Bush wants Mars

Bush has officially announced that he wants to get the US back on the moon, and then on to Mars. While it may have to do with his immense hubris (wanting to be seen as the first President willing to take on the pagan God of War), or as a very realistic reaction (and IMO very late realization) to China gaining an advantage on us in space, there is an insistence by his cronies that he is motivated by a desire for better science.This last reason seems impossible since he has been a major proponent of faithbased education, ID in all schools, attributions of the Grand Canyon's development to creationist dogma, loading a shuttle mission with religious garbage (certainly accomplished nothing scientific), etc etcBut let's say he is for real about this. Personally I am all for manned missions, especially to the moon (to establish a better base than a freaking space station), to mars (so we can actually study another planet first hand), and at some point to Europa (looking at best conditions for finding life on another planet plus studies of a gas giant).Dropping debate of whether this is just a ploy on his part, would you welcome this initiative?And what about this proposal... I say we have a triple prong moon/mars project. One will be run by MN based scientists. The other by ID theorists. The last by creationist theorists.The catch is each group will have to design and and operate their own missions using their own specific theories and methodologies. Thus ID/creationist theorists must limit their use of technology to that they can explain. For example if radiation, and radioactive decay cannot be correctly measured, they cannot avail themselves to those methods when dealing with cosmic radiation and/or experiments once mars is reached.Once on Mars, each team will have to produce geologic charts and data according to their specific methodology.Once back, each team will present its evidence and models and the US gets to vote on which one makes the most sense. After the vote, money can only be channeled into programs based on the winning methodology, and education will not have to include detours into the losers (except when dealing with history of a topic). In addition public signs and literature at federal locations (for example in national parks) will be changed to reflect factual findings under the winning methodology.Frankly after the last shuttle mission, I am worried that when we finally get back to the moon, or to Mars, we'll be planting Bibles instead of Flags, and would like to avoid that somehow. I mean I am sick of MN getting kicked around by the likes of Bush, while he takes advantage of all that it has achieved. I say let's put MN vs Faith as science to the test once and for all.How's about it, any takers?[This message has been edited by holmes, 01-15-2004]

Wow this got so many responses so quickly, this reply is going to try and include replies to everyone so far.I really wanted this thread to be more of a theoretical thing, than what might actually be driving Bush's announcement and the actual decision of if we do.IMHO it is a political move, ironically the same one his dad tried and failed. I guess maybe he thinks it'll sound better because he beat Saddam? I dunno.It may also be a fiscally ridiculous move at this time. Yeah, we got wars still going, and it seems almost schizo mentally as well as financially to be saying "We are under attack and must give up money and liberties the fight is so desperate... Yet... Hey everybody, now's the perfect time to spend money to do science research off the planet."If we want to open another thread I am willing to argue we can afford it, but I really want to concentrate here on whether it is worthwhile in any economy. I think Mark was the only one to really hit on that issue.Now I'm going to lay out my argument (besides the tongue in cheek triprong science test) for why IMO, it looks like a good idea to me... as long as we can afford it.While I do agree that probes are faster and cheaper all around when trying to get some basic data, I feel that one shot raw data is not the only issue in exploration.Probes have very limited ranges and functionality. Humans on site can change mission on command and create new directions/methods for exploration. This minimizes the risk (for failed missions) by reducing the number of probes we have to send out over time. Less probes also means less space junk floating around when we finally decide to get going.But even if we like the idea of probes, if we had a moon base, probes to the rest of the solar system could be created and launched there with greater ease and cost than from the earth. Low gravity is a HUGE benefit. It also eliminates (or one could say greatly expands) launch windows for missions. Remember there ain't no weather to screw things up.These conditions would also make better (larger) telescopes possible. Better even than Hubble. And if something happens to the telescope, going out to repair it would not be as risky.This is not to mention that a moon base will have communications and national defense capabilities mere satellites do not deliver. I am not going to argue that enemies would use the moon as a nuclear missile platform (at least not for a long time), but there are certain advantages a stable manned satellite would give any nation.And pretty much, whoever establishes a presence on the moon first, will have a jump on this. It will lead to increasing science and defense knowledge, far greater than just using probes.With no competition in sight we could easily take our time, but I feel we are in a space race and to dismiss China's efforts is to make the same mistake we did when Russia started their missions long ago.As a result of their efforts they STILL lead us in real space knowledge. Kind of interesting if the greatest space exploration results of humanity will have generally come from communist/totalitarian nations.While it may sound a bit paranoid, and very strange coming from me, I do believe we should be concerned that China may have men on the moon before us. Yeah, we can keep sending probes to dig, but they will eventually be acquire a permanent presence.Will it cost more? Probably. But will it be able to do more over time? Yes.Hmmm, I'll let it sit here and see what people have to say.

---

holmes...
But what a fool believes he sees,
no wise man has the power to reason away.
...(D. Bros)

I really just brought up the Creationist issue, because despite what you just said (Xians accepting that the heavens aren't floating around in the clouds) Creationism demands certain adjustments to scientific reality which preclude obtaining real data from space missions.How are we to measure radiation? How are we to date any features we find?If the argument goes that we cannot really know what happened on THIS PLANET without first referencing the Bible, what can we learn about any other planet from mere science missions? The methodology of science would have to be the same apparently mistaken one we've been using all along. Unless we have a replacement (and thus my challenge)?Will Mars will be allowed to have a 4+Billion Year age, while the earth must only be 5-10K? How will we explain this? Or will we have to judge every find on Mars with scripture first, to make sure no inconsistencies are found?Bush and his colleagues are pushing for this very thing in earth centered geology and biology education. It seems odd to at first say science is all confused so it must be badmouthed in education, and then say our future is scientific exploration.

---

holmes...
But what a fool believes he sees,
no wise man has the power to reason away.
...(D. Bros)

Heheh... but remember we already had a religious shuttle mission. Fundamentalist Xian and Jewish leaders turned that ill-fated flight into a humongous statement of the power of their lord to overcome everything.Maybe you didn't catch all that around the launch time (and during the mission). They had two astronauts whose only real credential (the one Bush and Sharon wanted discussed anyway) was their religion. They even gave the Jewish guy a torah which had survived the holocaust.There was a whole speech given by Sharon (and I believe Bush too) specifically on how that was an exhibition of God's power and how the future of fundamentalists was in exploring God's creation... gag.Never did hear much about what "sign" God was giving when he burned that torah up on reentry. However I did get to hear how devoted and faithful the Xian was (I could only get in local Fox News at the time and the Xian had relatives here).So apparently they do have designs on the cosmos. I suppose one thing to look forward to is the explanation by fundmentalist rocket designers why spaceships will fly better if they are shaped like large crosses or stars of david.

---

holmes...
But what a fool believes he sees,
no wise man has the power to reason away.
...(D. Bros)

I'm not a commie, not by a longshot... but I like pictures. Unfortunately I can't see the one you posted.

---

holmes...
But what a fool believes he sees,
no wise man has the power to reason away.
...(D. Bros)

Yeah, but if we did that sort of thing we should really send 'em back to where they come from, and everyone knows Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, and Assholes are from Uranus.

---

holmes...
But what a fool believes he sees,
no wise man has the power to reason away.
...(D. Bros)

I do believe this makes my first real disagreement with you Mark. That's cool though. I've found I prefer debating people I like, since they usually have good debating habits.

quote:

---

As to whether it is worthwhile, taking the word in the strictest sense, it will never be worthwile until space travel becomes an extremely fast & relatively trivial thing. By that I mean until we can get to Mars in a few days mitigating the need for a huge vessel able to keep the astronaughts alive for literally years, with all the associated costs & difficulties..

---

I should probably state that I am more a champion of returning man to the Moon, and then waiting a bit longer for Mars. The Moon is quick to get to and allows us a platform for many different activities. Until we're ready to set up a stable colony (and not just a there and back mission) there is probably little value that personally going to mars will give us...However, and now I'm playing a bit of the Devil's advocate here, what were early missions like across the oceans? They also took years, and if I remember right were just as costly in terms of finances (not to mention dead humans). So why should space exploration be different?To be honest I am not so convinced that it is a bad idea just because of length of time to get there and run such a mission. I would hope that forward thinking planners would have scientists running all sorts of experiments during the voyage, so that the entire thing is a learning experience. I suppose that would be an added value to the mission (which probes do not allow) such that we will have a lot of info obtained from the mission before it ever reaches Mars.And then if something goes wrong and we lose the mission (which happens to 2/3 of all probes trying to land and set up business there) we will have something to show, rather than nothing.

quote:

---

But human missions are still limited in scope because they can only use the equipment they take with them. It is going to be multi-billion dollar project to put humans on Mars, yet you can put a probe there for a few million (I dimly recall a documentary on Discovery that quoted 10 million pounds/probe for that particular vehicle).

---

I forget what your profession is, but this makes me want to ask if you ever saw a geologist, analytical chemist, or engineer in action? Probes must first be designed to mimic the basic physical abilities they have, and then (after that space and weight is taken up) a VERY LIMITED range of equipment. Some of the mineral tests could be conducted more easily (and quickly) by a geologist with a hammer and a microscope.With an engineer on board and a small stock of material, they could even build new equipment as they found it necessary.But the biggest issue we really have to look at is results for the money. You mention the price of one probe. Unfortunately the reality is that only 1/3 make it through to obtaining data. And those that make it can only run for so long.One human can clean and repair (not to mention modify) equipment, and so can accumulate much more data over time. They are also (and I think this is a huge point missed by the pro probe crowd) independent agents who can cover a greater area and depth of research, that no probe previously sent could ever compare. Within minutes of exiting the vehicle we could have more valuable pictures of the martian landscape than we will in the next ten years of probes (including the current rover).The time problem alone (for control communication) limits any probe from getting close to doing what a single human can achieve (given a day or week of work).

quote:

---

Human missions do have greater flexibility, no question about it, but is that extra flexibility cost effective? IMHO it isn't even close.

---

I really do believe that this discounts humans unfairly. Probes are one shot ventures, with limited tasks. If restricted to the question would it be cheaper to send a probe or a human to get X, then the probe will win out. But Humans are not one shot, with limited task potential. They will be able to do X, Y, and Z (which we didn't even consider during planning).I think when you add up how many probes it would take to cover the same amount of research that could be done both during flight, and once Mars is reached, and then include the failure rate of probes (which is greater than manned missions anywhere) the costs will not even out, but come out on the side of humans.

quote:

---

Why not build the buggers in space & get rid of the gravity problem altogether?

---

Oh my, from what? And on what? I assume you are talking about using a space station to do this?The best space station we have is the moon. The one we have right now is not free of gravity and gravity's effects... or should I say atmosphere effects? It will always need adjustments which means more fuel shipped up just to keep it where it is.On the moon, humans have the ability to build using existing structures and materials, rather than trying to ship up materials to try and assemble something that will stay together.I saw a recent documentary showing how many moon structures will be able to be built quickly by just shipping up ultra strong bags. You fill them with moon dust and create a sort of reinforced "igloo". This is apart from the ability to mine into Moon rock to create structures that would be radiation and micrometeor proof (which we do not have as yet for the space station).With the proper equipment on site, probes can be constructed from materials on the Moon itself. This will take a bit of engineering and mining at first, but the result will be actually freeing probe production and launching from Earth's demands.I will also remind you that I talked about telescopes in addition to probes. We will never be able to construct as large a telescope (radio or other) on the earth or in orbit as we can on the moon. I'm not sure if that alone is worth it right now, but with the other ventures we could work on, I think it would be.

quote:

---

We could drop the political crap & cooperate with China, of course. That would halve the cost of putting a Homo sapien on Mars at a stroke by sending one manned mission rather than two

---

While I agree with this sentiment, who is this we you are talking about? The Chinese are not some poor oppressed nation that we are excluding from space ventures. They are moving ahead because we have stalled.If we have no interest in space... which is what we have shown... then they will do it themselves. No one in this country (in high office) was even considering going back to the moon, much less to mars, until the Chinese said they were and succesfully put a man into space.So if anything, it will be us asking to join THEIR program.And this will not be so easy as they are not very uhmmmmm... friendly?

quote:

---

There's something about national pride, patriotism, competition etc. that just seems out of place when talking about humans in space.

---

While I agree with this, have you ever heard the Chinese talking about their nation and their efforts in space? It is all nationalism and competition.Let me put this plainly. I love China and the Chinese people. I have studied their history and culture as a form of pleasure. It is very rich.Unfortunately, the current government is corrupt. Not only is it corrupt, but it is a terrible force against human rights. It is just as bad now as soviet russia was. The revolt in the late eighties by those wanting more democracy was very personal to me as I had friends on both sides of that divide. We watched and fights ensued.IMO, the wrong side won. And since their victory, nationalism is on the rise. Their current government poses a very real threat to human freedom and rights, and they are not shy of threatening war. I couldn't believe the rhetoric coming out of China (even by average citizens) when our plane collided with one of theirs. There was much talk of a coming war with the US that they would win. I was like... war??? What war???It reminded me of the kind of nationalism that existed in Japan pre WW2... or perhaps in the US pre Iraq War.Their maneuvers against democracy in Taiwan are a very real sign of coming problems and threats to peace (if anyone decides to stand up for Taiwan).The space race is part of that nation's patriotic mission to move ahead of the US as a superpower in space. So while we can talk about our nations playing nice and joining with others to further humans in space, we have to keep in mind other nations are not as broad minded as we are. China is one of those nations.Though I suppose it might be an interesting strategic tactic for us to join missions so that we will have more reasons to grow closer as nations (on the individual level). My guess is China will balk at this for that very reason.

---

holmes...
But what a fool believes he sees,
no wise man has the power to reason away.
...(D. Bros)

Just to let you know, I was talking about building on the moon from material on the moon. There's no lugging anything anywhere.Actually is there an advantage to building in space, from parts coming from the earth? The energy costs would have to remain the same, so why not just assemble and launch directly from earth?The only advantage I see in building things at a space station is if the parts come from the moon.

quote:

---

Besides, you'll run into all kinds of litigation problems if you choose a landing site on the Moon that has already been purchased by someone on Ebay.

---

Shoot, you discovered my agenda. Anyone want to guess if Cheney was busy buying up property before Bush made his announcement?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

* Surveying vehicles to find your raw materials in sufficient quantities to make metal alloys.

---

Oh my, survey vehicles... Isn't that what we'd be bringing to the moon anyway? Every vehicle is a survey vehicle.And this brings up another point. Searching and mining would serve a dual purpose as we'd be collecting an immense amount of data in addition to gathering materials.

quote:

---

*Mining equipment... Smelting furnaces... Machine tools and stamping tools to shape the ingots into finished metal components.

---

Most of this would have to be transported in. Of course just enough to set up shop, until we can create more of it from materials present.Do remember though that much of the equipment will not have to be as massive or as numerous as that in an earth based mining complex. This is not to mention that transportation requirements don't have to be anything... they could be on site.A metallurgist can correct me, but I believe smelting would even be easier under non atmospheric conditions.

quote:

---

*plastics...petroleum... oil tankers with your next Earth - Moon shuttle run.

---

My guess is that in such an environment, plastics would not be used, instead using glass/ceramics in their place (which could easily be made from materials on the moon). But let's say we stick with plastics, why would people send an oil tanker, instead of just sending solid plastic blocks from earth? That would still be less cost than sending the plastic and the rest of the components together.

quote:

---

*Power, lots of power. Solar? Nuclear? In any event, you need all sorts of electrical euqipment. Generators, motors, batteries, air conditioning and heaters.

---

I think the obvious answer would be solar, though nuclear could be used if there was some proper way to harness the energy (nuclear requires quite a bit of water).But yeah. They need power and it will take money to put it up there. We send that kind of stuff to Antarctica and the wide open seas all the time. Not sure why this counts as a point against anything.

quote:

---

*A substantial skilled labor force. Throw in a rec hall, movie theater and swimming pool. Also a Hilton Hotel for visiting management and a Motel 6 for relatives of hourly workers. Oh, and don't forget your Avis Moon Buggy rental office and scoop out a playground and park with hiking trails.

---

This is a critique? The first goes without saying... it is the whole point. The rest sure would be nice someday if it worked out, but ultimately is just a strawman in this argument.

quote:

---

ALL SET? Now you can make you Mars Mission components from "moon materials". Cost effective? Uuuhhhhhh. NO.

---

Wow, thank the Gods we don't ever need to set up mining operations, smelting operations, assembly operations, and launch operations in order to use probes launched from earth... Duhhhhhhhhh.You know all you did was say that there will be a setup cost. There are new mining/smelting/assembly/rocket launch operations set up on earth all the time. The only difference in cost between the two will be the additional cost of shipping the same stuff (though there will actually be less required material for mining/smelting) up there, as well as the equipment necessary for breathing and waste reclamation.There may even be less costs given less transport and no governmental import/export/regulatory fees.Once the initial investment SETUP COST is paid, the question become when will the operation start paying for itself and eventually make up for the difference if we had stuck with probes all along. Its definitely a longterm strategy rather than a shortterm one.But then we can add that the moonbase does not have to only serve as a probe creating/launching platform. With very minimal added expense, we can have the best telescopes (and telescopic research) man could ever hope to create, as well as an additional communications hub. These last two alone, would be worth it to my mind, even if we stuck with earth born probes.And to repeat a point before, each mining endeavour (prospecting thru actual mining) will produce data about the universe which earth mines do not produce.I still don't get why communist nations are the ones which always move on space first, as you'd think they'd be the first ones to shy away from concepts such as "initial investment costs" and "future profits".So there ya go. Explain to me why what goes on on earth anyway, would not be worthwhile on the moon. It will be added initial investment cost, but how does that reduce its longterm profitability?The only argument I see is that the longer we stay on earth, the greater the costs will be over time.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Excuse me if I repeat some questions in this reply as I made to you in the other thread (which is quite similar in topic). You can answer them here or there.

quote:

---

I think we got better things to spend our resources on, than expensive dubious cost to benefit projects that are working the fringes of science.

---

I agree that the space station was an incredible waste of time and money... and apparently will be for some time yet to come. But I am not so sure about colliders being so (though why they had to be built from scratch as they wanted in Texas I am unsure).I guess I differ with you on two general points though.1) What are better things to spend resources on? We can feed and house everyone at this point, it is simply getting the food to people which is the POLITICAL problem. We can even cover everyone's health expenses, but for POLITICAL expediency. Unless we are going to spend money on arming the poor so they can revolt against the gov't complacency, I am unsure why science in any form is not a valid choice for at least a small proportion of any government budget.There are choices of course to address disease rather than power manufacture, or deep sea trenches over material science, but then I guess I'd like to see a better argument for why manned space exploration is not important, which I guess leads me to the following issue...2) What counts as fringes of science? I can agree that if current technology makes the cost of getting an answer astronomical, we ought to wait. But most high cost projects are not "fringe" as far as I am concerned. Perhaps more fundamental, than immediately practical, but not "fringe".I would also say that IMO, manned space flight is not fringe at all. It is the most forthright kind of exploration, into an area we simply have very little direct knowledge.I believe science is best served with more numerous vantage points. And for space science that goes doubly so. Probes help to some extent, but for very limited periods and over very small areas. It is a pseudo-vantage point.Heheheh... I can't remember if it was you that said I should be president, or not. If it was you are probably having severe doubts now. I honestly would rather have spent money on a mission to the moon, than an invasion of Iraq. Then again, I wouldn't have done so if the economy was faltering and I was still fighting a war in Afghanistan.I don't believe in foolhardiness with the public's money, but I really believe that space exploration, and specifically manned space exploration, has real benefits for humanity as a whole. Perhaps with more views of earth as a finite entity, some people would get the picture that enironmental concerns are not a joke.But lemme know what you think.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

But as a business venture, it would flop. You would never recoop your "setup" costs. You make it sound like after the intial investment, everything would be hunky-dory. You have to MAINTAIN the friggin' place. Big budgets. Big commitments. Long term commitments.

---

As a strictly business venture it would flop. But if you are going to be spending money on space exploration at all, over a course of time, it would eventually pay for itself in savings.To truly make it payoff on its own, as in making earnings, it would probably have to do something like tourism for millionaires, or have something with its communication platform potential that had a commercial value.Or maybe they can send back pet moon rocks

quote:

---

Not because they are Communists, but because they are Chinese. National pride took us to the moon ahead of the Russians.

---

We are in agreement on this point. I just always find it odd that the economic theories that are supposed to be so practical, and focused on the workers lives, keep getting swept up in grand nationalistic programs.It is the nationalistic drive which I predict will keep China from allowing us into joint programs with them, and why their "owning" the moon as a space platform is not a good strategic position for us.

quote:

---

When the shuttle program was still on the drawing boards, we the taxpapers were promised that the shuttle flights would be so efficient and regular that each flight would cost about $34 million. Ya, right!

---

The shuttle program was bogus from the beginning. I have never supported it, in other than an emotional "nice dream" sort of way. The technology simply wasn't right, and side tracked us from the more important ventures. Low earth orbit is essentially useless for science research into space.You will note that Russia has had better success not losing as much money as us, by allowing tourism and sponsoring of flights.

quote:

---

BTW holmes - Where on the moon are you going to get the silica sand for your glass and ceramic manufacture?

---

Now here is where my whole theory could be shot to hell. As far as I understood, Moon rocks have the same basic chemical makeup (even if different mineralogical structures) as earth. If so, then the silica is everywhere you land. Its supposed to be one of the most common solid state materials on the earth and in the universe.Unless I got that all wrong and am just thinking of earth?Boy would I feel stupid... but it'd be better to hear it sooner than later.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

But a human mission IS a one shot venture too

---

I suppose I should have done a better job of defining what I meant by "one shot". A probe has a very limited set of missions it can perform and really cannot stray outside of that narrow box.Humans on the other hand can improvise on the spot according to conditions. This is not to mention that the same software (their brains) can be used for multiple tasks beyond having to become active once they reach Mars' surface.The closest probes can get to this is by adding on remote control devices. But this is hampered from full effect by the great distances between Mars and Earth. It is not realtime at all. And even with this it is more about changing locational priorities than mission priorities.I stand by my assessment that there can be many experiments conducted en route, and in orbit, that we end up having much more data possible before hitting the surface.

quote:

---

The problem is that a human mission may carry more equipment, but how much more? I'll venture not much since food, water, multiple redundancy of systems etc is necessarily going to take up the bulk of the mass.

---

Obviously the human mission is going to have to bring food and water (and air). That's going to be THE MAJOR added expense, in addition to the greater amount of fuel.But this is essentially saying "fuel source" for the human hardware. So yeah, humans consume a less concentrated and convenient fuel, and so it will take up more space and use up more fuel. The question becomes for that same fuel and space, will the humans make more of it than probes?Well one great thing is that unlike the probes we can create a selfsustaining fuel cycle for humans. Thus humans can actually have a longer life and not need to be kept asleep during the voyage, or for portions of time on surface. Also, once on the surface the humans can use their fuel more efficiently as there does not need to be downtime (yet fuel continues to be consumed) waiting for commands or when not in a correct position due to rotation.And humans can clean and repair equipment for reuse. This is not truly possible for a probe... or true only in a very limited way. They can also (if prepared with a small machine shop) make their own equipment as needed.Given the same amount of equipment as a single probe, humans have the potential to run many more experiments, and without the spacial constraints of a probe. If one must swap existing probe equipment for the added needs of the human hardware, I agree one is not better off. But I think that is a bit of a strawman, as that would be a silly idea to start with, and is not anything close to what I would recommend.I am arguing for taking a bit more extra equipment than a single probe, in addition to the regular probe equipment and the necessities for a human crew. The human crew will come off better with the fuel they are given.

quote:

---

The best that could be said is that they could perform the same task to more samples, but so what? They are geographically limited, anyway.

---

This is not true at all. They can walk further than any probe can crawl, and that's not to mention the could use tracked vehicles to move around even faster (if they wanted to add the weight of a rover). Of course for much less weight they could also fly small "probettes" (like the small military drones we have now) around from the safety of their capsule to other sites. This is much different than our current probes as it would allow real time control and spread over a much greater area.For greater effect (and smaller weight) they could use balloon drones. I think they might even be able to get the gas from components of the martian soil so they wouldn't have to carry added weight on the flight.

quote:

---

Beyond that, unless the task involves something pretty trivial like hitting something with a hammer they are going to be pretty much impotent.

---

[/quote]Like I said, I would give them the same equipment. But saying hitting something with a hammer is trivial... harrumph! A lot of good geological work is done hands on, and cannot be done with probes (unless I am wrong and they have the nimbleness to create a slide for miscroscopic analysis).Let's replace that hammer with a small spade shovel, and you just beat any single probe. Humans can DIG. They can dig faster and farther than a probe and choose a wider scattering of samples. This may not be true on ice planets (where a probe can melt to depth), but is certainly true on solid rock planets.

quote:

---

That's 366 successful probes (of 1,100 sent), each potentially performing several tasks all over the Martian surface, whereas the humans are limited to within a couple of miles of their base.

---

I will totally accept your figures and even put myself at greater disadvantage by assuming humans will get better and so less missions fail over time (not to mention I will pretend like the price won't go up for each probe). So let's say for 30M we get 750 successful Mars probes. That means 750 different spots on Mars, analyzed for X amount of samples, and at depths of inches to a few feet of soil.Oh yeah, I'll also forget that these 1100 missions flown (at average 3-5 years to go from planning to working on the surface) will be over the course of some 100's of years (at best). We will pretend that we flew 1100 all at once.Now for the manned space mission, while we would potentially only have one Mars Base, it would be able to accumulate more raw data for the area within its reach, then for any of the 750 probes. We will be able to move DOWN and AROUND which is more valuable to real geology than OVER and SLIGHTLY BENEATH.Given the correct equipment they could set up a small coring station and get a real well log.They will also not be at the mercy of rocks and range, in order to get proper samples to describe the regional geology. With probes we are limited to what we can get.Two astronauts could even do some pretty decent survey work. This is not really possible with probes (unless you get a couple running in tandem).And as mentioned, the crew can conduct a variety of open space experiments during the flight there and back. Even if lost before hitting the surface, we should get some good data in flight (which is what we never get from failed probes).With the addition of drones, or perhaps a vehicle, or an orbital station (like we had on moon missions) the range of a manned mars mission could be quite similar to 10 or more of those successful probe missions, yet yield more comprehensive data within that range.I understand that in pure dollar amounts we can send more missions, and more missions makes it sound like more quality... but I do not believe quantity equals quality at all. If I was a geologist trying to survey the grand canyon, I would rather pay for a team of geologists (even two), than toss 1000 rovers at it from Chicago... especially with no realtime connection to the rovers. The quality would not be the same.And I will now bring up the time factor. We will get more info in that one 3-5 year manned Mars mission than any 10-100 probes which would take over 30-50 years (and that's being lenient).As far as costs go, I do wonder at how much intercontinental missions (like Columbus) cost to nations back in their day. From what I understand it was quite a bit. I am unsure if it is comparable, but I'd like to know.Then I look at what we pay for stealth bombers and sdi and oh let's say the new Bears stadium and I think, why not move some money over for a manned mission? We could always do one or two, and just see if it bears the fruit which is promised. If not, go back to probes.I think we are being overly pessimistic in dismissing the manned potential, especially when cost is the main issue (11B is not much on a gov't level). We could have paid for a couple of Mars missions for the price of Iraq, and we'd have lost less people and been just as safer (though I will admit the Iraqis would not have the opportunity to be ruled by Chalabi).And in conclusion... what about the Moon? Even if I grant that probes may be the best bet for Mars for a while, why not get back to the moon and setup shop?I will note that it was announced today that Hubble will be coming down in 2006-8. Moon telescopes would have longer lives and even better quality.Drink a pint, mull it over, and get back to me later.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Just to let you know your news got the story slightly wrong. NASA has already decided to scrap Hubble, totally separate from the new space plans.It was only slated to work for a certain time and as it is would always need boosts to stay in orbit. I can't remember what the exact problem is this time, but I think it is the gyroscopes which are slowly failing. So they'll send up a rocket to then push it into a desired angle of descent.Now it could be this is just a line that Bush is forcing NASA to come up with, and crash may be right that creationists could have convinced him Hubble must be on the fritz since it keeps seeing past 6K, but it's probably just business as usual for low earth orbit space science.This is why I just don't get the hesitation for manning the moon. We put people in almost as bad of conditions when we send them to Antarctica. It would be slightly more risky (though none so as our first missions to Ant.) and the payoff would be huge to get a permanent satellite that won't go down... or if it did, we'd have a lot more things to worry about.To me recent efforts in space exploration have been analogous to early world explorers trying to build and man a boat that would stay in the middle of the ocean, instead of just proceeding on to a shoreline we know exists and set up shop there.(TO ANYONE) On Mars, me and my gf just realized that the current Mars rover most likely has our names on it. We signed up for that years back and so forgot all about it. Did in you or anyone you know, sign up to get your names put on the Mars rover?Ah, at least I know if a comet (or demons) destroy the earth, I have a bit left for posterity. If only they would have included a portion of my BRILLIANT writing!

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

The Iraq situation is part of a grander plan. A risk worth taking, in my opinion, since status quo only seemed to breed more terrorists. The plan for freeing and rebuilding Iraq is called punish the terrorist states and reward the ones that do not support terrorists. Libya got the message.

---

You are wrong. But if you want to make your point on this subject, please open another thread to discuss it there.I am personally for scrapping the space station and shuttle programs (have been for over 20 years), getting back to the moon on a permanent basis, and then sending a manned mission to Mars.I also think it is doable financially, especially the moon part.HOWEVER, there is a question of fiscal responsibility. I am unsure if this is the moment to be doing things, at least until we have extracted ourselves financially from two other nations (whether you were for the wars or not) and a massive deficit.And more importantly there is a question of governmental responsibility. We are supposedly at war. A very big war. So big we must curtail our long held civil rights. I cannot see how one can say that in the middle of this desperate war is the perfect time to engage in grand space expeditions. It muddies the vision of what is going on, and kind of works in schizophrenic tones.Everything's great, everything's bad, everything's great, everthing's bad. Which is it?Bush is truly a nottax (the rich) and spend republican. Priorities must be rearranged financially and nationally (vision wise) to make space exploration (which I want to get to) a real scenario.And FYI, Bush is a creationist and has backed those fighting evolution (specifically in education). One of his core group of voters (and counsels in science) are the members of the ID movement. He may not believe in an old earth per se, but then again he might. I wish someone would ask that question so we could get a... what am I thinking? There will be no direct answer, but maybe we could get to watch him hem and haw for a while.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I'm not crashfrog, but I apologize for not making myself clear.What I was trying to say is that whether the Iraq war was a good idea or not is a different topic and should be in another thread. I happen to think you are wrong which means there is a potential debate on that topic, so by all means start one!I then went on to make points about the subject of the thread, and NOT about the worthiness of the IraqWar.The viability or worthiness of Bush's proposed space program is the subject and you can post anything you like about that here... Didn't mean to make it sound like you couldn't post at all.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)