Bush plans to send people to Moon, Mars

[David Prahl]

from http://www.wisinfo.com/postcrescent/frontpage/frontpage.PDF

"WASHINGTON — President Bush will announce plans next week to send Americans to Mars and establish a permanent human presence on the moon, senior administration officials said Thursday night. Bush won’t propose sending Americans to Mars anytime soon; rather, he envisions preparing for the mission more than a decade from now, one official said.

In addition to proposing the first trip to the moon since December 1972, the president wants to build a permanent space station there. Three senior officials said Bush wants to aggressively reinvigorate the space program, which has been demoralized by a series of setbacks, including the space shuttle disaster last February that killed seven astronauts. The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Bush’s announcement would come in the middle of next week. Bush has been expected to propose a bold new space mission in an effort to rally Americans around a unifying theme as he campaigns for re-election. Many insiders had speculated he might set forth goals at the 100th anniversary of the Wright brothers’ famed flight last month in said only that America would continue to lead the world in aviation. Earlier, White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters traveling with Bush in Florida that the president would make
an announcement about space next week, but he declined to give details."

Please discuss this in a mature manner - I'd like to hear from others before I post my thoughts.

[PetiteFlower]

I don't think the space program is ready for a mission of that level and I don't think that the president really has any clue at all about how much money it would take and what would go into putting something like that together.

I don't think the space program should be abandoned by any means but I think Nasa needs a lot of work from the bottom up before it can start having such lofty goals again.

[Jeff Rutledge]

He must think there's oil there. :mrgreen:

(sorry...)

[Jeff Rutledge]

Seriously though...I find this move very interesting.

On one hand, I agree with PetiteFlower that the space program doesn't have what it needs to accomplish this. Also, there's many who would argue that the money could be better spent fixing up things at home.

On the other hand, space is just begging to be explored. I'm one who looks to the stars with wonder. I think it's an important field and should definitely be pursued. Who knows, my grandkids could book a weekend on the moon.

[David Prahl]

I agree with both of you - Mars is just too impractical right now. In my opinion, we should start with several "Bio-dome" type experiments on earth. Once we work out the kinks, move the experiment to the moon (it can't be that hard :lol: ).

After we figure out how we're going to live on the martian surface we can worry about getting there (like radiation, food, and web access).

I also think that it's a publicity stunt. Things were very different during the
"space race" - NASA could dip into Defense funds because we thought the future battleground would be outer space.

The nerd half of me (well, more like 7/8 of me) wants to go for it, but the other half (or 1/8 ) thinks that we have far too many problems down on this planet. We'll always have poverty and strife, but I don't feel right spending trillions on dollars on a science mission when millions of people are suffering down here.

[Jon Westfall]

Why not go for this?

I was going to put a myriad of ways to get the money from other programs here, but have decided against starting a flame war.

[Falstaff]

I definately support this move, for several reasons. The first is the fact that it is cool, and I want to see a moon landing. I watch Apollo 13 and Moon Shot about 8 times each summer because I staff at a rocketry summer camp at my school, so I've learned a lot about early space travel and travel to the moon. It's such exciting stuff, I wish I had been alive when the first landing occured. That is my main reason for wanting NASA to shoot for the Moon again.

However, there is also a unifying element. During the space race, people in the country were unified and uplifted by the amazing progress of the American space program. The Mercury 7 astronauts were some of the most high profile and popular people of their day. The Cold War isn't here, so it won't be as if we are in a race again, but it still could help unite the country.

Another reason is the symbolic value our reaching the moon, and especially Mars, would have in other nations. A space program with such incredible capabilities would be just another reason for people living under oppressive regimes (S. Korea, Middle East, Africa) will see this as yet another sign of how good things are in a capitalistic republic.

A final reason is a resurgance in the Space Race. We would actually be competing againstsomeone, and in fact we would be competing against another comunist nation, this time China. If I'm not mistaken, China has already declared that they will work to send a mission to the moon. Granted their next space mission won't be for a couple years, it would also be a while for the US to design a new rocket for travel to the moon. We must win again in the second race.

This will be a cool, and exciting thing to happen for the US. I hope that it will get off the ground and eventually succeed.

(Please excuse any typos and grammar problems, it's hard to proof-read on this tiny text box on my PDA.)

[David Prahl]

(Please excuse any typos and grammar problems, it's hard to proof-read on this tiny text box on my PDA.)

Whoa! All that on a PPC? (I'm assuming it's a PPC!) You're using a keyboard, right? I can never write more than two or three sentances before I get fed up.

[Falstaff]

Whoa! All that on a PPC? (I'm assuming it's a PPC!) You're using a keyboard, right? I can never write more than two or three sentances before I get fed up.
Yeah, it's with a keyboard, my PPC is my only internet access at home now.

[Pat Logsdon]

I'm genuinely torn about this. I would love love love (love) to see more being done with the space program. If I could go up myself, I would do it in a heartbeat. HOWEVER, I really don't want Bush to be the one to get the credit for restarting it.

I know I should be happy that it's being done at all, but I can't help thinking about what he'll buy with the political coinage this gets him from the American public...

Gah! I guess if I think about it, I really do support this - I think we should get in space with all speed, and if Bush can get it done, I'd thank him for it.

I'm NOT going to say "more power to him", though. :mrgreen:

[David Prahl]

Seems like good strategery on Bush's part.

[Jon Westfall]

Well, I know who I'm voting for in November... :mrgreen:


Actually, mrgreen for president wouldn't be a halfbad idea now would it?

[famousdavis]

I'm genuinely torn about this. I would love love love (love) to see more being done with the space program. If I could go up myself, I would do it in a heartbeat. HOWEVER, I really don't want Bush to be the one to get the credit for restarting it.

Ummmm, is it Dean, Gephardt or Clark? :mrgreen:

[dMores]

i like the idea too.
but the thing that bothers me is 1) that it's supposed to be bush who "started it", i.e. takes all the credit, and 2) it shouldn't be a US only program.
i believe that it would be a much smarter move and progress faster if it were an international operation like the ISS. first, the US would save money by sharing it with the rest of the world, and second, each participating country would gain the same knowledge, and could concentrate on different goals in regards of research.

mankind trying to conquer space. great stuff.

[Jacob]

I somewhat like the idea, but I'd prefer it if I believed that it were something other than politically motivated as a distraction from current problems.

I don't see there being a permanent base on the moon in my lifetime- when will we be able to afford the cost of sending supplies there? There certainly isn't anywhere that you could grow food up there. Not to mention the affect of near-zero gravity on human beings.

It's also not that realistic to see the moon as a lifting point for a rocket to Mars - unless we can build it on the moon, which would mean factories, workers, etc.. Otherwise you'd have to spend that much more to 1. Get everything to the moon then 2. launch it again from the moon.

I think it would be more practical to set up an orbiting space station with an efficient, cheaper way of getting people back and forth.

[GoldKey]

I think it would be more practical to set up an orbiting space station with an efficient, cheaper way of getting people back and forth.

Like an orbital teather using carbon nanotubes.

[Pat Logsdon]

I think it would be more practical to set up an orbiting space station with an efficient, cheaper way of getting people back and forth.

Like an orbital teather using carbon nanotubes.
Yup. I think things will stay pretty much as they are (expensive) until we get a space elevator (http://www.isr.us/SEHome.asp) up and running.

[sublime]

I really hope they do this, just so that it could shut my father up.

My father is a wacko conspiracy theorist, who is convinced that aliens live on the dark side of the moon (for those of us who don't know, one side of the moon is never visible from earth, since, as the earth rotates, the moon rotates in such a way that one side never faces the earth). As soon as we colonize the moon my father will either shut his trap or say "I told you so" as we all reenact scenes from "Independence Day."

[famousdavis]

I somewhat like the idea, but I'd prefer it if I believed that it were something other than politically motivated as a distraction from current problems.

You wouldn't be a fan of JFK, then, would you? :mrgreen:

[Jacob]

I somewhat like the idea, but I'd prefer it if I believed that it were something other than politically motivated as a distraction from current problems.

You wouldn't be a fan of JFK, then, would you? :mrgreen:

I do like JFK - but I think his claim was actually doable in the timeframe he mentioned.

I don't see how we'll be able to do what Bush is saying we should in the coming decade. He's welcome to prove me wrong.

[PetiteFlower]

The moon seems like a pretty unpleasant place to live, if you ask me. I'm not in a hurry to colonize there. And I just don't know if there's a lot more we can learn from studying it, it's a pretty barren place. Though I'm sure a science station or 2 up there could find things to study in the low-g environment :) I think I'd want to stay away from changing the way the moon's surface looks though. I'd hate to think that my kids might have to look in books to be able to see the moon as we see it today, it's the most beautiful thing in the night sky to me.

[David Prahl]

I really doubt we could change the appearance of the moon. We've profoundly screwed up this planet, but you can't tell from orbit (let alone the moon).

A Palm m125 was the first PDA in space - we need to beat "the Russians" to the moon! A Pocket PC must be first!

[JackTheTripper]

I think a station here and there wouldn't be a big deal but if they REALLY colinize the moon and put thousands or even hundreds of thousands of people up there then maybe they can colinize the "dark side of the moon" so we won't have to look at it. ;)

[David Prahl]

maybe they can colinize the "dark side of the moon" so we won't have to look at it. ;)

That's all we need! A hundred thousand Gollum Geeks in space suits!
http://www.lordoftherings.net/legend/gallery/images/gollum/gollum4.jpg

[maximus]

I got a weird 'phbb error - could not connect to database' when hitting the 'post reply' button. Must be a glitch, because the second try is OK.

Anyway, an interesting topic indeed. Personally, I wouldn't like to live on the moon until they found a way to create artificial gravity and artificial breeze. Some of the things that I really enjoyed doing in this life required gravity and/or breeze (parasailing, cruising at nights with windows open, applying vinyls to cars, building computers, morning potty, etc.) ... I cannot imagine doing the last activity on the list in zero G :mrgreen:

[David Prahl]

...morning potty, etc.) ... I cannot imagine doing the last activity on the list in zero G :mrgreen:

It just lasts longer!



:oops:

[JackTheTripper]

It's not zero G's, it's 1/6 of a G, so it would just prolong the experience. Though you wonder if they'd have to make toilets that much deeper. You know, to compensate for the splash factor.

[David Prahl]

Actually I think it would splash just as high, because the "projectile" would strike it with a much lesser force. Aren't splash heights proportional to the speed and size of the projectiles in question?

[Steven Cedrone]

Ummm...

What do you say you take this "discussion" offline...

Steven Cedrone
Community Moderator

[PetiteFlower]

Yes please!

Anyway I was thinking, honestly, of a quote from Riker in Star Trek First Contact, when he's in the past telling Zephram Cochran that the moon looks totally different in the 24th century because there are 5 million people living on it or something.

I think it would be pretty easy to change the appearance just because putting settlements up there would change the reflectivity of the surface so much, it wouldn't be bright white when the moon is high in the sky anymore. Depending on the size of the settlements of course, but if you cover a significant portion of the surface with "stuff" (buildings etc) I can't imagine that we wouldn't be able to tell from down here.

[David Prahl]

The moon is ~239,000 miles away. From the moon, you can barely seen the continents of earth - let alone our massive transporation systems or cities.
http://lava.nationalgeographic.com/cgi-bin/pod/PhotoOfTheDay.cgi?month=01&day=13&year=04

[famousdavis]

I do like JFK - but I think his claim was actually doable in the timeframe he mentioned.

This would be called 20/20 hindsight, yes? :mrgreen:

If you're over the age of 60, I'd be more interested in knowing what you thought of JFK's original proposal when first presented. If you're under 60, it's all hindsight.

I don't see how we'll be able to do what Bush is saying we should in the coming decade. He's welcome to prove me wrong.

This would be called leadership/visionary, yes? :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

[Jacob]

This would be called 20/20 hindsight, yes? :mrgreen:

If you're over the age of 60, I'd be more interested in knowing what you thought of JFK's original proposal when first presented. If you're under 60, it's all hindsight.

You're right it is hindsight, although it's also all to easy to dismiss it due to age.

I do believe that even at that time the goal of landing on the moon was much less of a stretch than the goal of establishing a permanent base on the moon or landing on Mars within a similar time frame.

If you want to dismiss this as just hindsight, you're welcome to and the conversation about that is over then... we'll have to agree to disagree about it.

I don't see how we'll be able to do what Bush is saying we should in the coming decade. He's welcome to prove me wrong.

This would be called leadership/visionary, yes? :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

No. Not unless he gave a time frame and met it! It's easy for me to say "We'll go to Mars!!" .. it's much harder for me to say "We'll go to Mars within 5 years!"

Let's see Bush set a date and meet it - then I'll give him credit. I have too much distrust for Bush to think his dreams of space comes close to making him a leader.

JFK said within the decade - and they accomplished it. Bush never said anything about a timeframe. That doesn't make him much of a visionary at all.

[Busdriver]

I do believe that even at that time the goal of landing on the moon was much less of a stretch than the goal of establishing a permanent base on the moon or landing on Mars within a similar time frame.

I strongly disagree with this statement. Landing on and establishing a permanent moon base would be a piece of cake from a technology-required point of view. The Mars landing would be tougher, but I don't believe it would be tougher than the original moon landing was. No, all that is lacking is the will to do it.

[Jacob]

I strongly disagree with this statement. Landing on and establishing a permanent moon base would be a piece of cake from a technology-required point of view. The Mars landing would be tougher, but I don't believe it would be tougher than the original moon landing was. No, all that is lacking is the will to do it.

I don't think it is so simple - Mars is that much further away -

The moon is 239,000 miles away from the earth - To cover the distance between Earth and the Moon took Apollo astronauts 3 days.

Mars is 34,610,375 miles away, minimum. That's over 100 times the distance so even assuming travelling at faster speeds than the Apollo, it would take that much longer to get there - the trip would be measured in months, not days. That's one way.

We would have to take with them enough food to last for over a year. Not to mention the health issues with staying in a zero gravity environment for probably well over 6 months on the trip there and back.

Now, do we have the technology to do it? Maybe, but this would be somewhat of the equivalent of a mission since there would have to be plenty of safe-guards for a lot of things that could happen, and a lot can happen in a trip that's longer than 12 months there and back.

I think technologically we could put a base on the moon - but how big would it be? Would it just be the size of the old space station except just sitting on the moon? How much are we willing to invest in keeping it up and bringing people there and back? Maybe I'm thinking of something more grand than that.

[PetiteFlower]

I'm aware that the moon is far away and I know we wouldn't be able to see a small base from here. But if a large enough percentage of the surface was changed, we would see the difference. Especially since (unlike earth) the moon is pretty much all the same color and the same type of land--rocky and reflective. If we started covering that with buildings and settlements and even greenery eventually(which would really be necessary for a permanent settlement there), and we did enough of it, it would be noticed from here.

[ctmagnus]

If we started covering that with buildings and settlements and even greenery...

Of the cheese kind? ;)

[Busdriver]

I don't think it is so simple
I didn't say it would be simple. I'm saying that all of the technology is in place for establishing a permanant moon base and it's pretty much there for going to Mars.

Again, I disagree with your opinion that a permanent moon base or a trip to Mars now, is a greater "stretch" than a trip to the moon was 30 yrs ago, from a technological point of view.

JFK made the moon speech in May of 1961. That was the very same month that Alan Shepard flew on the first suborbital Mercury flight. When Kennedy set forth the goal nobody had a clue if a manned flight to the moon was even possible, let alone doable within 9 years. They had to develop engines, structures, computers, life-support systems, materials, rendezvous techniques, etc, etc, etc-things that didn't even exist, except in some people's imagination.

All the technology is now in place. People have lived in weightlessness for months. Materials science has advanced. Computers are almost miraculously more powerful than they were 40 yrs ago. Not to mention the obvious fact that we have already been to the moon.

Again, all that is lacking is the will to do it. It won't be simple and it won't be cheap. But the technology is there, or just about there. Or at least it's much closer then the technology was to the engineers of 1961.

[Jacob]

Technologically I think the Moon base is possible - assuming it would be of the likes of the orbital base they had before.

It's the Mars trip that I think we're more behind on than the moon base. People have stayed in space for months, but the longest ever so far was Dr. Valeri Vladimirovich Polyakov who spent 437.7 days. Each one-way trip to mars would be significantly longer than the record amount.

I think there are a whole set of new issues that are different than just escaping Earth's gravity, and the other unknowns that were dealt with on the moon landing.

I think you may very well be right that it's technically feasible right now. I just wonder about the cost-benefit ratio at this time. How many billions are we going to spend on that while we spend billions on our "war on terrorism"??

[Busdriver]

Whether we can spend the money is a whole different issue. I personally believe we can and should, but not without reducing federal spending in other areas.

[PetiteFlower]

It's the Mars trip that I think we're more behind on than the moon base. People have stayed in space for months, but the longest ever so far was Dr. Valeri Vladimirovich Polyakov who spent 437.7 days. Each one-way trip to mars would be significantly longer than the record amount.

Wait I thought it only took a few months each way to get to mars. 437 days is more then a year, it wouldn't take a year each way to get there, would it?

The total trip I could imagine being a year or more though, I'd also worry about the people being in such total isolation for so long too, spending that long with no human contact other then your few crewmates isn't good for the psyche. It's certainly possible to survive and recover from but it would be tough and if they decided in the middle of the trip that they couldn't take it any more, it's not like they could just turn around and go home. People would have to be very carefully screened for their ability to withstand such conditions(I know they do this already but it's just another point I wanted to bring up.)

[aroma]

Yes, I belive most estimates are about a year timeframe for a round trip visit to mars. Something in the area of 6 month of travel each way, with a very sort (few days / week) on Mars.

[Jacob]

OooOoppss.. my math just went wonky for that post.

They estimated over 6 months of a trip each way, so no it wouldn't be that long.

I saw one site that said NASA would have estimated the trip to take 3 years, but I don't know exactly where they got that number specifically.

[drop]

From a project management standpoint, it makes sense to make sure we can still land a man on the moon and bring him safely home before even attempt to land on Mars.

Everything would need to be redeveloped. I would rather see a program like this than 100 Hollywood big productions. Just think of the kind of technologies it would develop along the ways and the new jobs this would create. It is a wonderful news.

The idea of international effort is nice but we know the problems the ISS had. If landing on the moon is the target, if landing on Mars is the target, then I believe USA can do it. Contracting to another country's private sector is not so much of a problem than trying work with multiple bureaucracies.

I am all for it. I saw John Glenn at an airport once. I got all teary eyed. I also watch and read Moon Shot a million times. Andrew Chaikin's "A Man on The Moon" (Tom Hanks "From the Earth to the Moon") is one of my favorite books. So, I am bias 0X .

[Falstaff]

I'm watching NBC Nightly News now and they just had a segment on Bush's plans for space. He wants the shuttles to be retired in 6 years (when the ISS is done). His timeframe for the moon is to have the permanent base there by 2020, then the trips to Mars will start from there. Looks pretty interesting and VERY exciting, I can't wait.

[Busdriver]

My son is just beginning the spring semester at the University of Tenn at Knoxville (He made straight A's last semester :D ). He called today and said he heard about the initiative and wants to change his major from business to science so he can be an astronaut on that first Mar's mission. So he is very excited.

[maximus]

My son is just beginning the spring semester at the University of Tenn at Knoxville (He made straight A's last semester :D ). He called today and said he heard about the initiative and wants to change his major from business to science so he can be an astronaut on that first Mar's mission. So he is very excited.

Supposed five year from now, he told you that he has been selected to be a part of the team to mars. How would you feel ? I mean, it is good that he is given the opportunity to 'be all he can be', to live up a maximum life .... but there are so many things that can go wrong in the journey to mars (and back) ... I am just wondering about a parent's perspective on this one.

[Busdriver]

Uh, yes, maybe you're right. Guess I'll have to go in his place. 8) :wink:

I would be very proud and excited for him if he decided to do that. It wouldn't be without risk, of course, but with great risk comes great rewards, as they say. I'm am also confident that a great deal of effort and resources would be spent making the mission as safe as reasonable.

[JackTheTripper]

You take a rist just getting out of bed each day. Or even not! Heck, a car could crash through your wall and land on your bed. If you hadn't got to work it would have killed you.

With that said, I'd jump on the chance to go on that trip, risks or not.

[maximus]

If a car crashed into your bedroom, you can just lie there waiting for the medics to come. But if a comet decided to hit the mars vehicle ... Space travel is a binary situation, it is either you succeed (1) or you die (0), nothing in between.

[JustinGTP]

While on mars you just can't call a space shuttle to get you off if something did go wrong. But if you had your own shuttle, how long do they take to setup and take off? And do they have enough fuel to come back lol :D

[Pat Logsdon]

If a car crashed into your bedroom, you can just lie there waiting for the medics to come. But if a comet decided to hit the mars vehicle ... Space travel is a binary situation, it is either you succeed (1) or you die (0), nothing in between.
Very true. This whole subject reminds me of the Biosphere II (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/biosphere2_001110.html) experiment a few years ago, where a group of people tried to live in a totally isolated, self-contained environment for 2 years.

It failed miserably (http://biology.kenyon.edu/slonc/bio3/2000projects/carroll_d_walker_e/whatwentwrong.html). By the time they threw in the towel, the water was green with algae, almost all of their crops had failed, only 6 out of the original 25 species survived, the place was crawling with ants and cockroaches, and the oxygen went bad 18 months into it, so they had to pump in more. Oh, and the crew all hated each other.

I think we should probably put a human Mars visit on hold until we can build something here on earth that can exist in an totally isolated way for a sustained period of time.

[Steven Cedrone]

It failed miserably (http://biology.kenyon.edu/slonc/bio3/2000projects/carroll_d_walker_e/whatwentwrong.html). By the time they threw in the towel, the water was green with algae, almost all of their crops had failed, only 6 out of the original 25 species survived, the place was crawling with ants and cockroaches, and the oxygen went bad 18 months into it, so they had to pump in more. Oh, and the crew all hated each other.

I think we should probably put a human Mars visit on hold until we can build something here on earth that can exist in an totally isolated way for a sustained period of time.

I really think the only way that we will be able to do a moon colony is if a self contained "Biosphere" type project can not only be done, but be successful. There is no way we are going to be able to keep sending supplies to the moon to sustain a colony...

Mars, on the other hand will be interesting: months of getting on each others nerves, followed by a few days of really cool stuff, and back to months of getting on each others nerves...

Who knows, they may come up with a new "Justifiable homicide due to extreme circumstances" defense after a trip like that...

I could just imagine a trip that long with someone saying "Are we there yet" every 15 or 20 minutes... :roll:

Steve