuclear power. This is the whole nuclear program reason to be for NASA.
The goals of this administration for space are more clearly defined by Rumsfield and Cheney, both have shown interest and concern in our developments there and maintaing our dominance (in the case of Rumsfeld). Teh ecomonic issues also dictate that more funding needs to be directed towards space development, lest the US continue to lose market share to europe, brazil, japan, and China. The only way to stem this tide is a concentrated effort in RLV technology.
Next is the concern regarding engineering talent in the USA. Are pool is dwindling, and only a concentrated and coordianted effort will address this serious issue. One can already see some of the educational outreach programs being pushed by NASA- but that is simply a drop in the bucket. We honestly need something like the magnitude of Apollo to kick start a drive towards creating a more scientific and mathmatically inclined student base to replace the retiring engineers.
What will drive them?
A nuclear rocket, or a trip to mars?
If the State of the Union address is not released prior to Bush's speech, I might suggest that a man-to mars is in the offing.
2010 is doable- much of the science we are talking about to make it happen was done in the 60's.
Much of the neccessary infrastructure to make man go to Mars is also needed to meet military goals for space development.
Which do yuo think is more politcally feasible, declaring that we will militirize space, or declaring that we will develop space by going to mars and then using the technology to achieve the military goals (which were the real goal to begin with)?
Offline
Like button can go here
With so much of the military's manpower and budget devoted to fighting terrorism and Arab nationalism, I don't see the militarization of space as likely in the near term. After our focus switches from the Middle East to China, space will become important again from a military point of view.
If the United States proceeds with a comprehensive missile defense, along the lines of the original SDI concept, nuclear power will be important in space. Right now, the administration is content with building a missile shield using GMI against the North Korean missile threat and possibly China's current missile capabilities. A comprehensive missile defense will probably not b necessary as long as the politcal climate between the major nuclear powers remains the way it is.
"I'm not much of a 'hands-on' evil scientist."--Dr. Evil, "Goldmember"
Offline
Like button can go here
The problem is the political tradeoff. If a republican is in office, you tend to get more pro-nuclear, pro-space government, however, worse fiscal policies, bad environmental policy, imposition of church into state, liberty encroachments, and so on.
With democrats, you get basically the opposite. So i'm torn, I want space, but I want my country to be in reasonable shape to get there.
Offline
Like button can go here
Take a look at the quadriennial review, it calls for development of our space based abilities.
Look at the restructure of Space Command as yet another example of the growing improtance of our space based assests.
Next, do the math: 20% of our ordinance in Gulf War I was JDAM (read satellite guided smart bombs). That number increased to 40% in Bosnia. In Afghanistan, 60%. Gulf War II is predicted to use 80% of their ordinance as JDAM.
Future military assesments and planing center around increased reliance of space based asests as force multipliers- our reliance is onyl increasing. With that, we are aslo looking to reduce space as an assests for our enemies, as well as further protect our economic and military space based assets.
We want to be able to deny the enemy use of their satellites (either commercial or national owned) and maintain our control.
The whole Middle east thing is simply a pretext to pump more oil out of the ground (estimates suggest pulling up to 6 million barrels from Iraq a day; they currently pull 1-1.5 mill barrels a day). They are discussing using the revenue to pay for the occupation, so we don't need to worry about the funds. The war is also planned to last anywhere from 100 hours, to two months. That is a drop in the bucket in terms of times and attention focus.
We are considering military situations in 2005, 2010, 2015, and on. We are looking at the growing capabilities of possible advesaries like China, which has publicaly satted its intentions regarding space.
We have to militarize space due to the probable conflicts with China in the future- in order to ensure our dominance int eh future, we have to start now. We cannot react in a reasonable time frame for situation in space unless we build the infrastructure now. All of the studies keep pointing to a point in the future between 2010 adn 2025 where we but heads with another military power.
China has also declared its interest in commercialy developing th moon- we ahve a lead now, either we squander it, or do somethign with our technological edge.
The Administration has consistently demonstrated who they perceive as the enemy, and what is important to them. None of this should be a surprise.
Offline
Like button can go here
We have to militarize space [...] in order to ensure our dominance int eh future[.]
Yep.
Some useful links while MER are active. [url=http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html]Offical site[/url] [url=http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Web.html]NASA TV[/url] [url=http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/]JPL MER2004[/url] [url=http://www.spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/statustextonly.html]Text feed[/url]
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.
Offline
Like button can go here
Next, do the math: 20% of our ordinance in Gulf War I was JDAM (read satellite guided smart bombs). That number increased to 40% in Bosnia. In Afghanistan, 60%. Gulf War II is predicted to use 80% of their ordinance as JDAM.
JDAM was scarcely an idea during the Persian Gulf War, let alone an operational weapon. Although 10-20% of munitions from that conflict were guided, it was an electro-optical or laser guidance. These systems had significant accuracy problems in unfavorable weather conditions and in dusty, cloudy battlefield enviroments. This lead the Air Force chief of staff to ask for a new guided bomb that did not depend on lasers.
JDAM did not become operational until its use in 1999, a baptism by fire during Operation Allied Force.
"I'm not much of a 'hands-on' evil scientist."--Dr. Evil, "Goldmember"
Offline
Like button can go here
I don't know how much i like the idea that we are going to mars because of war. Not too cool.
Offline
Like button can go here
Topic fixed all but for the admins post for shifting and artifacts....
Offline
Like button can go here
Pages: 1