At Last ,A Pres. That Gets It

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 6:36 am

Not since JFK have we had a president that understands the importance of space:

WASHINGTON (AP) - 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.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040109/D7VV5E0O0.html

Hopefully this will fire the imagination of many young-ins to get involved with the sciences and become part of this great endeavor.

STRESSTEST · Post by **STRESSTEST** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 11:42 am

let me make a prediction and just say that Mobi should be along soon to sh!t on this thread

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 11:44 am

Gets what? How to spend money with no plan of repaying it?

1 trillion dollar mission to mars
500 billion dollar space station on the moon
National Debt:
About 7 trillion currently
The estimated population of the United States is 292,989,799
so each citizen's share of this debt is $23,891.61

Maybe we should pay down the debt instead?

Sting_Ray · Post by **Sting_Ray** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 12:01 pm

What IS the importance of a permanent presence on the moon right now?

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 12:57 pm

It would make it easier to get to mars...

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 1:22 pm

I've never been terribly taken with the "climb a mountain because it's there" mentality. Sending astronauts to Mars would certainly be an amazing feat of human engineering and I'd say "wow" like everyone else if a human stepped foot on Martian soil in our lifetime. But, it really seems to be the pinnacle of indulgence to send people to a barren planet so they can take some pictures and pick up a few rocks when there's a steady supply of problems (and expenses) here on planet Earth. If I thought there was some reasonable opportunity to make Mars inhabitable and self-sufficient, I'd be much more excited. Call me in 1,000 years when terraforming might be possible and practical. For now, spending a trillion bucks to shoot a handful of tourists to Mars just so we can say "we did it" is pretty hard to justify. I'd favor bigger and better space telescopes though ... the Hubble rocks.

Topher · Post by **Topher** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 1:56 pm

Some day, we will have to leave. Whether to prevent our extinction or alleviate overpopulation. Honestly, there is a sh!t load of money to be made in space. How much do you think an acre of the moon or Mars will cost to buy? Whoever gets there first has the monopoly on it. Space tourism is already making millions, and that's not even on the surface of another planet! Can you imagine what someone will pay to set foot on Mars? Read Arthur C. Clarke, he's managed to vision geocentric satalites and I'm sure some other scifi ideas that have become reality. The Sands of Mars and A Fall of Moon Dust I believe talk about some of these issues.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 3:44 pm

Going to space, exploring, and eventually living on other planets is inevitable.

How we get there concerns the present.

JMEaT · Post by **JMEaT** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 4:29 pm

Word.

HaAGen DaZS · Post by **HaAGen DaZS** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 5:28 pm

hey guys! why don't we all stop spending those billions of dollers on USELESS warheads?

my god, we'd have our debts paid off within a few months.

HELL! WE'D ALREADY BE THERE!

i'm all for space exploration. but whats the point when the only control we have over our current planet would be with a red button?

heh.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 5:49 pm

Great idea HaAG!! Allow our country to fall behind in weapons development, therefore eliminating the threat of terrorists flying planes into buildings! All we'll have to worry about are enemy states with superior weapons technology blowing us up before our radar can let out its last pathetic bleep.

NOT!

Just so you know, not spending money doesn't magically pay off a deficit.

De Rigueur · Post by **De Rigueur** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 6:02 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by STRESSTEST:
let me make a prediction and just say that Mobi should be along soon to sh!t on this thread<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He could either begin by saying something like, "This is laughably unfeasable, and here's why . . ."

Or he may be more sanguine and begin, "Normally, I think Bush is a baffoon, but this might be a good idea . . ."

Maybe he'll say, "I've just sent my space station designs to NASA -- keep your fingers crossed, guys."

His reply probably depends on how much sleep he's been getting.

HaAGen DaZS · Post by **HaAGen DaZS** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 6:07 pm

Or maybe you could just have some *real* security at your airports?

from reading littles bits and piece son here it really doesnt sound like you have much.

i dunno about you, but id sure be willing to strip to the undies if nessary. do they feel you up before you go onto the planes?

im sure id rather get the cheap thrills of some dog feeling me up, than thinking of how everyone's cash is wasted away.

so yea, DC.. how many of those weapons have been used? i wonder how many countries are actually scared of them.

after all. you bomb someone, someone will bomb you back.

maybe im being a little close minded. but then why waste so much money on blowing each other back to god knows when, instead of PROGRESSING?

and im not just talking about the US.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 6:09 pm

Dcrazy, I think he is referring to the fact that we already have enough warheads to blow up the entire earth, yet more are still built.

Nitrofox125 · Post by **Nitrofox125** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 6:12 pm

informal discussions have put the cost of a Mars expedition at nearly a trillion dollars,

Yeah right, it's gonna be more expensive than that. The Space Station alone will probably cost a trillion.

Nitrofox125 · Post by **Nitrofox125** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 6:21 pm

What IS the importance of a permanent presence on the moon right now?

The moon is just three days away while Mars is at least six months away, and the lunar surface therefore could be a safe place to shake out Martian equipment. Observatories also could be built on the moon, and mining camps could be set up to gather helium-3 for conversion into fuel for use back on Earth.

HaAGen DaZS · Post by **HaAGen DaZS** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 6:50 pm

thanks birds.

there's also plenty of money being put towards commercial crap.

here's an idea. lets get people MEDICAL SERVICE!

screw nationalism! down with war! TELL! THE! TRRRUUUUUTTTTH!

And like I said, the US is one of many.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 8:41 pm

HD, you're heading for the dark side.

catch22 · Post by **catch22** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 8:54 pm

The first Bush made a similar proposal. Up until now, there was absolutly no effort or money being made to accomplish his goal. I'm not going to start believing this until I see significant govt. and public backing. That means certain bodies are setting up appropriate programs and money is being fronted to them.

On a side note, Bush isn't guarenteed to be pres. in another year. Which means there is nothing to say that any programs he establishes now won't just be dumpped by the next pres.

I'm all for this. I'll defently support it. Though I think some other issues take precedence over space exploration.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 9:06 pm

Am I the only one that thinks the International Space Station was a slightly dumb idea?

I mean, realistically, the thing can be taken out by one tiny, wayward asteroid. Did it ever occur to anyone that a base on the moon would probably be more feasible? If we return to the moon, a long-term objective should be to construct a base on it that may act as a waypoint on future missions to Mars and beyond. From a moon base, we can also gather and analyze plenty of samples and more fully conduct research on our closest outer space cousin.

And maybe will find a colony of subterranean furries there with superior spacefaring prowess who will loan us ships to explore the vast reaches of the galaxy.

Mr. Perfect · Post by **Mr. Perfect** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 9:38 pm

Sure, we've got enough warhead to blow up the earth, but the problem is they're all nuclear. Last time Clinton shot off cruise missles it was all over the news about how we where running out of them. So sure we could stop makeing new cruise missles, but then we'd have to use the nukes.

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 10:42 pm

I'd like to see a more saner administrative culture at NASA before we think of some so ambitious.

De Rigueur · Post by **De Rigueur** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 10:58 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Solrazor:
 Am I the only one that thinks the International Space Station was a slightly dumb idea?

I mean, realistically, the thing can be taken out by one tiny, wayward asteroid. Did it ever occur to anyone that a base on the moon would probably be more feasible? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Old saying: you have to be able to build a sh!t house before you can build a cathedral. A space station would be needed to ferry materials to the moon.

BTW, I'm surprised no one has suggested that Bush wants to go to Mars to check for WMD.

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 11:31 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by DCrazy:
 Great idea HaAG!! Allow our country to fall behind in weapons development, therefore eliminating the threat of terrorists flying planes into buildings! All we'll have to worry about are enemy states with superior weapons technology blowing us up before our radar can let out its last pathetic bleep.

NOT!

Just so you know, not spending money doesn't magically pay off a deficit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Living on the moon would certainly cut down on the terror threat, as well as significantly increasing the amount of time one would have to respond to a nuke of some sort coming.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 11:58 pm

as for the "pay down the debt" suggestion, too bad our local econ major didn't pay any attention when I mentioned the Bush strategy: cut taxes now, and let the deficit sit where it may. This forces the government to cut spending long-term.

Why?

Raising taxes is hard, and with the government up against the deficit limit, they just can't spend any more. But, if the budget was balanced, the government would have an easy time spending just a little more here and a little more there, and bringing the spending right back up. Cutting taxes is the only way to reduce spending.

That said, if we're gonna spend money on research, a mission to the moon is one place it'll be worthwhile -- the type of lightweight, efficient technology developed for NASA missions is just amazing.

Capm · Post by **Capm** » Sat Jan 10, 2004 12:25 am

Well I think it is a good idea. The Chinese have a mission to Mars in the planning stages, and who wants them to beat us there?

Its an all new space race... in slooow motion.

Oh and BTW, the ISS would'nt work to ferry materials, its a scientific research station, not an orbiting warehouse...
What we need to build first is a high-orbit SPACEDOCK.
Then a Moon Base, and we need to make spacecraft that are designed for SPACE FLIGHT, not re-entry which could be built at the space dock... Then we could build an outpost with a shipyard at Mars, then a Mars Base, refining centers near the asteriod belt...... etc

catch22 · Post by **catch22** » Wed Jan 14, 2004 10:16 pm

Originally posted by Lothar:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
as for the "pay down the debt" suggestion, too bad our local econ major didn't pay any attention when I mentioned the Bush strategy: cut taxes now, and let the deficit sit where it may. This forces the government to cut spending long-term.

Why?

Raising taxes is hard, and with the government up against the deficit limit, they just can't spend any more. But, if the budget was balanced, the government would have an easy time spending just a little more here and a little more there, and bringing the spending right back up. Cutting taxes is the only way to reduce spending.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand what you are saying here, but I seriously doubt it would work. It seems to me it implies that every administation would share the same policy, which is highly unlikely.

Debt doesn't disappear by spending more under the assumption you wouldn't have anything to spend down the line. I'm experiencing this first hand right now.

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:37 pm

Yup. Here I am. But this requires more time than I have right now.

ALL your questions will be answered. All your doubts removed. All your frustration defused. All your wrong numbers debunked.

I do have time for this however: Politically and Economically astute move by the Whitehouse.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 2:09 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Mobius:
Politically and Economically astute move by the Whitehouse.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just goes to show that even a Kiwi is smarter than the average democrat

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:10 pm

OK - now I have some time.

It's all good Dubya. You finally did something almost right.

Firstly. I believe that every dollar the USA has ever spent in and on space exploration has returned around $7 to the economy over the years. Name another investment that returns the same amount. The only issue with the investments made, is that there is a SIGNIFICANT delay from the time of investment, until the payback, and the amount of investment required is huge. Huge in terms of your income and my income - not huge compared to the Federal Budget.

The best and greatest example is Boeing. Since the 70's Boeing was the world's No.1 producer of wide-body jets. This was a direct result of the aerospace investment made in the sixties. Ten years later, Boeing started cranking out the best jets in the world, and no one could touch them. Now, after 30 years of aimless and pointless NASA, and the reduction of R&D, Boeing was, in 2003, overtaken by Airbus as the World's No.1 manufacturer. This may change in 10 years from now given the new targets set for NASA. Boeing will probably end up making much of the hardware needed - and this in itself may allow Boeing to fight back against airbus.

Firstly let's tackle the money issue. The Fed for 2004 is 2.2 Trillion US dollars. NASA will recieve less than 1% of the budget funds - a total of (IIRC) 15.7 Billion for FY2005. The Military budget for 2001 was 305 Billion. (2003-2004 numbers will be closer to 700 Billion including Iraq).

Now - if you want to complain about spending money - go complain about three quarters of a trillion dollars. Typically, the USA NEEDS to spend 300 Billion Dollars because it does not have a clue about foreign policy. "Spend our way to peace and happiness" is the philosophy and it does not work. We know this from history.

Failing to correct the mistakes of the past, and admit those mistakes, as well as failing to form a cohesive, responsible foreign policy is costing the US people probably 200 Billion a year (at least). A decent FP would mean you could drop 50-75% of the military budget with absolutely no reduction in security of American interests.

Those of you who worry about the US deficit, stop worrying. The USD is the de facto currency in several locations around the world, and a huge percentage of "foreign debt" is a joke - because those dollars will NEVER EVER be brought back into the USA. Hell, if all the money outside the USA was to come back, your country would be instantly bankrupted. So relax.

But we aren't here to discuss political failings for the last 50 years.

We are here top talk about the Moon and Mars.

The moon is an excellent location to start. 500 Billion for a permanent moon base? Hmm. Maybe. But so what? That'd be spent over many many years, and is an ASSET not a LIABILITY. See? You look at that money as being thrown in the

toilet, whereas the money is in actual fact, sitting in "The Luna Bank of the American People, Mare Imbrium Branch". The interest rate is VERY high in this bank, but it's a term deposit, which means you don't get to make a withdrawl.

But your kids do.

Let's look at why we (humans) go back to the moon. We have plenty of unfinished business there. Last time, America put 12 men on the moon, and even THAT number was so high it bored the American people. All you wanted was to beat the Russians. And you did. Congrats. Well done. Excellent work. Pat yourself on the back.

There's several major reasons to go back to the Moon.

1) POWER. Yeah. Electricity. More than you could ever want - and in two yummy flavours! Solar *AND* Fusion - but wait - there's MORE! You ALSO get this fabulous <s>set of Ginsu steak knives</s> world monopoly! AND AT NO EXTRA CHARGE!!! And, if you dial in the next five minutes, we also add in the next item on the list - for only another 100 Billion!

Solar Power: 18 Terawatts of solar energy falls on the poles of the moon constantly, bombarding the surface with heavy particles and fierce radiation 24/7/365. Setting up Heliotropic (Sun following - the moon rotates once each time it travels around the earth: periodicity 1:1) solar energy farms at the luna poles can potentially supply ALL the energy requirements of the USA.

Microwaving the power back to Earth requires setting up receiving farms in Wyoming. They'll be about 20 Square miles each. Microwaves are COMPLETELY safe - and the systems self adjust, and if the beams fall off the farms, output is cut automatically.

Fusion Power A better solution to solar energy - or at least - a better solution for long term use, is to extract He3 (Super Helium) from the top six inches of Luna dust/topsoil. Helium is an odd element, it is a non-naturally occuring gas on Earth, and was discovered very late in the day. He3 is an

isotope of normal helium, and it can only be formed by bombarding normal Helium atoms with heavy particles, causing it to gain a Proton. He3 has the unusual property of being the isotope with the lowest fusing temperature of all. It fuses at about 2 million degrees lower than Tritium (The Heavy isoptope of Hydrogen) and is therefore the best fuel for Fusion Reactors. (Fusion is "safe" nuke power. You can switch the reactor off, and when it cools down you can walk inside - there's no heavy radiation!)

1KG of He3 will provide enough electricty, when fused, to power the USA for a day!

Predictions put the amount of He3 in the top 6 inches of dust all across the moon at enough to power the entire Earth for several million years. Imagine cornering THIS market!!! Not only do you get to develop He3 Reactor technology, and sell it, but you get to monopolise both this AND the fuel! W00T.

Metals: If you fill a bucket with moon dust, and pass it through a solar-powered furnace, this is how the stuff breaks down:

Aluminium: 40%
slag: 30%
Titantium: 20%
Various Gases: 5%
Trace elements: 5%

So, no worries about building materials. The largest source of titanium anywhere, and just sitting there in the dust/dirt. The gases include Oxygen, noble gases amongst others.

You use the Titanium and Aluminium to make whatever you want, and you use a Mass Driver to throw the rest into orbit to be collected by an orbiting facility which then carries the stuff to the Lagrange points and Earth Orbit for further manufacturing.

You use the slag to cover whatever structures you make on the moon. It acts as a radiation shield and insulationn. Spray it on like that rock-crete stuff.

Water: We don't know for sure, and it will be a cruel blow if there's none there, but it is *suspected* (hoped!) that at the poles, the craters which cast permanent shadows contain water ice in the dust and dirt. While we build our solar generating arrays you extract the water from the dirt.

Using electrolysis, you distill the water for drinking, and bathing etc, and elctrolyse the remainder - separating it into Hydrogen and Oxygen. Thus you have made rocket fuel, and breathable air, in one easy step. Nitrogen might be hard to come by on the moon, and a pure oxygen atmosphere is very dangerous, so we might end up having to breath a helium/Oxygen mix - like deep sea divers. This is going to make for some pretty hilarious conversations!

Telescopes: Hubble has served us well, but it is nearing the end of it's useful life. With the focus switching to manned exploration, the James Webb Space telescope (NGST) should be converted to a moon-based telescope. In fact, 2 or three additional duplicates should be built, and mounted at various locations on the moon. Eventually, you create an array of telescopes with a baseline some 2000 km across. This acts as an interferometer par excellence.

The array allows you to look everywhere, and detect planets with more accuracy, and even will allow us to start analysing the atmosphere of these new worlds. They also provide us with a microscope to examine the sun in ever increasing detail. Providing 3D views of our newest star.

The scientific impact of these telescopes can't be OVER stated. They can also be used to detect and map the Near Earth Objects (NEOs) and Asteroids in the Asteroid belt - thus providing Earth with a near-perfect ability to detect inbound rocks.

Here's where I point out that while only a single rock would take out the ISS, the chances of this occuring are stupidly small. No satelite has EVER been taken out by space junk, or meteoroids. To put it in perspective, large rocks fall on the Earth about every 50 million years.

Our new abilities to observe local space will allow us to not just save ourselves from ALL inbound rocks - regardless of size (even up to 100km across!) but from man-made space junk too.

Sending fusion powered lasers to the rocks allows us to divert the course of these rocks (Using "Light Pressure")into a highly elliptical orbit around Earth - and provides us with Teratons of raw materials.

Moon Base for Exploration: Sending stuff from the bottom of Earth's gravity-well is very tough to do. The moon's gravity well is tiny, and with no atmosphere, craft descending to, and leaving from the Luna surface require NO heat shielding, nor aerodynamic shape whatsoever.

Building and launching stuff from the moon is a piece of cake compared to Earth. The only things that EVER need to come from earth is stuff which can't be made using ISRU (In-Situ Resource Utilisation) - and people!

Research: The Lunar Surface offers us the ability to examine what the Earth was like 4 Billion years ago - and will answer many many questions about the origin of the moon, the "construction" phase of our Solar system, and much more about the Earth too.

Especially dangerous research can take place on the moon. Think Nanobots. Think "Universal Assemblers". If it all goes wrong - few people suffer. (Of course, we don't want to convert the Moon to Grey goo. But it's better than converting the entire Earth to Grey Goo!)

Money: Whoever makes the investment to conquer the Moon will dominate the Solar System's economy for many hundreds of years.

Terrforming Base: Eventually, we'll want to terrform the moon. It's entirely possible, we'd just have to create an atmosphere about 600 miles thick. This isn't a cake-walk, but ultimately, it's doable.

Mars is more likely to be a first stop call for terraforming. It'll take about 1000 years at the best guess. We probably won't start on that for a hundred years or more - however. basically we'll have to destroy Mars to terrform it.

We'll bombard it with water-ice asteroids until the surface temperature raises into the double digits (C) and then seed it with custom-design bacteria. Later we'll add plants, and use Fusion Reactors to create Ozone to protect the surface from radiation. (Mars has almost no electromagnetic field which protects Earth).

Need more reasons to go back?

There are plenty. But I ran out of time.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 6:12 pm

" basically we'll have to destroy Mars to terrform it."

I would disagree. Plants such as artic lichens and mosses could be first step ecology to terriform Mars. Mass plantings and then natural spoor reproduction would start a nitrogen (in soil) cycle that would then enable more hardy tundra bushes and dwarf evergreens to be planted and take root. As plant life increases, so will o2 levels rise to add density to the martian atmosphere. Atmospheric density inceases will allow retention of heat, which at some point will melt the frozen ice (along with the frozen CO2) which will increase humidity and, well...you see how it works.

Another advantage of Lunar bases is the habitats will not become obsolete in 5 years time as do space stations. Underground dwelling will also be used as a cheap way to construct living/work areas (we presently have boring machines that will chew a 40 foot diameter hole through solid rock at a rate of something like 3 or 4 feet an hour). Contract workers could now go and work for a year ot two with out coming back to earth.

The design of a new shuttle craft will put countless aerospace engineers back to work and as Mobman said, the end result is unimaginable today.
Go Bush!

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 10:50 pm

SpaceDaily.com has an article up HERE which says it won't work.

It's about the Money. Dubya is only putting an extra Billion into Nasa in the next 5 years - and that simply isn't going to be enough to pull off even building the CEV. *sigh*

Woodchip - If you want to terraform Mars your way - you better be prepared to wait millions of years - not the 1000 estimated for crashing water-roids into Mars.

Mars is simply too cold, and the radiation too harsh for even bio-engineered earth organisms to live on the surface of Mars. You want to create oxygen - that's fine - but when the organisms only transpire/photosynthesise 5 days every 1000 years (when the temperature gets above freezing) then even millions of years is short time.

The nice thing about Destroying Mars is that we get to design where the Oceans and "Continents" will be, by guiding the Asteroids to precise impact points. Also, the impacts will raise the temperatire of Mars by a BIG margin. The energies we're talking about here are simply mind boggling. You can't do anything on Mars until the temperature gets above freezing for at least the day cycle - and that means whacking mars with Teratons of material travelling at 40,000 - 70,000 Km/h.

If you feel like becoming a mole-man, be my guest. Humans would NOT enjoy living underground, and why the hell should you??? Simply cover your inflatable balloon structure with Rock-Crete 6-12 inches thick - and hey presto - you got insulation, air tightness and radiation shield all in one. Digging is fine, but only for mining.

roid · Post by **roid** » Wed Feb 11, 2004 11:27 pm

"we will establish a base on the moon"
- china rhetoric.

"we will establish a base on teh moon"
- usa rhetoric, (1 year later).

capm's got it, it's just another race. and damn do i love races.

btw: hi

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Thu Feb 12, 2004 3:04 pm

Bumping up old threads is bad, mmmk?