US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

cIclops · 2006-09-25 07:34:17

So says Gallup in this online video

Commodore · 2006-09-25 07:57:02

And yet were not opposed to manned missions to Mars, right.

SpaceNut · 2006-09-25 10:48:52

meet the press july 31

There has been much discusion sbout attempting to land an astronaut on the planet mars. How would you feel about such an attempt, - - would you be in favor or oppose the united states setting aside money for such a project?

NASA will spend about 5% or less of the money of which is spent on national defense budget over the next 20 years. What would you like to see with this money since it is a given that we will be going to spend that money. would be to list the options on how to spend it.

basic question is knowing it will cost money to go, would you want nasa to go.

Wow what a negative way of thinking about this.
With this you could ask the question this way.

If you had a job working for Nasa and we do not go to mars are you willing to go find a new job since we will not be getting the money to pay for you to stay at work?

Mars...Let's Go! · 2006-09-25 11:12:53

That is because most people who are polled don't even know what "Mars" is.....

Well, maybe that is wrong, but still, most people are too caught up in what's going on HERE on Earth to understand the importance of getting to Mars.

Still upsetting, however.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-09-25 12:32:23

Its meant to be upsetting Gallup sets up poll results in order to influence public policy and Gallup does not want the US sending people to Mars, they want the Chinese or some other leftsing organization getting their first, so naturally the poll results reflects their opinion, I also remember all the results of those exits polls in 2004 that had John Kerry ahead, when he really is behind. Much of the news organizations are very political and liberal these days. They can no longer be counted upon to give reliable results. The main thing with Gallup is that the Manned Mars program is George Bush's baby, because it is a think associated with George W. Bush, they want to see it crash and burn. It is another manifestation of Bush hatred. Everything about Bush has got to fail, the media makes stuff up when ever it can get away with it to sabotage Bush, its as simple as that.

I don't know what they want to have instead of a Mars program, as it is replacing the Shuttle. Once the Shuttle is gone, what there really talking about is canceling NASA. "Do you want to spend money on NASA, or do you want to eliminate the program?" Then find the most liberal America-hating cities to ask this question of for a scientific result that goes their way. By the time Bush leaves office the Mars Program will be well under way, and hard to stop. the Shuttle is a goner, there is no way to justify the shuttle or to resume making parts for it. The Shuttle will die in 2010 and that's that. Some people would like the CEV to be used as nothing but a ferry for the Space Station, and they want to spend as much money as possible so the United States doesn't achieve any significant accomplishments for it. They want NASA to spend the money and for our international partners to get all the credit.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-09-25 13:27:00

All in all, I think the political Right has been more friendly to a manned Mars Endeavour that the Political left has been. Remember the firstmajor politician to call for a Manned Mars Program was Vice President Spiro Agnew. JFK briefly considered it, but then put a priority on reaching the Moon. The Liberals had some admirable qualities right up unti Lyndon B. Johnson, after him, the liberals did too much self-examining, they questioned the United States's place in the World, they questioned our accomplishements and whether we should try to achieve anything. The Next Democratic President after that was Jimmy Carter, and Jimmy Carter didn't do squat for the space program, all he did was wear sweaters in the White House and he turned down the thermostat and he conducted all nmight vigils to solve the problems of the US hostage crisis, but for NASA he did nothing. During his administration no US astronauts flew into Space Gerard Ford had Apollo-Soyuz, Nixon had Apollo, LBJ had Apollo, Gemini, and JFK had Mercury. But I don't know of any Democratic President that had any real vision of where to go in space. Clinton just kept launching the Shuttle, and their were abortive attempts at SSTOs and the cancellation of the NASP program, started under Reagan and continued under Bush. I think getting rid of the Shuttle was a blessing, now we don't waste time deciding what to do with the Shuttle other than to keep launching it. With a focus on Mars, NASA either carries it forward or stops. If someone doesn't like the Mars program, he should decide on what else we should be doing instead, and I haven't heard any good ideas from them.

SpaceNut · 2006-09-25 20:18:38

A statement that is New Gallup Poll Reveals Americans Continue to Strongly Support Space Exploration

Martin_Tristar · 2006-09-25 21:35:33

Well,

I have been saying this for ages, the American Public and the Tax-Paying Public don't like the use of money for tourist missions to Moon or Mars or anywhere else. They want concrete uses and outcomes.

What we need is a framework for the advancement of space not just for Amercian's , Europeans, Chinese or Russian but all nations , that means the establishment of property right frameworks, regulatory frmeworks for landings, outposts, mining and more, created into an agreement for the future or we will have first in - first get largest piece of the Solar System.

It also shows that the public doesn't want the US Treasury to pay for the development of space and let the other countries come after and get the benefits -- I think the US Public hasn't been told of the benefits to their economy and should be at all levels including at school levle, business / consumer level, and government level.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-09-25 21:48:23

Polls go up and down, each poll is a random sampling, and each poll result is a random number although heavily weighted towards public opinion. If you take enough polls, eventually your going to get a result that the poll takers are looking for. Personally I don't give a fig about what opinion polls say. Opinion polls didn't predict the results of the last Presidential election. I know what I want. I don't think any President is going to get elected or not elected based on his stand on whether we should send men to Mars or not. I have pride in my country, and personally, I want the USA to be among those nations colonizing the Moon and Mars. I think if we don't go, then someone else surely will. Humanity won't hold back this time if NASA doesn't send men to Mars. I think China will go, just like they built the Three Gorges Dam and that maglev train out of Beijing Airport, it is a matter of National Pride. I figure if we don't go or if the public doesn't want us to go, it is because they have no pride in their country, they want us to become a small shrunken nation, while the rest of the world colonizes the Solar System. I think we now have institutional momentum in our favor for going to Mars. It is now the oppositions task to argue why not than for us to argue why. I think it is no longer a matter of if, but of when and who. Remember the first words uttered by Neil Armstrong, "That's one small step for Man, one giant leap for mankind." There is a significant danger that the first words uttered by the first astronaut on Mars won't be so memorable to us, because they won't be in English.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-09-25 21:57:36

Well,
I have been saying this for ages, the American Public and the Tax-Paying Public don't like the use of money for tourist missions to Moon or Mars or anywhere else. They want concrete uses and outcomes.
What we need is a framework for the advancement of space not just for Amercian's , Europeans, Chinese or Russian but all nations , that means the establishment of property right frameworks, regulatory frmeworks for landings, outposts, mining and more, created into an agreement for the future or we will have first in - first get largest piece of the Solar System.
It also shows that the public doesn't want the US Treasury to pay for the development of space and let the other countries come after and get the benefits -- I think the US Public hasn't been told of the benefits to their economy and should be at all levels including at school levle, business / consumer level, and government level.

You know what they say about the hand that rocks the cradle. The first country to send men to Mars will certainly have enourmous influence over what follows that mission. I believe in democracy, the Chinese government does not, or the Russian one for that matter. Any country that send men to Mars is also demostrating its technical capability of colonizing the Solar System, its not the Red Planet thats important so much as demostrating our ability to get there. Once we go to Mars, mining the asteroids should be well within our grasp and thus we can spread outwards into the Solar System and American values and democracy will grow as we spread into space. If the Chinese do it and we don't, then we'll end up living in the shadow of an interplanetary Empire, well be like China once was during the European age of exploration, an exploited colonial possession. I don't want to bow to any Chinese Emperor or Russian Czar, whatever the titles they may actually use, so I think its imperative that we have a strong manned space program.

flashgordon · 2006-09-25 23:39:12

this is why we should raise our kids on science like the Indians do. I remember during the recession years of 1990's; everybody was affected, but . . . formula one teams! They live in their own little world. In other words, it is possible, but their isn't enough people who see it and are willing to break family ties for it. With 99% of humanity getting their money and social standing from family and social conformity, it is going to be really hard to get away from humanities animal past.

cIclops · 2006-09-26 01:42:06

Okay now for the good news

A new Gallup Poll shows more than two- thirds of respondents support the nation's stepping-stone approach to space exploration, which includes flying the space shuttle to complete the International Space Station, building a replacement vehicle for the space shuttle, returning humans to the moon, and exploring Mars and points beyond. (Respondents support this approach if NASA's budget does not exceed 1 percent of the federal budget.)

SpaceNut · 2006-09-26 06:44:02

Seems the poll data is age or generation dependent.

Dittmar Associates Finds Young Adults Largely Disinterested in the U.S. Vision for Space Exploration

Gee another study poll...

In a study reported on last week at the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Space 2006 meeting, Dittmar Associates reported that young American adults are "largely disinterested" in the Vision for Space Exploration announced by President Bush in January of 2004.
Endorsement of the space program in general was very strong, with 69% of Americans voicing their support.
- Interest and excitement about the Vision for Space Exploration was strong for near-term aspects of the plan (65% of Americans responded positively) and for returning to the Moon.

Poll: Support Still Strong for NASA’s Space Exploration Vision

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-09-26 07:25:11

So what's the point? A clever poll can obtain whatever response that you like. This is not news, and it doesn't reveal a thing about public sentiment, it mostly reveals the opinions of those conducting the polls. Pollsters who want the poll to go a certain way will ask the question one way while pollsters who ask in in another way will get different results. As you can see, the results are all over the map, and it will drive you crazy if you follow them. I don't think it is very useful to run polls about NASA or the Mars program as everybody whos got a political axe to grind will be conducting a poll and asking a question in a certain way to massage the results to his liking. I generally think the typical respondent has other concerns other than the Space Program, and will typically give the pollster the answers he's looking for just to get rid of him so he stops being pestered by pollsters calling him up all the time.

SpaceNut · 2006-10-02 20:59:38

Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research; Americans Back Missions to Moon, Mars

Many adults in the United States are in favour of the goals set by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), according to a poll by Gallup for The Space Foundation for The Coalition for Space Exploration. 66 per cent of respondents support NASA’s new plan if its budget does not exceed one per cent of the federal budget.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-03 00:44:19

I believe 1% of the US budget is $27 billion, I think that is enough each year to get a decent sized manned Mars program going. The idea in the long run is or should be to reduce costs, so we can send more people there and eventually establish a colony. I'm really not in favor of $500 billion annual budgets. If $27 billion is not enough, then spend that $27 billion to reduce costs and make it enough. I think $27 billion is enough to get some good R&D going. If $27 billion is enough then its a little r and a big D. If $27 billion is not enough then its a big R and a little d. See what I'm getting at?

Martin_Tristar · 2006-10-04 07:09:46

Tom, you are correct the 1% could provide a continous manned mars program for a slow build up from tourist site to outpost to settlement to colony eventually. But what about the other space programs like the moon , earth sciences , remote vehicles to other planets and moons in our solar system or beyond.

You would need more like 2% or US$55 Billions per year to have $27 Billion for Mars only and $12 billion for Moon and the other $16 billion for current earth science, space station and probe activities. Then we could meet all objectives for the space program outlined by Bush.

But the development of Mars needs to be done like the development of the Panama Canal or rail systesm, or road systems or dams or any other large scale projects, through planning, management and continous material and personnel supply.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-04 08:09:49

The criterion was that a Manned Mars program not exceed 1% of the US budget, other parts of the space program are considered extra. But also consider, that 1% does not stay fixed. The US economy is growing and so is the US budget and so is that 1%. Things will be tight in the early years, but as the program progresses things will loosen up. The sorts of vehicles we will develop to explore Mars will also increase the potential of what we can do in the rest of the Solar System. The idea is to reduce the cost of space travel so we can do more with the same amount of dollars. I think the first manned Mars missions will be expensive, but the idea is to introduce compeditive pressure between firms to reduce costs as they try to maximise profits. The Mars prize system actually creates a market for going to Mars. The prizes grow over time, because the US government keeps adding to them. The competing firms are sandwiched between two types of pressure; they don't want to hurry their programs along too fast otherwise they risk mission failure and they won't collect the prize money, if they wait too long, then someone else will collect the prize money and they'll have to settle for second prize. Of course the earlier they go, the less the prize is worth.

In principle it builds up like the megamillions lottery, it starts out at $5,000,000, not many are interested and not too many buy tickets, so no one wins the first drawing, the money collected goes into the pot and the prize is not $10,000,000. $10,000,000 attracts more people to buy tickets, the probability of winning remains the same but now theirs more people buying tickets, so the probability of actually getting a winner increases by the next drawing over the first. The chance of winning is still remote and their are still not enough ticket holders to produce a winner so the money goes right back into the pot. the prize goes to $25,000,000. And people rush to buy tickets, this increases the lottery revenue, and the prize doubles to $50,000,000, no one wins the next drawing and so it doubles again to $100,000,000. At this point people sitting on the fence are going to have to decide whether the $100,000,000 is enough of an inducement to get them to buy a ticket. Each ticket costs $1, and if they win, they'd rather get more money than less. If they wait, then someone is likely to win this round because now their is so many people buying tickets, the chance of getting a winner is now around 50% or greater.

Its like that with a Mars prize too, the firms can wait longer for the prize to get bigger, but in so doing they risk someone else winning the prize and their settling for something less or their waiting for the second prize to get bigger and more to their liking. I think this sequence of prizes will produce a certain frequency of Mars missions. Each mission will be a little different, have different objectives and a different target landing site, but not so much that the lose of the first contest couldn't use most of his equipment for the second.

Martin_Tristar · 2006-10-04 19:44:00

To build a long term Manned Mars Program ( including future settlement / colonization ) we will need to develop the necessary infrastructure around the earth , on the moon, and navigation to Mars and the outer planets / moons / asteroids in our solar system.

On earth we need the development of a long term manned exporation department / agency separate from NASA or a Global Agency for Mars Development bring together multiple countries including personnel and material resources. All the existing agencies are focused on many different projects and missions we need a single focus agency to meet the needs for Mars in the short and long term.

Until we provide leadership, earth infrastructure and space based infrastructure we will continue to do these tourist / explorer type missions and they won't meet our short and long term mars exploration and settlements objectives.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-04 23:22:02

All you really need is an agency that awards prizes for missions accomplished. The scientists and engineers working for the government aren't inherently smarter than those working for private corporations. All we really need is to supply a reason for private corporations to go to Mars. Private corporations already supply everything NASA has and uses. If Lockheed can build an Ares V rocket for NASA, it can also build one for itself, it uses the same assembly process to do both. Government Bureocrats don't work any magic that makes space travel happen, they simply pay for it and that is all. Almost all the expertise is in the hands of private corporations. Whats needed is to bring some competition into the mix. NASA should simply state what it wants and award prizes for whoever accomplish these goals. I don't know what an international space agency would do that would be any different. We could march the US Army in and train them to mbe scientists and engineers and how to assemble and launch rockets, but I don't see how that would be any more cost effective than if we let a private corporation do it.

Martin_Tristar · 2006-10-05 00:02:26

Tom,

No, We need entrepreneurs to say that its time and move to get to mars cheap and then when there get moving on a outpost construction. But First we need apative automation software to oversee the development of the outpost and quailty control software to test each component of the outpost.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-05 07:39:55

If the private corporations are already running the missions, they will strive to reduce costs to strengthen their bottom line, its a part of their nature. A government agency that is doing it won't make any particular effort to reduce costs, why should they? It is not their money, and they are not being evaluationg on their ability to reduce costs. A governments cost consciousness is intermitent, they are usually only concerned about costs when congressional bean counters are in the room. The question of survival is not a concern for a government agency. Arrayed against those government bean counters that want to reduce costs and balance the budget are those special interests, and labor unions that want to preserve jobs, their are congressmen and Denators whose votes are crucial to getting the appropriations,and if labor unions made contributions totheir campaigns, they will tend to exert pressure on the contractors to give into the Union's demands if they want the contract, it is the government's money after all and a cost plus contract, so most contractors simply shrug their shoulders and give the labor leaders whatever they ask for, and they pass on the additional cost to the government, why shouldn't they, its not their bottom line?

Governments are typically concerned with many different factors, private corporations are concerned with only one, their profits. Now who do you think is more likely to cut costs, buerocrats who want to preserve their jobs, and congressmen who want to help them to do it, or the CEO of a private corporation who wants to keep his job and satisfy the shareholders who hired him in the first place, but giving them the returns and profitability that they ask for? The prize money makes them jump through hoops to get that prise money, they have to get humans to Mars, get them to do useful scientific work and bring them safely back to Earth to win the prize, and private corporations will try to do those things as efficiently as possible, they are always looking for ways to make things cheaper, government agencies are not.

Ittiz · 2006-10-05 17:22:22

So says Gallup in this online video

People in the US are pretty ignorant about space travel these days. I think they need something to wake them up like sputnik did almost 50 years ago. Something like China landing a man on the moon before we go back. That would probably kick the American public back into shape about space.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-06 13:32:08

I don't believe we need to give them a head start. Simply vote for the Politicians who are pro-space and find other reasons to convince other people to vote for them as well. The people who are not interested in Space do not pay attention to what NASA is doing, so long as NASA doesn't eat up too much of the government pie, people aren't going to notice, nor care what NASA spends its annual budget on. If people didn't pay attention to the Shuttle going up an down, why should they object to NASA changing its priorities and spending the same money on something else. The Shuttle doesn't do hardly much of anything, it can't launch on time, and it has delays like nothing else. Ever try packing up for a trip and trying to get out the door and have nothing but delays, things people forgot etc? When such a thing happend to me, I compare it to a Shuttle Launch.

srmeaney · 2006-10-06 21:55:02

Common kiddies, Say it with me:
Space Commonwealth
Citizenship Compulsory
Oneway trip to Mars Colony

The Private sector is quite capable of financing the move to space on the profits in the banking system alone. If the Banks of America alone were allowed to go to the Moon, they could construct an underground city for ten thousand people in less than thirty years. It would require one way human colonization.
banks spend all profit for next thirty years on colonization and sell city for twice the 30 year profits.
Had this conversation a few years back.

Tax any company that does not invest all profits in lunar colonization at 98% and declare the Moon a tax free haven for all IT and Subsurface Construction/mining companies that colonize fifty percent of their employees and computer capacity off earth.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2006-09-25 07:34:17

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#2 2006-09-25 07:57:02

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#3 2006-09-25 10:48:52

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#4 2006-09-25 11:12:53

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#5 2006-09-25 12:32:23

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#6 2006-09-25 13:27:00

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#7 2006-09-25 20:18:38

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#8 2006-09-25 21:35:33

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#9 2006-09-25 21:48:23

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#10 2006-09-25 21:57:36

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#11 2006-09-25 23:39:12

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#12 2006-09-26 01:42:06

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#13 2006-09-26 06:44:02

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#14 2006-09-26 07:25:11

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#15 2006-10-02 20:59:38

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#16 2006-10-03 00:44:19

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#17 2006-10-04 07:09:46

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#18 2006-10-04 08:09:49

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#19 2006-10-04 19:44:00

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#20 2006-10-04 23:22:02

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#21 2006-10-05 00:02:26

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#22 2006-10-05 07:39:55

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#23 2006-10-05 17:22:22

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#24 2006-10-06 13:32:08

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#25 2006-10-06 21:55:02

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

Board footer