Maybe the time is wrong. - read all before you flame please

wgc · 2004-01-15 20:41:44

Well I've been spending a lot of time since the Bush anouncement reading the various media reaction to the plan and maybe there's a better use for that 11 billion dollars. Actually more will be needed for what I'm proposing.

I think we need to use that money to take anyone associated with the press (tv, radio etc.) lock them away in some secluded University in the montains for say a couple years or decades and teach them some science. Because apparently very few of them must of been awake during grade school science class. Also some math, I want to know how they come up with a figure of a trillion dollars for a moon program. Than without their "EXPERT" analysis and quotes from so called space authorities , this country can get on with a Mars Program.

Wow, if this works maybe we could budget to take all the laywers and teach them some social science. (now that really fringes on the impossible.

jadeheart · 2004-01-16 16:16:05

I'm sure that trillion-dollar price estimate is from the SEI directive from Bush Sr. NASA came back with $500 billion for a price of a Mars mission, and so congress killed it. Media 'pundits' (read gasbags) suggested 1 trillion on the assumption that a gov't agency ALWAYS underestimates. (I guess they may have been justified in this in view of the ISS.)

So, now the media irresponsibly parrots this figure as the "high estimate"-- an estimate that is idiotically arrived at by extrapolating the already-maniacal $0.5 trillion dollar estimate put forth by the greedy, irresponsible (and pre-Mars Direct) NASA of that time.

The thing that pisses me off is that the media gives no reference to where they get this number, ever. This is poor journalism and misleads the reading public. I have sent a few emails in feedback when I see this number reported out of context like this. I'd suggest that anybody interested in getting to Mars do the same.

Why'd you think you'd get flamed?

wgc · 2004-01-16 17:12:00

I'm sure that trillion-dollar price estimate is from the SEI directive from Bush Sr. NASA came back with $500 billion for a price of a Mars mission, and so congress killed it. Media 'pundits' (read gasbags) suggested 1 trillion on the assumption that a gov't agency ALWAYS underestimates. (I guess they may have been justified in this in view of the ISS.)
So, now the media irresponsibly parrots this figure as the "high estimate"-- an estimate that is idiotically arrived at by extrapolating the already-maniacal $0.5 trillion dollar estimate put forth by the greedy, irresponsible (and pre-Mars Direct) NASA of that time.
The thing that pisses me off is that the media gives no reference to where they get this number, ever. This is poor journalism and misleads the reading public. I have sent a few emails in feedback when I see this number reported out of context like this. I'd suggest that anybody interested in getting to Mars do the same.
Why'd you think you'd get flamed?

Because a lot of people read headings, and only skim the posts, but I wanted something catchy.

I've sent out several emails myself, was really surprised when got some replies back. some them not sarcastic.

In my email I basicly outline the Mars Direct approach, maybe starting with moon but using shuttle dirived systems which provide a lot of flexibility.

Martinkh · 2004-01-16 18:05:20

There are 2 ways to do this, and they are part of a huge political divide in the US.

You have the socialists (democrats) saying "exactly how much will it cost if we do it the way we do things now" this is similar to demands for an exit strategy for Iraq (other than "we leave when the job is done"). They want to balance all spending against yet another step on the road to socialist Utopia (social spending).

The way a more adventurous person does it, is they set a goal and work towards it. They try to overcome obsticles, they try to find new ways because they have not been handed the keys to the vault, they have to improvise. The practical definition of engineering is figuring out how to do more with less. NASA is going to focus on this, unless liberals derail it in order to put more black female schoolteachers in space, so they can say they put more black female schoolteachers in space.

Quite frankly, if they would eliminate all social engineering at NASA, they could do this faster. Imagine being in an engineering meeting and 1/3 of the people there cannot be contradicted because they are protected minorities, and management is afraid they will quit or sue.

I think we will do it, provided that Bush is reelected. This is a mans mission, one that stirs emotion and drive, unlike the kumbaya bs of the ISS and shuttle experiments that are not focused on anything but various congressmens constituencies.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-01-15 20:41:44

Re: Maybe the time is wrong. - read all before you flame please

#2 2004-01-16 16:16:05

Re: Maybe the time is wrong. - read all before you flame please

#3 2004-01-16 17:12:00

Re: Maybe the time is wrong. - read all before you flame please

#4 2004-01-16 18:05:20

Re: Maybe the time is wrong. - read all before you flame please

Board footer