A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-09 09:56:11

I think the key words of the bet are "solid date."

If he goes "moon base, Mars sometime later," then yeah...

But yeah, you have some interesting points. Of course, though, inarguably a moon base would further space initiatives regardless, so at most he would be delaying Mars missions (so that the US could control moon resources, etc, all part of clark's moon base imperial-militaristic plan). Personally, I do think NASA could use some revamping, but I honestly don't think this is the admin to do it. I have no problem with ending the shuttle fleet, for example, and putting that money somewhere better.

Bill White · 2004-01-09 22:21:06

But yeah, you have some interesting points. Of course, though, inarguably a moon base would further space initiatives regardless, so at most he would be delaying Mars missions (so that the US could control moon resources, etc, all part of clark's moon base imperial-militaristic plan). Personally, I do think NASA could use some revamping, but I honestly don't think this is the admin to do it. I have no problem with ending the shuttle fleet, for example, and putting that money somewhere better.

If we lose the ability to build shuttle derived launchers (Ares, Shuttle B, Shuttle C) because the contractors who build the shuttle main tank lay off workers or because Morton Thiokol stop making SRBs or because the crawler is cut up for scrap then the USA ain't going to Mars until we design and deploy a whole new Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle and build the ground infrastructure to use it.

Moon first is fine with me =IF= we fly shuttle derived launchers and are genuinely closer to Mars after we accomplish "return to the Moon."

Moon first with boosters that cannot "do Mars" - - ever - -combined with dismantling what little Mars capable infrastructure we already have? Josh, do you really want that?

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-10 07:55:48

Nah Bill, like I said in the other thread, I would go for a rebuilt shuttle fleet. I especially see where you're coming from here now. The shuttle as it is though isn't going to cut it in my opinion.

clark · 2004-01-10 11:25:53

My bet:

Sometime in the next 5 years, there will be a date set for an actual Manned Mars mission- in other words, sometime in the next five years they will pick a date in the future.

link to the thread where the bet was made

I wish I could say I was surprised by any of this.

How is any of this news? I've been telling you all for some time now that this would happen.

Don't be a Doubting Thomas anymore. Learn from Bill.

so that the US could control moon resources, etc, all part of clark's moon base imperial-militaristic plan).

I told you Josh, it's not my plan. :laugh: Perhaps Cobra's, but not mine.

I will have to say there are some ideas in this plan that I didn't see coming, but I'm not surprised, just par for the course. Seems rather brilliant in a way (you need to think about the big picture)

So Josh, we should have a final determination after the State of the Union (or Wed, but I want to wait for the State of the Union to see if the space plan makes it in). Now that you are a moderator, I assume you can call on Adrian to join us in this thread when he has a moment... nothing like having to fetch your own executioner, eh Josh?

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-10 11:48:32

The entireity of the exchange:

Josh Cryer

So,offically, the bet is:
There will be a solid date set by a nation for a mission to Mars in the next five years. If such a date is set within this five year period, clark wins, and I owe him a Mars Society Membership, and a bottle of (reasonably good) champigne. If such a date is not set, I win, and he owes me the same.
Adrian will be the arbitrator over whether or not such a date is truely set. Perferrably such a date will be qualified by an actual commission for a Mars mission in the set time period, or as Adrian suggests, a mommumental speech.

clark

I agree to the terms. Let's keep the dollar amount on the champigne reasonable- say $20 to $30?

Josh Cryer

So, it's agreed. Good luck, clark. In a way, I'm surprised you're the optimistic one here between the two of us! It's quite interesting.

I won't add any more speculation than I already, though I would love to.

I reserve the right to complain if/when I have to pay up though.

Edited By Josh Cryer on 1073757247

clark · 2004-01-10 11:53:38

Add all the speculation you want, I don't mind.

Would you contend with "by the end of such and such decade"?

Did you think the race would be this close though?

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-10 11:58:16

Here's my speculation, if Zubrin isn't happy with it, then it ain't no solid date. There, I said it.

I just don't want to be accused of biasing our arbitrator.

And you know I've always been doubtful about this bet. Bush has had really great luck politically.

clark · 2004-01-10 12:05:39

I just don't want to be accused of biasing our arbitrator.

Because him making you a moderator isn't a conflict of interests...

Don't worry, I'm making fun, not being serious about it. Adrian and you have always been more than fair.

But I reserve the right to complain about it if/when I have to pay up though.

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-10 12:56:01

Hey, if you're really right, and Bush is really on the ball with this one, and all the space societies are happy with his decisions, then everything will bode well for all of us. It really will.

We just have to wait and see.

clark · 2004-01-10 13:41:34

If? If I'm really right?

What do you people need?! :laugh:

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-11 10:35:31

When will they vote on this budget/initiative? Does anyone know?

If they sell it as a revamping of NASA, it will likely gain ground and make it through, if it's seen as hurting too many constituents (if even in the short term), it will not pass.

If I lose "formally" in the next week or so, it would suck for me to have paid up and it not pass offically.

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-11 18:52:58

Just to answer my own question, the bill goes to Congress Feb 1st, as do all budget related bills. If Congress is as on the ball with most of Bush's bills with this one, it could be passed very quickly.

clark · 2004-01-11 19:45:33

Who wants to be against space exploration? Unless you're a Dem... the idea crosses ideological grounds. I doubt the dem party will choose this as the hill to die on.

Euler · 2004-01-11 20:00:33

Who wants to be against space exploration?

Right wing religious zealots.

Rxke · 2004-01-12 04:16:58

I'm not an American, but can't fail to notice that, in this election heat-up, Bush' opponents are quoting the word Trillion way too easily... And i *hate* that. It's bound to stick in people's minds.
If you were a Dem who's pro-space exploration, you're in a tough place, I'd guess...

prometheusunbound · 2004-01-12 07:27:28

Who wants to be against space exploration? Unless you're a Dem... the idea crosses ideological grounds. I doubt the dem party will choose this as the hill to die on.

Anyone remember the first Bush space exploration bill in 1991?

I am doubtful wheather it will pass, and I think it would be harmful to NASA if it does pass as Bush recently annonced that he wants to lanch from the moon.

clark · 2004-01-12 13:43:42

It will pass, and it isn't his fathers proposal. Bush Sr. made a big mistake in making an announcement, and then having NASA compute the cost. The current proposal worked backwards from an amount that was feasible, to a plan that could be afforded by the amount of money considered attainable.

Bush Sr also was a Republican president during a Democratic controlled Congress- a lot of his proposals were stymied by Congress during hsi four years. None of this is true with Bush Jr. The republicans control both houses, and major Republican represenatives in Congress have districts that will benefit from any type of increase to NASA.

This is the best thing for NASA because it puts human exploration at the fore-front of their mission. People tuned out, and turned off when NASA was just robotic exploration- but everyone sat on pins and needles, glued to their TV sets with Gemini, Apollo, and the first few Shuttle launches.

I for one will look forward to the day I can wave at the Man on the Moon, and belive he may just be waving back!

clark · 2004-01-14 14:58:18

The extended human presence on the Moon will enable astronauts to develop new technologies and harness the Moon's abundant resources to allow manned exploration of more challenging environments. An extended human presence on the Moon could reduce the costs of further exploration, since lunar-based spacecraft could escape the Moon's lower gravity using less energy at less cost than Earth-based vehicles. The experience and knowledge gained on the Moon will serve as a foundation for human missions beyond the Moon, beginning with Mars.

Adrian?

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-14 15:00:23

Hehehe

clark · 2004-01-14 15:02:06

I believe I may have been punished for my hubris. :laugh:

Good day though.

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-14 15:12:47

Hehehe, you know that's the first Bush speech I've watched since he's been in office? Just a random thing...

I think this will pass though, and I feel that the Lunar Society is jumping for joy right about now. The Mars Society should send them a cake or something. heh

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-15 20:51:47

Here's a link to the transcript of his speech: [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases … 114-3.html]http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases … 114-3.html

Here's a link to the overview of the actual plan: [http://www.whitehouse.gov/space/renewed_spirit.html]http://www.whitehouse.gov/space/renewed_spirit.html

Here's a link to the transcript of Sean O'Keefe: [http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/54876main_okeef … 012004.pdf]http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/54876main_okeef … 012004.pdf

Here's a link to the budget itself: [http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/54873main_budge … 4jan04.pdf]http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/54873main_budge … 4jan04.pdf

Should I give an overview? The Mars timeline isn't even in the budget; it ends at 2020 (the deadline for the first Lunar missions). During the speech, Mars was only mentioned once as a manned destination. In the Renewed Spirit of Discovery plan, Mars is only mentioned in the Goals and Objectives as a result of preparation; no timeline there either. In the Bringing the Vision to Reality section, Mars is discussed a bit more, however, it's not discussed exculsively, and then, it focuses on "demonstrating sustained human exploration missions to the Moon," and of course, no timetable for Mars there either.

At most Sean O'Keefe claims that Mars is our "principle destination," in his Q&A, but if this were the case, where are the timetables we all hope so deseprately for?

And finally, Robert Zubrin, president of the Mars Society, and the reason many of us (certainly the site itself) is here today said this:

"The schedule is much too slow," Zubrin said. "He wants us to be back on the moon by 2020. That's 16 years. The last time we did it we did it in eight and from zero space capability, the days of slide rules and dial telephones. We should be able to do it in 6 years, not 16. And our experience has been the faster you do it, the less it is going to cost, and the faster you go, the greater chance of program success, so it will not get destroyed by political winds along the way.
"It would also force NASA to get its act together, to follow a plan rather than just use the president's lunar imperative to engage in a plethora of random activities. What's needed at this point is to mobilize the full genius of American technology. Let's have an open competition to see who can come up with the most efficient plan to get humans back on the moon and to Mars."
And, he said, the goal should be from the start to design hardware and missions to get to Mars, and use the moon only "as flight-testing of hardware in preparation for travel to Mars. There's too high a risk with NASA headquarters to use a lunar program to provide rationales for existing programs they're seeking to justify."

Source: [http://www.shreveporttimes.com/html/E3D … 81A7.shtml]http://www.shreveporttimes.com/html....7.shtml

That's all I have to say.

wgc · 2004-01-15 23:08:19

As some may know, I have an ongoing bet with Josh related to a manned mission to mars being declared within the next... 4 years now, I think (time left)
When we made the bet, we both agreed to abide by Adrian's determination on the final outcome of who wins the bet.
Well, I need a judgement call on whether or not this might count...
[http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=12520]http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=12520
A fact sheet on the bill follows:
Space Exploration Act of 2003 Fact Sheet
Requires the NASA Administrator to set the following goals for the future activities of NASA's human spaceflight program:

Within 8 years of enactment, the development and flight demonstration of a reusable space vehicle capable of carrying humans from low earth orbit to the L 1 and L 2 Earth-Sun libration points and back, to the Earth-Moon libration points and back, and to lunar orbit and back.

Within 10 years of enactment, the development and flight demonstration of a reusable space vehicle capable of carrying humans from low Earth orbit to and from an Earth-orbit crossing asteroid and rendezvousing with it.

Within 15 years of enactment, the development and flight demonstration of a reusable space vehicle capable of carrying humans from lunar orbit to the surface of the Moon and back, as well as the deployment of a human-tended habitation and research facility on the lunar surface.

Within 20 years of enactment, the development and flight demonstration of a reusable space vehicle capable of carrying humans to and from Martian orbit, the deployment of a human tended habitation and research facility on the surface of a Martian moon, and the development and flight demonstration of a reusable space vehicle capable of carrying humans from Martian orbit to the surface of Mars and back.
Now, I want to know, if this Act passes the house and Senate, and is signed into law, do I win.

I will abide by the ruling, but I just want to clarify this issue. I still thin there will be a presidential declaration, and if that is neccessary to win, so be it, but this might just what we have been waiting for...
I told you we were all in for a few surprises, now didn't I. :laugh:

I don't think there's enough support for this act, and I personally think your probably off by about 8 years.

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-16 00:03:23

That act was voted on and did not pass.

I don't understand some parts of it, like a manned station on Mars' moon. Kinda crazy if you ask me, a base on the surface would be far easier to make. But overall, it's a good clean attempt, because it sets up specific goals and timelines. Of course, like Bush's proposal, it doesn't project future costs appropriately.

Mundaka · 2004-01-16 01:34:19

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2004-01-09 09:56:11

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#102 2004-01-09 22:21:06

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#103 2004-01-10 07:55:48

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#104 2004-01-10 11:25:53

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#105 2004-01-10 11:48:32

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#106 2004-01-10 11:53:38

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#107 2004-01-10 11:58:16

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#108 2004-01-10 12:05:39

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#109 2004-01-10 12:56:01

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#110 2004-01-10 13:41:34

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#111 2004-01-11 10:35:31

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#112 2004-01-11 18:52:58

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#113 2004-01-11 19:45:33

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#114 2004-01-11 20:00:33

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#115 2004-01-12 04:16:58

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#116 2004-01-12 07:27:28

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#117 2004-01-12 13:43:42

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#118 2004-01-14 14:58:18

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#119 2004-01-14 15:00:23

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#120 2004-01-14 15:02:06

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#121 2004-01-14 15:12:47

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#122 2004-01-15 20:51:47

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#123 2004-01-15 23:08:19

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#124 2004-01-16 00:03:23

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#125 2004-01-16 01:34:19

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

Board footer