NASA, America, etc. - America

Kasei · 2002-10-21 12:17:47

Ok, is it just me, or are other non-Americans getting scared that it will be only Americans going to Mars. I think when we go to Mars it should atleast reasonably international. I have nothing against an American majority, since unfortunately, they are the only country capable of funding a mission if it comes to a nation having to finance it...I am against this whole "Flags and Footprints" approach to space...but shouldb't the American Majority only be 51%. I am not an American but avidly want to enter a space program, and I find it unfair that only Americans seem to be doing anything. Comments please....I mean absolutely no offence to Americans btw. you are good people...so no offence... just u have to agree it's a bit unfair.

Mark S · 2002-10-21 14:46:38

You won't have to worry about an America-only Mars program any time in the near future.

With foreign policy and economic stagnation becoming the major issues of the day, space is not a priority of anybody in government, and it hasn't been a priority in a long time (arguably since Ronald Wilson Reagan left the White House, although most politicians forgot about space after Apollo.)

Only the Russians have what I would call an "intense" desire to send humans to Mars. But their financial crisis will prevent that from happening for a long time.

My guess is that NASA, ESA, and the rest will go to Mars after the ISS has exceeded its useful lifetime, and they will go to Mars out of boredom rather than science or adventure. After all, how is NASA supposed to create government jobs after its current project, ISS, is finished?

RobS · 2002-10-21 17:32:13

I dearly hope that Mars exploration can serve as an international symbol of cooperation, collaboration, and efforts to create a peaceful and better Earth. For Mars to symbolize that, it will have to be explored by an international team. And it unlikely any one nation will try to go it alone, anyway.

-- RobS

Phobos · 2002-10-22 00:52:39

Only the Russians have what I would call an "intense" desire to send humans to Mars. But their financial crisis will prevent that from happening for a long time.

The Russians seem to be getting the right ideas about Mars. All this Russian talk about building manned-Mars vehicles that would be reusable with fifteen-year lifespans sounds encouraging. They don't seem to be interested in one shot deals. Maybe we should give NASA's budget to the Russians instead.

clark · 2002-10-22 12:51:58

Perhaps all of this Russian declarations for Men on Mars is an attempt to increase the "sending men into space" market. After all, they do have a preponderance of skilled space experts of all sorts, twiddling their thumbs, fomenting the loss of the once mighty Empire. It seems that these individuals are trying to make their particular skill set meaningful and marketable...

How do we get Men to Mars?

Why Heavy Lift Rockets that are powerful enough to escape GEO.

Where oh where do they make these wonderful rockets?

Put two and two together and see through the crap.

Russia space agency isn't looking for men on mars anymore than NASA is, there just looking for funding.

Phobos · 2002-10-22 19:54:36

Perhaps all of this Russian declarations for Men on Mars is an attempt to increase the "sending men into space" market. After all, they do have a preponderance of skilled space experts of all sorts, twiddling their thumbs, fomenting the loss of the once mighty Empire. It seems that these individuals are trying to make their particular skill set meaningful and marketable...

Of course they're trying to save their hides by wanting funds for a Mars mission. Nothing wrong with that. At least the means by which the Russians want to keep their paychecks coming is more exciting and drives technology better than the boring and practically useless ISS which is nothing but a makework project in itself. So I still vote to give NASA's funds to the Russians.

Nida · 2002-10-23 09:44:40

Kasei, you keep saying it's UNFAIR that Americans can go into space. Life isn't fair. Yeah I'd like to see a international trip to Mars, I think that'd be best. But what if only the U.S.A. has the MONEY to go? Are American tax-payers OBLIGATED to finance & support non-American astronauts? Should NASA & American SHELVE its space program because everyone else is lagging behind because they're not as rich or powerful or whatever? The Russians'll probably get there first. Would you tell THE RUSSIANS it's "unfair" your nation didn't get their with them? Does America have to apologise for being rich & powerful? You know, money & power didn't just drop from clouds onto U.S.A. soil....Americans WORKED for it. Maybe if Europe would get its shit together collectively, and stop its IDIOTIC squabbling between its nations, it could get a space program together that'd rival anything the U.S. or Russia is doing.....and then Europeans could have THEIR OWN space program and not always have to be looking east or west for satisfaction. It's nobody else's fault but that of the Europeans themselves, if they can't get their act together.

clark · 2002-10-23 09:56:19

Huh, GIVE Russians part of MY tax dollars?

Novel idea. Stupid, but novel.

Seriously though, how would our interests be served by giving up any control over the resources we contribute and how they are utilized?

We give the money to the Russians, who exactly do we complain to when they decide to head off to Venus instead? The Duma? Perhaps maybe Putin would hear us out, after all, he has to get our American vote for.... oh wait, nevermind.

You know, money & power didn't just drop from clouds onto U.S.A. soil....Americans
WORKED for it.

Hmmm, worked for it? Would that be the slaves who built up much of the infrastructure of our Great Society? Or perhaps you are speaking about the exploited immigrants that furthered the development of this Great Society. I know, you must be refering to the hard work of all the illegal immigrants who are exploited and then villified when all they want is a better life for their family. Or perhaps you mean all the hard work we engaged in to maintain our social, politcal, cultural and don't forget the massive military strength, by which we dominate and strangle the world.

It's hard work exploiting others for our benefit. It's hard work exporting our polluting industries. It's hard work to create a system of economic that allows us to have cheap electronics while entire peoples starve. It's hard work to maintain dictatorships in third world countires that mercilessly opress their people just so we can have cheap oil or open markets for our superior products.

Its just so much hard work.

Nida · 2002-10-23 10:12:22

Clark I'm not American. Looks like you don't like your own country that much. I suppose you think any other country with the opportunity WOULDN'T do some of the bad things America has done?? That any other country with as much money & power would ALWAYS be nice and play fair, etc.??Are you really that naive?? Are you really THAT green behind the ears??

clark · 2002-10-23 10:29:05

Clark I'm not American.

So what? Does it matter if you are or not? Does it matter if I am or not?

And as for my fondness of America, how does that deny my ability to look at the actions of my nation of birth in a realistic manner? I can wave a flag and pretend that it's all apple pies and country fairs, but that would be denying some fundamnetal truths you and others may wish to gloss over, and it would shirk my duty as an American, which includes pointing out the faults of my country.

As for wether or not other countreies in the same position would od the same as the US is not for me to guess- I don't care, I do care about what my country IS and HAS done. Your attempt at justifying is weak.

I am far from green behind the ears, I do choose though to limit the extent of my cyniscim in some areas, most notably the actions of my country. Just because everyone else would do it if they were in our shoes is a lame reason and fails as a legitmate rationale for adults- maybe the playground is a better place to try that bull.

Nida · 2002-10-23 10:59:07

Clark, you seem bitter.

clark · 2002-10-23 11:17:17

Thanks for the color commentary.

Mark S · 2002-10-23 11:43:16

America was built on the blood, sweat, and tears of immigrants and slaves, there's no denying that. But a nation is not built on exploitation alone. There were plenty of Horatio Alger-heroes throughout American history who achieved success the hard way. It's also true that the nation did not become a superpower until long after the abolition of slavery and the institution of labor laws.

The redeeming value that America has always possessed is the ability to admit its mistakes, correct them, and become a better country for doing so.

One cannot look at the advancement of American space technology over the past half century and say that it wasn't earned the hard way. How many engineers spent weeks away from home to complete the lunar lander on time? How many billions of dollars were spent by taxpayers to get men to the moon and back? How many pilots paid the ultimate sacrifice in preparation for space? The point is that the American spirit encouraged odinary people to do the extraordinary in the pursuit of keeping the world and, I daresay, the moon, free from socialist totalitarianism.

I'm not saying for one minute that another nation could not duplicate this feat. But people work best when they are given more civil liberties with less government interference. Only America, in my opinion, has been able to create a government that is both effective and limited in scope.

Palomar · 2002-10-23 12:07:37

*The ablest space program with the most financial funding behind it will be the one which reaches Mars first...whether it's American, Russian, or whatever. As someone else here pointed out some time back [I can't recall who], America has more money, and Russia has more experience [time spent in the International Space Station and etc.] and drive.

BTW, Mark -- excellent post; I thought your response was well balanced and objective.

It's not an issue of "fairness," IMO, but rather who is equipped, ready and able to do it. That's life.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-10-23 13:18:10

But a nation is not built on exploitation alone.

Are was and still is. Or perhaps some might enlighten me as to how we haven't exported our pollution to third world countries, or how we have exported poor working conditions for third world countries. All of the messy business practices created by capatilism are simply exported to other areas of the world for our benefit.

Perhaps you can explain to me how we are not exploiting illegal immigrants for cheap labor, and then villifying tthem as the problem.

Perhaps you might explain how our nation wasn't created on broken treaties or at the point of a gun (native americans and mexico for starters).

There were plenty of Horatio Alger-heroes throughout American history who achieved success the hard way.

All true, and not denied. However, I fail to see how the perseverance of single individuals is really a reflection on the actions of our government.

It's also true that the nation did not become a superpower until long after the abolition of slavery and the institution of labor laws.

But the Civil Rights didn't occur until 1965- and prior to that, we had something just as insideous as slavery. As for the labor laws, that just exported a problem we all agreed was a problem to someone else.

The redeeming value that America has always possessed is the ability to admit its mistakes, correct them, and become a better country for doing so.

I agree. I thought that was what I was doing....

One cannot look at the advancement of American space technology over the past half century and say that it wasn't earned the hard way.

Riiigggght. Becuase only America contributed. Your post denies the contributions of all the other non-american countries made in getting US astronauts to the moon and back. It was an international effort, we didn't do it alone.

How many engineers spent weeks away from home to complete the lunar lander on time?

How many illegal immigrants had to work 100 hour weeks to provide the cheap food so they could work overtime? Specialists are always out numbered by the common labor, and we need more common labor to support larger pools of specialists.

How many billions of dollars were spent by taxpayers to get men to the moon and back?

And did that effort really improve the quality of life for the vast majority of people who contributed to that goal, either directly or indirectly? Didn't we all just kind of get told that we were doing this thing becuase of some politcal/ideolgical battle between leaders?

How many pilots paid the ultimate sacrifice in preparation for space?

You forgot the monkies, dogs, birds, etc.

The point is that the American spirit encouraged odinary people to do the extraordinary in the pursuit of keeping the world and, I daresay, the moon, free from socialist
totalitarianism.

Riiiight. Beware the boogey man. To think that sending a few men to the moon protects our freedoms here and in outerspace is stretching the limits of reason.

Phobos · 2002-10-23 14:54:55

Huh, GIVE Russians part of MY tax dollars?
Novel idea. Stupid, but novel.
Seriously though, how would our interests be served by giving up any control over the resources we contribute and how they are utilized?
We give the money to the Russians, who exactly do we complain to when they decide to head off to Venus instead? The Duma? Perhaps maybe Putin would hear us out, after all, he has to get our American vote for.... oh wait, nevermind.

Chill Clark, I was just saying we should give NASA's funds to Russia in jest. Anyway, we already do give our tax money away to multitudes of foreign organizations and we've already pulled up the slack for the Russian side of the ISS more than once. So I hate to inform you, but your tax money finds plenty of places to go that don't directly affect American programs. Anyhow, from a hypothetical point of view, if we did decide to finance the Russian form of a Mars trip (because it was way cheaper than anything NASA could do, etc) we could easily put in oversight mechanisms and time tables to make sure the money is going toward the project. If they deviate in the least there would be no more funding. But just to say again, don't take everything you read so seriously!!! Sheesh.

clark · 2002-10-23 15:16:07

LOL. I know, just giving you a hard time Phobos.

Perhaps we would be better served by just investing the money into Hollywood, and let us simply THINK we landed on Mars. Then we could have monsters and ghosts and people blasting off with aliens from the "face" on mars....

Sheesh!

dicktice · 2002-11-12 18:09:58

The United States of America (not America, since I'm from Canada, eh?) are not living up to expectations insofar as interplanetary space is concerned. They should encourage through popular information releases (eg. via NASA Space News) the Russian asperations especially, who are truly motivated (their entire Soyuz history is available on the net) and still capable of producing results, soonest!

Alexander Sheppard · 2002-11-12 18:55:56

Well, it would seem to me that the big reason why the American space program is not excelling is because that, as of right now, is simply not the point. The American space program is not designed to do serious interplanetary exploration. It is not designed to do pioneering work in space. Rather, it is designed to function as a huge corporate welfare engine, as is the Department of Defense, which around thirty times larger in terms of dollars. Of course, the DoD does perform some useful function with all that money, because the function that it happens to perform--imperialism--is useful to ruling class planners. Doing manned interplanetary missions is simply not a priority, as far as I can see because it doesn't serve the percieved interests of the current ruling class. That's not to say that even from an imperial standpoint the colonization of space isn't useful--in fact it could be tremendously useful, but only in the long run, after some decades. No leader as yet has been able to recognize that, however. However, looking back on previous imperial exploratory phases of human history, I'm inclined to say that an imperial style colonization of space, with resources used to subjugate other Terran powers, is far less preferable from a human standpoint than one which is based around the interests of the society as a whole, and one that is open to international cooperation when this is reasonable.

Mark S · 2002-11-13 07:03:36

Rather, it is designed to function as a huge corporate welfare engine

NASA is a HUGE corporate welfare engine, consuming $15 billion a year and a MASSIVE 1% of the federal budget.

NASA's primary job is still space exploration, the only problem is that politicians don't understand that. Take Apollo as an example. The scientists, engineers, and astronauts all believed in their research and the value of new knowledge. The projects supporters in Congress could have cared less; President Johnson used it to justify pork-barrel spending in Texas when the Manned Spaceflight Center could have been built at Cape Canaveral like everything else.

Because NASA is a government organization, it must exist as both a scientifc and political entity. If we want to make a group firmy-committed to space science, we'll have to wait until research institutions can afford space travel--which requires the commercialization of space.

Alexander Sheppard · 2002-11-13 15:12:24

Of course, all of NASA's budget doesn't go straight into corporate welfare, but probably a majority of it does. Of course, you're right, there are other functions of the US federal government which are much larger, and by far the biggest corporate welfare agency is not NASA but the DoD. See, for example, the $200 billion ( ! ) contract which was just given by the DoD to Lockheed Martin for the design of a new fighter aircraft.

Well, what is NASA's job? I mean, officially, sure, NASA's job is to explore space, do all this stuff, whatever. But what does NASA actually do and what do politicians expect it to do? That's what I mean. As far as I can see, most of what NASA does is not really concerned with science or serious exploration--mostly it is concerned with corporate welfare, aka "pork barrel spending".

dickbill · 2002-11-13 17:37:23

Hi
Except in USA and Russia, the space conquest is not very popular. In Europe, space and Mars in particular is not seen as the New New World to conquest. But, even in USA, how many people consider Mars as the new far west ? (well maybe until Odyssey discovers pure gold deposits in craters). This said, america and russia's sciences are built upon hundreds of years of european sciences. We cannot ignore all the occidental scientific monumental marvel underjacent of today NASA's miracles. So I would say that european deserve a good place in the Mars conquest no matter what.

Bill White · 2002-11-13 17:52:46

Hi
Except in USA and Russia, the space conquest is not very popular. In Europe, space and Mars in particular is not seen as the New New World to conquest. But, even in USA, how many people consider Mars as the new far west ?

Do you think Europeans would support going to Mars "in a different way" - - > in a way that emphasized a different (more European) perspective for reasons to settle space?

Mark S · 2002-11-13 20:46:17

and by far the biggest corporate welfare agency is not NASA but the DoD. See, for example, the $200 billion ( ! ) contract which was just given by the DoD to Lockheed Martin for the design of a new fighter aircraft.

How can you call the Joint Strike Fighter "corporate welfare" ? By my definition, "corporate welfare" is unjustified government spending for the purpose of unfairly bolstering certain corporations. Yet buying the Joint Strike Fighter, at least in principle, is justified (although I think the actual number to be produced is excessive based on unrealistic estimates of the future battlefield.) Furthermore, the JSF contract does not unfairly favor select corporations. To be honest, it was one of the most competitive contracts in DoD history--it forced McDonnell Douglas to merge with Boeing and caused Northrop Grumman to team w/ Lockheed after the initial downselect, and both teams that flew prototypes spent millions of their own dollars towards the contract.

Of course, one could argue that any government money being spent on the private sector is "corporate welfare." In this case, we have a decision to make: either force the government to not spend money (an impossibility) or allow the government to seize private companies and build a "socialist utopia."

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-10-21 12:17:47

Re: NASA, America, etc. - America

#2 2002-10-21 14:46:38

Re: NASA, America, etc. - America

#3 2002-10-21 17:32:13

Re: NASA, America, etc. - America

#4 2002-10-22 00:52:39

Re: NASA, America, etc. - America

#5 2002-10-22 12:51:58

Re: NASA, America, etc. - America

#6 2002-10-22 19:54:36

Re: NASA, America, etc. - America

#7 2002-10-23 09:44:40

Re: NASA, America, etc. - America

#8 2002-10-23 09:56:19

Re: NASA, America, etc. - America

#9 2002-10-23 10:12:22

Re: NASA, America, etc. - America

#10 2002-10-23 10:29:05

Re: NASA, America, etc. - America

#11 2002-10-23 10:59:07

Re: NASA, America, etc. - America

#12 2002-10-23 11:17:17

Re: NASA, America, etc. - America

#13 2002-10-23 11:43:16

Re: NASA, America, etc. - America

#14 2002-10-23 12:07:37

Re: NASA, America, etc. - America

#15 2002-10-23 13:18:10

Re: NASA, America, etc. - America

#16 2002-10-23 14:54:55

Re: NASA, America, etc. - America

#17 2002-10-23 15:16:07

Re: NASA, America, etc. - America

#18 2002-11-12 18:09:58

Re: NASA, America, etc. - America

#19 2002-11-12 18:55:56

Re: NASA, America, etc. - America

#20 2002-11-13 07:03:36

Re: NASA, America, etc. - America

#21 2002-11-13 15:12:24

Re: NASA, America, etc. - America

#22 2002-11-13 17:37:23

Re: NASA, America, etc. - America

#23 2002-11-13 17:52:46

Re: NASA, America, etc. - America

#24 2002-11-13 20:46:17

Re: NASA, America, etc. - America

Board footer