Bush's Plan For Space Exploration...

[Prophet Tenebrae]

Looks like he's trying to succeed where daddy failed... again.

In any event, can we really see this series of missions as accomplishing anything (if they even happen). While I'm actually pobably more pro-space exploration than most - I don't think that manned missions to Mars will really do much more than waste a whole lot of money.

The engineering problems are considerable - even with setting up a moon base, new studies have shown that just being in orbit has lead to astronauts on the ISS getting pre-cancerous DNA damage and while it's obvious we have a long way to go before cheap and/or reliable space flight is developed now it seems that we have (in terms of bravado at least) another potential space race.

Although it seems to be common opinion that while India and China are both promising to put men on the moon, that when the bill comes in we'll all be cooperating.

[Queeg]

I too am an advocate for space exploration. After waiting for this sort of announcement for years, I now find myself trying to work out the American (i.e. Dubyah's) motivations. Not only that, but it seems to me that the US economy isn't at it's strongest either. Anyway, Robert Zubrin of Mars Society has a few ideas on manned MArs missions.

http://www.nw.net/mars/docs/nearterm.pdf

I remember when he gave a lecture at St. Andrews way back in my first year...

[Capt. Jean-Luc Picard]

'Lets's see what's out there...engage!'

[Paranoid]

Does the phrase 'election year' suggest anything? Comparisons have already been made (in the Daily Telegraph anyway) to John F Kennedy's promise to put a man on the moon on his election year...but somehow I think this is a bit too optimistic (We've already covered this area on another post)

[Queeg]

Well, let's make this a scientific discussion of space exploration and colonisation then. Let's not let it deteriorate into some silly political debate like the other thread!

So, warp drive or hyperspace/jump gates then?! Seriously though, anyone think there's a chance of cool technology (re)emerging as a result of this announcement? Fusion, matter/anti-matter, solar sails. Or do you think America will prefer to just use thermonuclear devices and a heat shield? They have plenty of them lying about... Any long term plan will be very very long term if Earth sticks to conventional rocket technology...

[Capt. Jean-Luc Picard]

[s]Queeg wrote on 14:56, 16th Jan 2004:
Well, let's make this a scientific discussion of space exploration and colonisation then. Let's not let it deteriorate into some silly political debate like the other thread!
So, warp drive or hyperspace/jump gates then?! Seriously though, anyone think there's a chance of cool technology (re)emerging as a result of this announcement? Fusion, matter/anti-matter, solar sails. Or do you think America will prefer to just use thermonuclear devices and a heat shield? They have plenty of them lying about... Any long term plan will be very very long term if Earth sticks to conventional rocket technology...




Trek went beyond warp drive once. In a very old episode a warp experiment went wrong and the Enterprise D was blasted to the very far ends of the universe (well over a billion light years away) in the space of about a minute. This may sound outrageously unrealistic, as is all trek, but its not all about geeky technology etc, since I don't really care for that, but just the vision and hope that inspires scientists (physicians etc) to keep pushing the boundaries the science into new areas ('Exploring the unknown possibilities of existance', as said by Q once, says it all). Useless as all this may sound, I just thought I would throw my 2 cents in anyways P

[Queeg]

Tut-tut Jean-Luc. You should be ashamed...

The Enterprise D "broke" warp a number of times in TNG, not just when the Traveler used his mind to alter reality. Lt. Broccoli strapped himself into the holodeck and monkeyed around with the engines that time he became a genius. That got Enterprise to the centre of the Galaxy. Then there was the time Q threw the Enterprise into Borg space. Then there was the time the Enterprise D got pushed away by the defense system of that cloaked planet with the impotence problem.

Oh dear.........

[Capt. Jean-Luc Picard]

[s]Queeg wrote on 15:40, 16th Jan 2004:
Tut-tut Jean-Luc. You should be ashamed...

The Enterprise D "broke" warp a number of times in TNG, not just when the Traveler used his mind to alter reality. Lt. Broccoli strapped himself into the holodeck and monkeyed around with the engines that time he became a genius. That got Enterprise to the centre of the Galaxy. Then there was the time Q threw the Enterprise into Borg space. Then there was the time the Enterprise D got pushed away by the defense system of that cloaked planet with the impotence problem.

Oh dear.........




In those cases the Enterprise didn't really go that far, only a few light years. I was talking about one that stood out for me out the whole lot.

So no, I shouldn't be ashamed, I know my facts. I'm not stupid.

[Ashley]

[s]Capt. Jean-Luc Picard wrote on 16:57, 16th Jan 2004:
In those cases the Enterprise didn't really go that far, only a few light years. I was talking about one that stood out for me out the whole lot.

So no, I shouldn't be ashamed, I know my facts. I'm not stupid.


Can I nip this off-topic potential flamewar in the bud? /snip

I actually side with the Conservative blokey last night on question time on this one. Cynical election ploy maybe but sometimes, sometimes, they do work.

However, throwing money at something like when there is still immeasurable poverty throughout the world, and against a mounting US deficit, I can understand the controversy.

[cberry]

Well thats cool, its not like the US is $7,012,843,218,685.09 dollars in debt now, whats another 30 billion?

[puzzled]

[s]cberry wrote on 17:30, 16th Jan 2004:
Well thats cool, its not like the US is $7,012,843,218,685.09 dollars in debt now, whats another 30 billion?



$30 billion dollars is an accounting error to the US government; and if that was the price of going to mars, it would be cheap.

The technological progress in rocket technology necessary to go to Mars can not possibly be allowed to be achieved by a country other than the US first.
Space is an obvious (and critical) area where america needs to invest in, if it it is to achieve total spectrum dominance.

[David Bowie]

It's a God-awful small affair to the girl with the mousey hair but her mummy is yelling no and her daddy has told her to go, but her friend is no where to be seen - now she walks through her sunken dream to the seat with the clearest view and she's hooked to the silver screen, but the film is a sapping bore for she lived it ten times or more; she could spit in he eyes of fools as they ask her to focus on the scene fighting on the dance floor. Oh man, look at those cave men go! It's the freakiest show. Take a look at the lawman beating up the wrong guy, oh man, wonder if he'll ever know he's in a best selling show? - Is there life on Mars?

[Prophet Tenebrae]

Apparently it's going to cost a trillion or so over the next 30 years and initially that'll just be reallocated out of NASA's existing budget.

I agree with Paranoid that this is probably a cynical election ploy at best.

I think that shows like Star Trek just heighten the problem of the immense ignorance of the general publics conceptions about the extreme difficulty of putting anything into the space. If it comes to staying on an extra-earth body, it becomes a whole lot harder.

[Pilmour Boy]

[s]Paranoid wrote on 14:22, 16th Jan 2004:
Does the phrase 'election year' suggest anything? Comparisons have already been made (in the Daily Telegraph anyway) to John F Kennedy's promise to put a man on the moon on his election year...but somehow I think this is a bit too optimistic (We've already covered this area on another post)


As Kennedy was dead before his election year, I'm not quite sure what that says about the Daily Telegraph.

[Paranoid]

Well don't quote me on the telegraph reference, it was an excuse not revise so may be slightly inaccurate! Interestingly the same newspaper reported that Willian Hill are offering 50-1 odds AGAINST man reaching Mars by 31st December 2030, £50 bet will bring in a hefty £2500 in my 40's...quite tempting seeing as the whole money/time constraint/safety measure issues will undoubtedly hold up the whole process, lets just hope Bush jnr jnr isnt President in the 2020's!

But anyway, returning to the whole subject of pushing the boundaries of science, its already recognised that the NASA Space Shuttle is past its use by date, and any new form of space travel has been fussed over for years (dunno where I got that fact from, but I'm sure I've heard it before), so saying we will have a man on the moon by the end of the decade, and then marse in another 5 years, all seems a but too optimistic. Sure go and push the boundaries all you like, but if you want to do a job proper, lets take things one step at a time and get them right!

[hr]..I've got this pain down all the diodes on my left side...

[Capt. Jean-Luc Picard]

It would be awesome to get to space. I sure hope it happens someday!


[hr]
IMAGE:www.cc.gatech.edu/classes/cs7321_98_winter/participants/tahia/ps3/locutus.jpg

[The Cellar Bar]

[s]puzzled wrote on 17:50, 16th Jan 2004:
The technological progress in rocket technology necessary to go to Mars can not possibly be allowed to be achieved by a country other than the US first.
Space is an obvious (and critical) area where america needs to invest in, if it it is to achieve total spectrum dominance.


Ah, me, the great joys - if one might presume - of exchange visits!! Good to see the principle of visiting other countries and learning from the stay isn't wasted.

Chinos and blue jackets put to one side for an instant - if one can presume for a second time - is there any particular reason why you feel this is an essential element of Space exploration - this total spectrum?? dominance - or are we just seeing a Bush baby having a final fling?

(Awaits answer while seeking cover from black leather-gloved hand moving jerkily skywards)

[puzzled]

[s]The Cellar Bar wrote on 23:59, 17th Jan 2004:
Ah, me, the great joys - if one might presume - of exchange visits!! Good to see the principle of visiting other countries and learning from the stay isn't wasted.

I'll assume that this means you think I'm american; I'm not, I'm British.


Chinos and blue jackets put to one side for an instant

Along with a coherent structure to your point?

- if one can presume for a second time - is there any particular reason why you feel this is an essential element of Space exploration - this total [i]spectrum?? dominance[/i]

"Total Spectrum Dominance" is a theory that was, I believe, first coined by, or at least first heavily promoted by, the think tank Project for the New American Century. It basically argues that for America to maintain its political position in the world it needs to maintian a superiority in every sphere of Scientific, Military, Diplomatic and Cultural endeavour.
The possible military threat to american hegemony of an other power bloc gaining an upper hand in space is very obvious, hence the need for the renewal of american interest in space.
You will no doubt say that the overthrowal of American hegemony is a good thing, I just don't happen to agree.


(Awaits answer while seeking cover from black leather-gloved hand moving jerkily skywards)


Nice to see that you are prepared to calmly engage with people who have different views, rather than merely crudely demonise their position.

[The Cellar Bar]

the presumption and assumption that I made was made totally on the kind of description you gave. And I was careful to ask if I was correct in making the presumption becasue I've no way of knowing beyond what you choose to reveal to us.

I'm no stranger to PNAC either. They are responsible for "Rebuilding America's Defenses" which is essentially the blue-print for the current Cheney Administration's foreign policy. I read that within 3 weeks of it being published in September 2000 It was published a full year before 9/11 yet talks of their plans being difficult to sell to the American people "absent a Pearl Harbor-like catastrophe"
Doubtless, since you know of them, you will know that they are sponsored and funded by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Jeb Bush and have dominated the current debate on how the US grabs and holds on to strategic countires and resources.
What surprises me in that you say you are British is that you support this venture but don't recognise how OUR country is being manipulated by them in this crusade. Not to our benefit but to theirs. They are set on underminig European politics, separating the UK from our closer neighbours and in a global sense are looking to ring fence strategic reserves of oil and natural gas. Which they will then be in a position to dictate the price of to the rest of the world. Including us. Quite how it is possible to equate this with assuring or defending our own economic, political or diplomatic position is what I needed an answer to. And didn't get. Beyond a view that as a British citizen you supported American multi-national corporations and the future they are designing for us all.

Apologies for the remark at the end. Had I known you wouldn't have recognised the Peter Sellers "German" character from Dr. Strangelove and his enthusiasm for total American dominance of the world, I wouldn't have used it. It was just the only image that shot into my head as I read your post

[Little Ed]

Gees, what happened to keeping it techie?
But, it's either this or revise, so here goes.
Why the hell does anyone, esp Bushland, need to pursue space dominance, at the risk of damaging the fatherland? Can we not put it on hiatus for a bit? I'm pretty sure America faces no threat to NASA's superiority (unless Beagle's gone rabid), so it should relax for a bit and concentrate on making damn good/expensive zombie crap (TV).
As for the other guy, I think the comparison to Dr Strangelove is not as disturbing as implying the 9/11 was staged for PNAC's prurpose (although not completely surprised, but it still sounds like a bad movie).

PS: If I had to choose between Kirk and Picard, I'd fight Shatner.

[hr]If you're bored: www.st-and.ac.uk/~adgc. It'll put a smile on your face, if nothing else.