Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've never been a huge proponent of all the Mars exploration projects due to the big spending for a few picoliters of water. As for the moon, I'm not sure what is left to gain there either. This may be a good idea on Obama's part?
What says you?
We agree here. I know, it's gonna snow in hell.
During the 2004 POTUS campaign, I recall the WaPo saying that the Bush campaign lacked a "big idea" to generate buzz and interest. Then, voila, two days later, GWBush announces "We're going to Mars" and we're gonna start now by deep-sixing the Hubble Telescope and throwing a ton of science guys out of work. For me, it was another classic Bush-43 "duh" moment, firing the guys who are the ones you need to get you to Mars. As far as what it all meant, there are several possibilities, such as:
- He was further killing the science community to appease the luddites on the far right who hate evolution, embryonic stem cell research, most of the sciences and who think creationism is all we should teach in our schools.
- He truly is clueless and took his cue from the WaPo to craft a big idea. (Probably the case.)
- He had the Mars gig in mind all along. The WaPo story was just another planned leak of some kind, or mere coincidence.
- He wanted to take the spotlight off the destruction of space shuttle Columbia, which broke up over Texas on 01 Feb 2003.
The Mars idea was kicked around a while, and AFAIK is on the waaaaaay back burner at NASA, where it belongs.
Tthe USA should not go to MARS unilaterally. If we do go, we should go as a team effort of all the great nations, i.e., spread the cost, share the glory, make it a trip of all mankind of Mars.
I don't see much value in going back to the moon, we've been there what, three times at least.
My priorities for NASA are: fix/repair/replace the current shuttles for longer use; maximize use of the space station; define goals for the future that are efficient uses of money and have a benefit or return on the investment.
I see no need for Americans to be the first earthlings to walk on Mars.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
I've never been a huge proponent of all the Mars exploration projects due to the big spending for a few picoliters of water. As for the moon, I'm not sure what is left to gain there either. This may be a good idea on Obama's part?
What says you?
With the radical Marxist leftists in the White House and controlling Congress, more now than ever before NASA needs to find a way off this planet or we are all doomed.
They need to continue to progress to sending humans outside of earth orbit within the next 15-20 years or sooner. Anything short of this objective will **** me off. This is one of two major things which made me support obama, and only decent thing bush did.
During the 2004 POTUS campaign, I recall the WaPo saying that the Bush campaign lacked a "big idea" to generate buzz and interest. Then, voila, two days later, GWBush announces "We're going to Mars" and we're gonna start now by deep-sixing the Hubble Telescope and throwing a ton of science guys out of work. For me, it was another classic Bush-43 "duh" moment, firing the guys who are the ones you need to get you to Mars. As far as what it all meant, there are several possibilities, such as:
- He was further killing the science community to appease the luddites on the far right who hate evolution, embryonic stem cell research, most of the sciences and who think creationism is all we should teach in our schools.
- He truly is clueless and took his cue from the WaPo to craft a big idea. (Probably the case.)
- He had the Mars gig in mind all along. The WaPo story was just another planned leak of some kind, or mere coincidence.
- He wanted to take the spotlight off the destruction of space shuttle Columbia, which broke up over Texas on 01 Feb 2003.
The Mars idea was kicked around a while, and AFAIK is on the waaaaaay back burner at NASA, where it belongs.
Tthe USA should not go to MARS unilaterally. If we do go, we should go as a team effort of all the great nations, i.e., spread the cost, share the glory, make it a trip of all mankind of Mars.
I don't see much value in going back to the moon, we've been there what, three times at least.
My priorities for NASA are: fix/repair/replace the current shuttles for longer use; maximize use of the space station; define goals for the future that are efficient uses of money and have a benefit or return on the investment.
I see no need for Americans to be the first earthlings to walk on Mars.
Like the colonization of the Americas, first dibs get the good spots and sets up prosperity for centuries. Name a powerful force in the 17th and 18th centuries who didn't have holdings in the Americas. Same is with space. NASA should light the way, providing the research into space transportation which will make it economical for American businesses to follow, more than paying for the initial research in taxes.
Absolute BS. It takes Enron level accounting to get to that. Name one direct benefit from manned space flight.
I don't know, the accounting was by OPM. The portable liquid oxygen systems that are common for home oxygen patients were developed for the Apollo program by the Linde corporation. I'd like to see a current figure on what Linde has since made from these as well as the dozens of other companies that were able to make them once the patent rights expired.
Like the colonization of the Americas, first dibs get the good spots and sets up prosperity for centuries. Name a powerful force in the 17th and 18th centuries who didn't have holdings in the Americas. Same is with space. NASA should light the way, providing the research into space transportation which will make it economical for American businesses to follow, more than paying for the initial research in taxes.
No argument on the historical aspects but IMO that does not translate into space. Taking a shipload of tobacco from the colonies back to merry old England is economically viable, but I can't see that with space.
There's nothing up there we can't live without. No companies have set up operations on the moon and I don't see them ever doing that. To go way overboard, I don't see any value in mining iron ore on Mars and paying four hundred million dollars to bring back ten pounds of the stuff. Not the best example, but illustrates my POV that we should learn about other planets with unmanned crafts that analyze the 'soil' of the planets, on-site, and report back by radio signal.
AFAIK, samples of moon rocks haven't yielded the discovery of any new elements or building blocks of life.
I get what you say, but it's not worth the effort for a theoretical payback. Usually there are treaties that no one will militarize the moon or planets, making it less attractive to go there.
Maybe in a hundred years after quantum leaps in technology that make it very affordable.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
I don't know, the accounting was by OPM. The portable liquid oxygen systems that are common for home oxygen patients were developed for the Apollo program by the Linde corporation. I'd like to see a current figure on what Linde has since made from these as well as the dozens of other companies that were able to make them once the patent rights expired.
Not only that, but there is an old rule of thumb that says every dollar spent in a local economy will "churn" (or turn over) about 7 times. The money paid to a NASA person will get spent on all the usual stuff, helping support jobs at all the places where spending occurs, then those people spend the money for all the usual stuff, and those people then have money to spend on all the usual stuff. The $x7 "rule" is very well accepted by those who estimate the value of such spending, whether federal or corporate. That's why when a major plant closes, many local businesses also close or see major reductions in income.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
