The europeans have planned a Mars mission to be accomplished by 2020 haven't they?

Hope they can get their rocketry more reliable by then.

My son might be on it. :roll:

__________________
You cannot create a truth by believing in a falsehood.

Why do a manned moon mission as all? I dont really see the point. All that humans will do on the mission is place specimine samples in a machine that will analyze them, as humans almost never do this type of science directly anymore. Human eyes are just not as good as machine eyes. The human nose is simply not as good as a spectrometer(speaking of which did you notice the sulfer salts that they found with the rovers, Mars stinks!). The machines dont need to eat all that complex food.

Don't get me wrong, I think the idea of a manned moon mission is not only possible, but sexy as hell. I just dont see the point, beyond bravado. Certainly that is not a good reason to spend a trillion dollars.

Tell that to a geologist. The MER cameras are often lauded as being "equivalent to human eyes", which are far better than any camera. However, those eyes have no brain behind them. Human eyes can tell what they're seeing - robots just can't.

They do, however, require a support team of hundreds of technicians and scientists who need food (which is not to say that manned missions do not).

What is with this "trillion dollar" figure? I"ve seen it again and again and I've not seen one credible source that mentions any real NASA programs and budget figures even approaching that range.

Since we're talking explicitly about Bush's new vision, let's discuss costs in that context.

The first President Bush laid out a very broad plan (SEI) in 1989, which failed because of a ridiculous set of engineering errors that led to the total cost of the project being assessed at $450 billion in 1989 dollars (still not anywhere near a trillion dollars for even that 'mink-lined' proposal).

Now-President Bush espoused a more specific plan than his father, laying out goals for NASA to achieve that include a return to the Moon by 2015. Instead of support, all we heard about the plan on television after its announcement (people have fogotten about it now) were attacks by very visible critics who threw out completely fabricated budget figures, such as the one which you quote. Considering that some of the most basic details, such as launch vehicle type, have not been decided, it seems ludicrous that people are already estimating its costs. The amount of foresight that would be needed to estimate this program's costs are as if Abraham Lincoln were able to estimate the cost of the Lincoln Memorial. The plan has been under attack in Congress. Its current prognosis is uncertain. I'd give it a 50-50 chance of survival at this point. Lawmakers are trying to, once again, sweep a bold new vision under the rug of bureaucracy, saying, as always, that more time is needed, more debate is required, and so forth. This represents a lack of leadership and backbone on the part of those who represent us in government. Instead of approving this new plan to send men into the solar system, we hear from Congress that “the federal deficit will not support it."

The proposed increase in NASA’s budget to allow this new initiative is about two-thousandths of one percent of the federal deficit- hardly significant enough to affect a change one way or the other. Considering that this increase of about $800 million is less than half the annual revenue of the toothpaste industry, it seems a small price to pay to start a new program of manned solar system exploration.

People often complain that money should not be spent on NASA, and often use the strange phrase “we should spend it here on Earth instead.” There is a widespread false impression that money spent on NASA is sent into space on a giant rocket and never seen again. In fact, NASA’s money does not go to some entity called “Space” and vanish. Indeed, NASA spends its money like any other government agency The fact is, ordinary people are the ones who get paid with NASA’s money, not Martians. Money from NASA has helped many small businesses to become successful, enormous industries that employ thousands. In addition, the spinoffs from NASA technology, like the aforementioned computer mouse and smoke detector, need to be produced as well, creating even more jobs in the long run. In light of this, a more accurate analogy might be that NASA sends a giant rocket into space that comes back with money. The constantly repeated assertions that NASA’s budgetary expenses hurt the economy are simply untrue. We’re not paying aliens, Martians, or some incorporeal life form that takes up the entire galaxy, whose nickname is “Space” and who comes by every Thursday to collect a paycheck from NASA. Money spent on space goes to people, who spend it the same way as someone who gets money in a welfare program or who works at a movie theater or who cooks food at a restaurant.

The fact is, we will always have “problems” and “economic stresses”. Contrary to the Walmart commercials that we seeo often, there is no place, no time when everything will be perfect, and when we can “finally say” that “it’s time for space exploration”. That time is now.

The most pervasive, illogical argument against the space program is the "division argument". In this idea - which you've doutbless all heard before - a random figure from NASA’s budget, or its whole budget, is divided by the cost of some consumer item, such as chicken. This leads to such statements as, “for the amount of money NASA spends on Mars exploration, we could buy 2,000,000 tons of chicken. Imagine how many people that would feed!” or, “The amount of money NASA spends on the Space Shuttle could build 5,000 new schools with desks.” There are two fallacies in this argument. First, the argument ignores overhead. Just taking $100 million out of a government program does not mean that one can instantly acquire $100 million of “stuff”. Salaries must be paid, offices created, distribution managed – by the time a program to distribute this “stuff” is created, such as welfare, there is often little money left to purchase all the things promised by the “division argument”. Secondly, and much more importantly, this argument can be made with any monetary figure, so that one could also “prove” that the Departments of Defense, Housing and Urban Development, or Education are “causing poverty”. Furthermore, as was pointed out earlier, there is nothing special about NASA’s money. There is no reason why NASA’s money could do more than the vastly larger sums already invested in anti-poverty should be able to (and often cannot) do. The “division argument”, Jim realizes, is simply not realistic. The real world just does not work in such a way that X dollars can buy Y items if diverted from program Z.

I realize I've strayed far off topic, but I'm just trying to illustrate the inconsistencies in the media's portrayal of the the space program as an overblown, money-draining monster that does nothing. And let those who think that manned space programs need always be far more expensive that robotic missions look at Burt Rutan and crew. True, a single Shuttle mission costs almost as much as the MER missions did. But the entire SpaceShipOne program - from conceptualization to spaceflight - costed about 1/40th of what the MER mission did. So much for cheap robots.

__________________
"Too low they build, who build beneath the stars". - Edward Young, 1745

I look at what was accomplished with Apollo vs robot exploration of the same vintage, Voyager. It is a simple calculus, Voyager wins with discoveries and science. Furthermore, all we have left of Apollo is a few specimines and the rotting hulks of the unused launch vehicles, and a little geological information about the moon. Voyager on the other hand continues on it way to interstellar space, and continues to do fundamental science.

Looking at the state of the art, we have the space shuttle and ISS, versus Casini, the mars probes Spirit and Opportunity and Hubble. Hopefully the the James Webb Space Telescope will make it. I left out a lot of robots. On the science being done today, hands down, robots win.

Personally, I'd rather spend the 100 million dollars it takes to launch a single shuttle, and send two more mars probes. A Hubble mission would be more worth while than an ISS re-supply mission.

I guess my point is this, when I look at the science, and understanding about our world that robotic missions have accomplished and compare it to the manned space program, this is an easy calculus.

I share your romantic vision of a destiny in space. However at this time in history, I dont see the value of landing astronauts on Mars. I cant see any way that a colony could ever be sustainable. I think the concept of terraforming another planet is pure pipe dream. It has taken all of time for the Earth to be just right for us to live on. Failing some fundamental breakthrough in science, the Earth will continue to be our only home for the next eternity. The best way to get there is to do more science, and understand the universe in more fundamental ways. In that calculus, it is easy to see, robots are the way to go.

You're definitely right in some perspectives. Robots are more efficient than man, and they are cheaper. Many amazing discoveries have been made by robots and space probes like the Voyagers. However, while these discoveries have furthered the progress of science, it hasn't done anything to the general population. Interest in science in the United States is decreasing. One day, we will need to leave the Earth, and that can't be done with robots. Like many others have said, I think it is human destiny to explore the solar system and further, not with just robots, but with our own eyes. There's a big difference between looking at pictures of Mars and actually going there.

Well, that's my opinion. But first, we must get over our silly problems, like terrorists and wars.

I wish i was as optimistic as you. My guess is that terrorism and wars
are fundamental laws of nature like gravity or the weak nuclear force,
but for intelligent biological creatures. I think we just have to learn
to live with them, as much as I regret saying that.

Having said that sad bit...

I do not want to use Robots because they are cheaper, I want to use
Robots because they can be better. Just compare the quality and
consistency of robot made chocolates to human made chocolates, or cars
or a goto telescope.

The science on Apollo is dubious at best. Compare Voyager pictures to
Apollo pictures. The Apollo video is amazing. However that footage of
Jupiter, and Saturn and Neptune, and all the moons and weird fundamental
physics of the outer planets, now that is science, and that is where it
is at. The sheer amount of fundamental science you can do with just the
Hubble Ultra Deep Field picture, outweighs what we learned from all of
Apollo. We could have done Hubble without Apollo, but I agree Hubble wouldn't have been done without Apollo.

For now, robots are better at doing the exploration. Instead of doing a
manned mission to Mars, lets do a giant telescope, flashlight, radio
antenna, with a big nuclear heater thing, and shoot it out to the Oort
cloud objects, while its in transit, it can do astronomy, when it gets
out there, it can turn its instruments on those objects. Build
it in orbit, so you can shake all the bugs out, even send a manned
mission if you need to.

For the drama afflicted public, it would have action and adventure.
First there would be the funding fight, when the taxpayers says "You
want to do WHAT with our money!", but we would ultimately win by wrapping
our self in the Flag! What is more American than building the biggest
baddest most capable space craft in all history, it will last for 30
years, and its hulk will drift through the cosmos for all eternity!
Americans are humble, they can admit that Humans are the weak f------
link! And go on to build what will possibly be the the crowning
achievement of all human history anyhow. Or the footage of the
Astronauts installing the last bit of it, heroically on the last
remaining shuttle.

I am sorry to say, that if a crank on the web can outline a space mission that does more, higher quality science for a cost comparable To either the completed ISS or a manned mars mission, maybe human space exploration is not ready.

One of the science experiments on Apollo was to set out a mirror, so they could precisely measure the distance between the moon and the earth. Correct me if I am wrong here, but didnt they already know that precise enough to fly to the moon? Is there a valid science reason to know with more precision than that? Did this enhance our fundamental understanding of the universe in any way? Similarly, on the ill fated Columbia flight, there was an experiment involving, what flowers smell like in space.

The most stunning image of Apollo, imo, is earth rise over the horizon of the moon. Even that picture could have been taken by robots of 1960's vintage. Interestingly one was, and it is even more humbling than that picture, and it was taken by voyager 1 in 1990.

http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/pale_blue_dot.html

A couple of NASA inputs.

First, regarding the psychological issue, NASA is already studying the matter. For instance, there is an underwater research lab off Key West called IIRC Aquarius, which is being used for extended duration missions to train astronauts. Michael Finke, current ISS astronaut, is a graduate of that program. Also, NASA is working on other long duration enclosed test programs. Some of them have to do with developing closed life support systems. So this issue is not being ignored, but it is not a show stopper by any means.

Second, regarding doctors, all Shuttle missions include a medical doctor as part of the crew. He or she is fully cross trained and has other duties for the flight, but in the event of an emergency there is someone on board who can perform surgery. I suspect any long duration crew like a Mars mission would be the same - at least one medical doctor as part of the crew.

Japan also eyes a future manned Moon Base & Russia's federal space agency was to have displayed a full-scale Martian station at the Paris Air Show, they are also touting the spacecraft as a replacement for their workhorse spacecraft

As usual when people mentuion humans on Mars the usual tired "robots are cheaper and more efficient" arguments come up.

Cheaper yes, more efficient, that depends what you want to do. So far in 18 months creeping about the surface of Mars the Mars rovers have each covered the ground that a human on foot would cover in a day. The MERs are very simple machines, 5 instruments. The cost of robot probes goes up exponetially with complexity. A sample return mission would tax robot technology to limit, cost several billion and return less than a kg of sample. Scouts, pathfinders, and monitors are great roles for robotic missions. But detailed exploration and investigation need people. You won't find many people in Mars exploration who think otherwise. Certainly not Mike Malin, Ken Edgett, Steve Squyres, Carol Stoker, or Chris McKay.

Jon

A little piece of Mars in Moscow
Six Russian volunteers are to get a taste of travelling to Mars, without ever leaving Moscow.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5221928.stm
They will be locked up for 500 days in an airtight capsule resembling a spaceship, where they will eat sterile food and breath processed air.
The experiment is designed to help scientists better understand the demands of a long-haul space flight, in preparation for future Mars missions.

Frankly, I think that a manned mission to mars is unrealistic. Do we have the resources to do so? Yes, but it would be rather costly and do little to add to the scientific data on the planet. The mission to the Moon was mostly that of a political and strategic nature. Since then, I had hope our goals for a mission to any planet would be purely scientific.

This of course, is why I don't support Idiot George's mission to Mars and a freaking Moon base. The Moon base it self would be vastly expensive, and a Mission to Mars would only serve to put a lot of money and possibility trained astronauts at risk. The truth is that manned missions simply haven't proved themselves scientifically in space. Indeed, our robotic probes have proven far more capable and all that we know of our solar system has come from them. They're cheap (or at least cheaper than humans sent on the same mission, who need to haul stuff like oxygen along with them), and can last for years in harsh environments where astronauts simply can't as far as we know.

Politicians screw things up, they're the reason we have the ISS (which is more likely to continue to be a drain on resources than provide enough scientific feedback needed to justify the spacecraft), and they're the reason we're probably going to attempt a bloody moon-base and a manned mission to Mars. In the end, NASA will get the blame, even though they were only doing as they were told by politicians who set the policies in motion in the first place.

bbfreak,
Welcome to BAUT. Some friendly advice: you might want to look at the rules and FAQs; this board has pretty strict rules on language and avoiding politics. I would guess you might be close to the line.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

What about using a Blimp to make the descend?

http://spaceports.blogspot.com/2007/...ntriguing.html

__________________
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.

On Earth - blimps work great. On Mars, because of the very low atmospheric pressure - they're pretty lame.

Doug

It may be intriguing for use around Earth, but Mars has a much thinner atmosphere.

This UT item discussion, The Mars Landing Approach: Getting Large Payloads to the Surface of the Red Planet, covers some of the problems that Mars presents, summarized by: just enough atmosphere to make it difficult and not enough atmosphere to make it easy.

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

How about this for a Mars booster.

http://www.k26.com/buran/Info/Hercules/vulkan.html

How many Mars misison studies have you read? Any realistic human mission to Mars, such as the NASA DRM or the many others offers orders of magnitude increases in capabilities over any combination of advanced unmanned surface exploration mission, say a combination of a MSL class rover that also caches sample for return.

Distance traversed: Unmanned -10's of km; Manned - 1000's of km
Scientific payload: Unmanned - 10's kg; Manned - tonnes
Samples returned: Unmanned - 1 kg; manned 100's of kg
Available power: Unmanned - 100's of W; Manned 10's of kW
Communications bandwidth: Unmanned - narrow; Manned - broad
Cost: Unmanned - >3 billion; Manned - <100 billion

Jon

http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/Sci..._Mars_999.html
Humans could get to Mars in less than 10 years, if they put their minds to it. That is the message of the Mars Society, a group of scientists and space enthusiasts who met recently in Los Angeles. VOA's Mike O'Sullivan spoke with some about their vision for the exploration and settlement of the Red Planet