New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: This forum is accepting new registrations by emailing newmarsmember * gmail.com become a registered member. Read the Recruiting expertise for NewMars Forum topic in Meta New Mars for other information for this process.

#1 2003-11-06 10:44:11

jmknapp
InActive
From: Columbus OH
Registered: 2003-11-06
Posts: 2

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

Presidential candidate Gov. Howard Dean (D-VT) is currently answering questions online at WashingtonPost.com. http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv....103.htm

Here's one of interest to this group:

Dallas, Tex.: If elected President, what are your plans for NASA and the Space Program? Do you think it's time to retire the Shuttle and move on to bigger and better things, such as a human mission to Mars, or returning to the moon?

Howard Dean: I am a strong supporter of NASA and every government program that furthers scientific research. I don?t think we should close the shuttle program but I do believe that we should aggressively begin a program to have manned flights to Mars. this of course assumes that we can change presidents so we can have a balanced budget again.

Offline

#2 2003-11-06 11:25:04

Palomar
Member
From: USA
Registered: 2002-05-30
Posts: 9,734

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

*This is good news.  smile  Dean has been generating a bit of controversy and attention quite recently -- just in the past 2 days, in fact -- so his pro-space exploration comments should definitely be garnering attention.

I'm voting for the Democratic nominee for President in next year's election, so I'm keeping (or TRYING to keep, I should say...all the static and noise pollution in the media these days, geez) an ear out for who is saying what, relative to space exploration, Mars.

Thanks for this "heads up," jmknapp.

--Cindy  smile

P.S.:  Does anyone have a web site to recommend which gives a run-down of all Presidential hopefuls, their official stances on various issues, etc.?


We all know [i]those[/i] Venusians: Doing their hair in shock waves, smoking electrical coronas, wearing Van Allen belts and resting their tiny elbows on a Geiger counter...

--John Sladek (The New Apocrypha)

Offline

#3 2003-11-06 11:36:48

Josh Cryer
Moderator
Registered: 2001-09-29
Posts: 3,830

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

Now see, that I wouldn't mind seeing at all. big_smile


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

#4 2003-11-06 11:58:27

Ad Astra
Member
Registered: 2003-02-02
Posts: 584

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

Has Howard Dean said anything about his feelings on commercial space?  This is predominantly viewed as more of a "Republican idea" versus a "Democratic idea," but it would not be impossible for Dean or some other Democrat to support it.  And space is likely to become a hot-button issue during the campaign, especially if President Bush announces some grand new goal for NASA.


Who needs Michael Griffin when you can have Peter Griffin?  Catch "Family Guy" Sunday nights on FOX.

Offline

#5 2003-11-06 12:49:48

Josh Cryer
Moderator
Registered: 2001-09-29
Posts: 3,830

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

Heh, I think the quote is worth repeating:

Dallas, Tex.: If elected President, what are your plans for NASA and the Space Program? Do you think it's time to retire the Shuttle and move on to bigger and better things, such as a human mission to Mars, or returning to the moon?

Howard Dean: I am a strong supporter of NASA and every government program that furthers scientific research. I don't think we should close the shuttle program but I do believe that we should aggressively begin a program to have manned flights to Mars. This of course assumes that we can change Presidents so we can have a balanced budget again.

---
I like that last statement the most, heheh.


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

#6 2003-11-06 12:52:22

clark
Member
Registered: 2001-09-20
Posts: 6,374

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

As do I, but for entirely different reasons.  :;):  :laugh:

Offline

#7 2003-11-07 15:18:45

Cobra Commander
Member
From: The outskirts of Detroit.
Registered: 2002-04-09
Posts: 3,039

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

Hmm, a number of things strike me here. Josh, the self-proclaimed anarchist, supporting a candidate from the party of big government ??? interesting.

Cindy, you mean to say you've already decided to vote for the Democrat even without knowing who the candidate will be? That doesn't sound very reasonable to me. So much could happen before the election, some loon could get the Democratic nomination. Oh, right, redundant  big_smile

But really, who thinks Dean has a chance of winning the election? If so, who believes he'll actually fight for the Mars mission? We need healthcare, welfare, money for education blah blah blah; not some grandiose program to send a man to Mars, that's the attitude I usually get from Democrat politicians. The space program is usually one of the first things they cut! If, by some fluke, Dean is elected I think you'll be disappointed.

Besides, what's this buzz about Bush maybe announcing a Mars plan for NASA? Maybe this time it will actually happen, without a Democratic Congress to muck with it. Who was it that called for that not so long ago? Ah, yes. Bush 41.

Sorry to go ranting from the Right on you, but it was needed in here big_smile


Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.

Offline

#8 2003-11-07 15:29:25

Palomar
Member
From: USA
Registered: 2002-05-30
Posts: 9,734

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

Cindy, you mean to say you've already decided to vote for the Democrat even without knowing who the candidate will be? That doesn't sound very reasonable to me. So much could happen before the election, some loon could get the Democratic nomination. Oh, right, redundant  big_smile

*Teehee.  You're cute, CC.  smile

The only chance of unseating Dubya at the next election is via the Democratic nominee. 

...and we've already got a loon in the White House...

Seriously, though, I've been watching the Democratic candidates.  I think we've got a good "crop" to pick from, for the nominee. 

I wouldn't be surprised at all, however, if Dubya gets re-elected, on the basis of his Oil Friend$ buying him the Oval Office (again).  But by golly, if he wins the -popular election-, I will become convinced that America suffers from a severe masochistic streak (at best; of outright stupidity at worst).

--Cindy  cool


We all know [i]those[/i] Venusians: Doing their hair in shock waves, smoking electrical coronas, wearing Van Allen belts and resting their tiny elbows on a Geiger counter...

--John Sladek (The New Apocrypha)

Offline

#9 2003-11-07 15:42:00

Josh Cryer
Moderator
Registered: 2001-09-29
Posts: 3,830

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

Hmm, a number of things strike me here. Josh, the self-proclaimed anarchist, supporting a candidate from the party of big government interesting.

Tsk, when anarchy is realized, then I'll be an anarchist.

Until then, I will pride myself on making every waking momment for right-wingers hell. :;):

I honestly don't know if I'll vote this election round, though. Tired of this voting thing. The American plutocracy won long ago, seems almost pointless. BTW, I only learned about anarchism in the past two years or so. tongue

Speaking of future space aspirations. I honestly could give a crap less about Bush or Dean or anyone. Any government funded space initiative is doomed to fail, and will never benefit me, as an individual. smile


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

#10 2003-11-07 15:51:22

clark
Member
Registered: 2001-09-20
Posts: 6,374

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

Any government funded space initiative is doomed to fail, and will never benefit me, as an individual.

He types out in real time on a microproccessor designed to help man enter space, several decades after man landed on the moon and contemplates yet further aspirations in space on a message board, whose creation is partly the result of yet another government funded intiative (DARPA=INTERNET).

Yeah, no benefit here to see, move along.  :laugh:

Doomed?  yikes  :laugh:

You always make me smile Josh. See big_smile

Offline

#11 2003-11-07 15:51:52

jadeheart
Member
From: barrow ak
Registered: 2003-11-03
Posts: 134

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

who believes he'll actually fight for the Mars mission? We need healthcare, welfare, money for education blah blah blah; not some grandiose program to send a man to Mars, that's the attitude I usually get from Democrat politicians. The space program is usually one of the first things they cut! If, by some fluke, Dean is elected I think you'll be disappointed.

i have to agree w/ cobra here.  dean's comments are encouraging, but i have to say i'm skeptical.  i think he'll have to sacrifice this positive view of the space program if he wants to get the dem nomination.

i tend to lean a little left, but i've always been disappointed by most lefties' views on space exploration.  they pretty much view it as a complete waste of resources and it bums me out.  if W. came out in favor of a realistic mars mission i'd (gulp) ALMOST consider voting for him.  since he's obviously not the least bit interested in a balanced budget, we may has well go with a petroleum-powered 'battlestar galactica'-style mission.  (can we get some cylons with that?)  we can have a space program or we can have true democracy-- but not both!   tongue

i wonder what wesley thinks?


You can stand on a mountaintop with your mouth open for a very long time before a roast duck flies into it.  -Chinese Proverb

Offline

#12 2003-11-07 15:57:16

clark
Member
Registered: 2001-09-20
Posts: 6,374

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

So here is something to ponder, dear friends, a question I believe any who contemplate the beyond of space will have to make rather soon...

Would you vote for a President who would take Man to Mars, but in doing so, would also weaponize space, over a President who will not take Man to Mars, but will also not weaponize space?

A path diverged in the woods, and I took...  ???

Offline

#13 2003-11-07 16:16:09

Palomar
Member
From: USA
Registered: 2002-05-30
Posts: 9,734

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

*Cobra:  I'm hopeful a Democratic President will come through on Mars, space exploration, [NON-militarization basis] and etc., but I'm not holding my breath.

Josh:  "Until then, I will pride myself on making every waking momment for right-wingers hell."

*Ha ha!  big_smile  I'm a Moderate (and proud of it).

Josh:  "I honestly don't know if I'll vote this election round, though. Tired of this voting thing. The American plutocracy won long ago, seems almost pointless. BTW, I only learned about anarchism in the past two years or so."

*I know the feeling, Josh.  I almost didn't vote in the recent mayoral election (big deal, I know, only effects this city) but I think of how rare the opportunity to vote is.  Despite the corruption, who's counting the numbers, etc...in no other nation in history has a woman of my class and background been able to cast a vote.  Despite my cynicism, I still believe I can make a difference.  I at least want to -try- to make a difference.  I feel if I don't try, I shouldn't complain.

Please vote.  At least to get one more popular vote (at least) away from Bush. 

--Cindy

P.S.:  The most recent issue of Astronomy magazine is out, and is loaded with "175 Mars Images"...also "Hubble's Top 25 Images."


We all know [i]those[/i] Venusians: Doing their hair in shock waves, smoking electrical coronas, wearing Van Allen belts and resting their tiny elbows on a Geiger counter...

--John Sladek (The New Apocrypha)

Offline

#14 2003-11-07 16:16:37

jadeheart
Member
From: barrow ak
Registered: 2003-11-03
Posts: 134

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

Would you vote for a President who would take Man to Mars, but in doing so, would also weaponize space, over a President who will not take Man to Mars, but will also not weaponize space?

A path diverged in the woods, and I took...

...a knife and slit my wrists!

the ol' faustian bargain.  i certainly wouldn't like 'weaponization' of space, esp. if those weapons were there to do harm to earth.  if, however, the mars mission came with the thorn of militarization of space (not necessarily weaponization) i'd have to consider it.  depending, of course, on said candidate's stance on a few other political issues dear to my heart.


You can stand on a mountaintop with your mouth open for a very long time before a roast duck flies into it.  -Chinese Proverb

Offline

#15 2003-11-07 16:23:10

clark
Member
Registered: 2001-09-20
Posts: 6,374

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

The militarization of space has been ongoing since Eisenhower, the last few wars have been proof-of-concept for the integration of space based assessts in fighting a 'modern war'.

The stumbiling block for full fledged weaponization though is power costs and launch costs. Both of these will be remedied by going to Mars.

The people in charge, or the people charged with making the decisions on this stuff have laid out their visison for the last 20 years. The Airforce is in mid stream of creating a full fledged Space Force, eventually to supplant the Airforce itself.

This is the 'next' generation warfare capability that President Bush is reffering to when he sights Donald Rumsfeld desire to skip a generation of technology.

Offline

#16 2003-11-07 16:39:32

jadeheart
Member
From: barrow ak
Registered: 2003-11-03
Posts: 134

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

you're right, of course.  i should've said "accelerated militarization of space" there.


You can stand on a mountaintop with your mouth open for a very long time before a roast duck flies into it.  -Chinese Proverb

Offline

#17 2003-11-07 17:00:53

Ad Astra
Member
Registered: 2003-02-02
Posts: 584

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

In a nutshell, this is how Washington handles space policy:  All politicians will pay lip service to NASA from time to time, but few are willing to take a risk and challenge the NASA status quo.  When Bush 41 tried it in 1989, his initiative was squashed and it was a big embarassment.  Now you see why the status quo was maintained for the most part (except for the "Faster, cheaper, better" mentality) during the Clinton years.

The current President Bush probably shares the same vision as his dad, but he knew (at least until Feb. 1, 2003,) that there was no Congressional support for changing NASA.  The Bush space policy has been laid out piece meal, such as setting aside money for Promethius and JIMO so the nuclear-electric rockets will exist when Congress does adopt the cause of deep space exploration.

The loss of Columbia has made a lot of politicians realize that Americans will support space exploration so long as it's genuine "exploration" and not the banal "science" that has been conducted on the shuttle, Mir, and ISS.  It probably doesn't hurt that "The Governator" needs help, and a new direction for the space program will bring jobs to California.

The president will soon reveal the new national space policy.  Will it succeed spectacularly like Apollo, or languish like SEI?  My guess is that it will survive so long as President Bush remains president and his allies control Congress. 

Once a new administration comes in, will they share resident Bush's resolve to see the program through?  This is a problem that Zubrin saw with Mars Direct, and that's part of the reason why he and former speaker Gingrich proposed a private initiative to explore Mars. 

If some sort of private-public partnership isn't reached, the space program will continue to be the plaything of politicians.  It's budget may be raided to pay for new programs, such as Howard Dean's nationalized health care plan.  Ambitious projects like Apollo would be killed to finance the Vietnam War and the "Great" Society.


Who needs Michael Griffin when you can have Peter Griffin?  Catch "Family Guy" Sunday nights on FOX.

Offline

#18 2003-11-07 17:26:05

jadeheart
Member
From: barrow ak
Registered: 2003-11-03
Posts: 134

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

where can i get more info on this private initiative thing with zubrin & newt?  haven't heard of this.  (man, that's a partnership i wouldn't have imagined.)  when did it happen?  what's it's current status?


You can stand on a mountaintop with your mouth open for a very long time before a roast duck flies into it.  -Chinese Proverb

Offline

#19 2003-11-07 17:51:47

Josh Cryer
Moderator
Registered: 2001-09-29
Posts: 3,830

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

clark, keywords, "partly." The military investment in the internet is extremely small compared to the total assets of the net. The value of the computer chip was already realized before the Apollo landings were thought of (Texas Instruments, anyone?). The so called benefits aren't directly attributable to the government.*

I'm not denying a governments ability to be a good catalyst, but c'mon, let's be realistic. I'm using a dialup modem for crying out loud. It's cheap, sure, but I thought cheap ass fiber to the house was only a few years away? Where is that unlimited broadband people were talking about? Where is the government now?

It's like saying China's space initiatives are going to benefit every Chinese person directly (by allowing them each access to space). Not only is that unrealistic, it's probably not even physically possible.

If you or I are going to get into space, it's not going to be by relying on governments. It's not going to be by waiting for some ad hoc system to be invented because of the next egomaniacal space race. It's not going to happen waiting for some guys with small dicks to build the next orbital nuclear launch platforms. It's going to occur because people are going to figure out the hurdles and get around it themselves. (If they get some free money from government grants, so what.)

One thing I don't like about this militarization concept is simply that it could quite easily lead to there being undesirable levels of control on space assets that are easily obtained once the technology is available; this means that such technology would have to be banned or at least retarded for the concept of a space military to be realistic.

I would vote for a President who wouldn't weaponize space, because such a President might then probably understand the technological requirements for existing in space, and might realize that the whole concept of militarization is pointless, and indeed, at most would be a tiny catalyst to space development.

* note that by government, I'm talking about an over-reaching authority, not a grant-giving benevolent 'government.' When NASA gives a grant out to some crackpot scientist (and there are a lot out there), it's not controlling or otherwise exhibiting authority upon the grantee (of course, the grantee must follow guidelines and so on, but the grantee has complete control over the work within those guidelines; there are no NASA officials, like there would be military officials, coming down to the guys lab telling them how it is).


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

#20 2003-11-07 20:12:38

Ad Astra
Member
Registered: 2003-02-02
Posts: 584

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

The "Gingrich Model," or Mars Prize, is discussed near the end of "Case For Mars."  The government would offer cash prizes and assurances of cooperation for teams competing for the prize.  The mission would be broken up into several smaller feats leading up to the mission (building an HLLV, demonstrating a closed loop life support system, etc.) and smaller prizes would be awarded for these milestones.  All these events lead to the Mars Mission, with a payout of around $ 20 million when it is successful.

The biggest hurdle to the plan is that the company would have to put up the $20-50 million for the mission upfront and wait nearly three years to see if the mission succeeds and the prize is won.  What kind of money lender would loan a company $50 mil to put humans on Mars?  The X-Prize had enough trouble getting funded as it is!


Who needs Michael Griffin when you can have Peter Griffin?  Catch "Family Guy" Sunday nights on FOX.

Offline

#21 2003-11-07 21:34:12

sethmckiness
Banned
From: Iowa
Registered: 2002-09-20
Posts: 230

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

The people in charge, or the people charged with making the decisions on this stuff have laid out their visison for the last 20 years. The Airforce is in mid stream of creating a full fledged Space Force, eventually to supplant the Airforce itself.

This is the 'next' generation warfare capability that President Bush is reffering to when he sights Donald Rumsfeld desire to skip a generation of technology.

This has been a stated change with the Modus Operandi(spelling) for the Air Force since Before Dubya.  2035 I believe is the quoted date.  I am not quite sure of what the goal is though.  I guess something other then the use of satellites.

One thing I don't like about this militarization concept is simply that it could quite easily lead to there being undesirable levels of control on space assets that are easily obtained once the technology is available; this means that such technology would have to be banned or at least retarded for the concept of a space military to be realistic.

Has there yet to be any unreasonable militirization of anything before space?  So why should that happen with space.  If it was going to happen, ESA wouldn't be allowed to launch their version of GPS.  Three things happen in Space, Communications Relay, Navigation(time dissemination of UTC), and detection of various objects,(spy satellites among other things). 

Also, why does everyone associate a lack of Space spending with Democrats.  If I remember correctly, whoe was in the White house during Gemini and Apollo? And who was in the white house when Apollo was shut down.  Just a reminder.


We are only limited by our Will and our Imagination.

Offline

#22 2003-11-07 22:02:59

Cobra Commander
Member
From: The outskirts of Detroit.
Registered: 2002-04-09
Posts: 3,039

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

[color=#000000:post_uid0]

Also, why does everyone associate a lack of Space spending with Democrats.  If I remember correctly, whoe was in the White house during Gemini and Apollo? And who was in the white house when Apollo was shut down.  Just a reminder.[/quote:post_uid0]


First, the space program started under Eisenhower and continued largely as a competition, a sort of [i:post_uid0]proxy war[/i:post_uid0] with the Soviets. Also worth mentioning is that the Democrats of that period were very different from today's jackasses. Both parties have tended to slide to the left, today's Republicans aren't really all that different from the Democrats of the early Cold War period, while today's Democrats have absorbed and been influenced by the lunatic-left that used to be discounted out of hand.

For example, JFK cut taxes, sent American military advisors to prop up foreign forces, called for a massively expensive space program, increased deployment of nuclear weapons in foreign nations despite the tensions it caused, and stared down a foreign aggressor encroaching on our sphere of influence. Who would do that now?[/color:post_uid0]


Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.

Offline

#23 2003-11-08 09:28:49

jmknapp
InActive
From: Columbus OH
Registered: 2003-11-06
Posts: 2

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

[color=#000000:post_uid0]Eisenhower in true Republican fashion concentrated on the military aspect of space (just as even the interstate highway project was given a military justification so as to sell it to the knee-jerk "limited government" types. Thus the Vanguard rocket even had a military name (later known as Flopnik).

"Interestingly, despite his problems with the Sputniks, Eisenhower remained cold to reaping the prestige benefits of a Moon shot. The meeting minutes state that Eisenhower was "firmly of the opinion that the rule of reason had to be applied to these Space projects—that we couldn't pour unlimited funds into these costly projects where there was nothing of early value to the Nation's security. . . . [I]n the present situation, the President mused, he would rather have a good Redstone than be able to hit the moon, for we didn't have any enemies on the moon!"

I was a hard sell, but Senate Democrats like Johnson & McCormack prevailed.

Even in the early 60s, the goal was eventual cooperation with the USSR in space.

Would a man have ever been sent to the moon with the military running the show? Doubtful!

Just as a "Star Wars" component (favorite plaything of the Republican military-industrial compex) will prevent a manned Mars mission from ever flying. What's needed is an effort annpunced where adventure and exploration are the ultimate criteria (as JFK did).

It's axiomatic that there will be no commercial exploitation of Mars for a long time. What possible business model exists even on paper? IMAX films? In lieu of that, it must be a government funded effort as practically all exploration to extreme environments has been in history.[/color:post_uid0]

Offline

#24 2003-11-08 13:59:38

Cobra Commander
Member
From: The outskirts of Detroit.
Registered: 2002-04-09
Posts: 3,039

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

[color=#000000:post_uid0]

[/quote:post_uid0]
First off, welcome [b:post_uid0]jmknapp[/b:post_uid0] to the fray.

The meeting minutes state that Eisenhower was "firmly of the opinion that the rule of reason had to be applied to these Space projects—that we couldn't pour unlimited funds into these costly projects where there was nothing of early value to the Nation's security. . . . [i:post_uid0]n the present situation, the President mused, he would rather have a good Redstone than be able to hit the moon, for we didn't have any enemies on the moon!"
[/quote:post_uid0]

This attitude is not without justification, but even being the case military developments have from the beginning paved the way for space exploration. American and Soviet ICBM designs were straight-off the launch vehicles of the first space missions, both nations having relied heavily on German designs. That "good Redstone" made a moon shot conceivable. But if we really want to play the game of tracing this back to its early roots to see who gets the credit for the space program, then thank you Mr. Hitler. Military needs drive the technology which in turn makes exploration possible.

Would a man have ever been sent to the moon with the military running the show? Doubtful![/quote:post_uid0]

I've heard of plans the military had to set up a missile base on the moon, kind of the ultimate deterence. The Russkis can turn all of North America to hot glass and we can [i]still[/i:post_uid0] nuke 'em back! So if that were carried through the military would not only have gone to the moon but stayed, leaving us with alot of infrastructure up there, not to mention familiarity with the idea that people [i:post_uid0]work[/i:post_uid0] up there, on the moon just like anywhere on Earth. Overall a better outcome I'd say. Thank you Mr. Johnson.

What's needed is an effort annpunced where adventure and exploration are the ultimate criteria (as JFK did).
[/quote:post_uid0]

JFK may have announced the Apollo pragram as adventure and exploration but it gained support and funding [i:post_uid0]solely[/i:post_uid0] as a way to upsatge the Russians and put America back on top in the space race. I would argue that Apollo was only funding to completion because Kennedy was assassinated, martyring him and giving life to the program that otherwise wouldn't have endured long enough to finish. If Apollo is going to be our model for Mars, then what's the point?

It's axiomatic that there will be no commercial exploitation of Mars for a long time. What possible business model exists even on paper? IMAX films? In lieu of that, it must be a government funded effort as practically all exploration to extreme environments has been in history.[/quote:post_uid0]

Government must fund it initially, but (as with other historical models) if private business can't find a way to make money from the frontier fairly quickly it won't amount to anything.[/color:post_uid0]


Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.

Offline

#25 2003-11-08 21:55:08

sethmckiness
Banned
From: Iowa
Registered: 2002-09-20
Posts: 230

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

For example, JFK cut taxes, sent American military advisors to prop up foreign forces, called for a massively expensive space program, increased deployment of nuclear weapons in foreign nations despite the tensions it caused, and stared down a foreign aggressor encroaching on our sphere of influence. Who would do that now?

Well, I am not going to respond to that.  But I think that it is circumstantial or coincidental.  Reminds me of people trying to compare Reagen Lite(the first Bush) with Truman. 

since 1969, there has been 12 years of Democrat influence and 23 years of Republican influence.  But my apologizes, those 12 years ruined the Space program.  Thanks for Correcting me.


We are only limited by our Will and our Imagination.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB