GWB: Let's put a base on the moon to launch a mission to Mars

[Ladewig]

story (http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BUSH_SPACE?SITE=TXHOU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)

Like his father, G.W. Bush is calling for a long-term commitment to manned space exploration beginning with a lunar base.

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.

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.

The estimated cost in 1989 was $400-500 billion.

I suppose I could get behind it if it were a joint U.S./Russian/E.U./Chinese project, but if the U.S. goes it alone, then I am worried how the administration can tout tax cuts and increased spending at the same time.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Ladewig
story (http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BUSH_SPACE?SITE=TXHOU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT) "We do these things, not because they are easy...but because they are politically expedient."

We'll see if this goes anywhere. I hope it does, but I bet he wouldn't have been anouncing this if the Mars rover had crashed. No president has had the guts to back the space program in decades.

[Otther]

This is just iritating! It's the second time they've leaked that he's toying with the idea...

I think from now on I'm just gonna refer to this sillyness as Bush's kosovo.

I am worried how the administration can tout tax cuts and increased spending at the same time. Well, this project shouldn't worry you too much since we're already at that point. ;)

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Ladewig
The estimated cost in 1989 was $400-500 billion. I believe that's what we spend on our military in about 16 to 18 months. (When we're not at war.) I would guess that the space plan is looking at 20 years or more to spend that budget. I think it could easily be worked into even a constricting Federal budget, if ever a thing were seriously considered.

This current 2 rover mission to Mars is costing the average American about $3.50. The sum looks quite large, but when you look at the size of the entire economy, these expenditures are no really that significant.

[Upchurch]

FINALLY, a Bush backed policy that I'm enthusiastic about!

This might be more of a Science question, but concerning the rationel that we'll use the Moon as a staging ground to get to Mars: Is the idea that by launching from the Moon, they don't have to waste as much fuel escaping the atmosphere?

[Doubt]

Easy to make big announcements like this. Easier still to cut out the project once the demands for real money are needed after the preliminary work is done. Also the “buck” will have been passed on to several different administrations.

Anybody remember the SCSC? (Super Conduction Super collide.) That was a Bush senior project. Many nations involved and they did start building it. Then they scrapped it. A few billion spent with nothing to show for it in the end.


On the other hand, with China looking at the moon, we may just get into this sort of thing for the competition.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
FINALLY, a Bush backed policy that I'm enthusiastic about!

This might be more of a Science question, but concerning the rationel that we'll use the Moon as a staging ground to get to Mars: Is the idea that by launching from the Moon, they don't have to waste as much fuel escaping the atmosphere? Someone who knows more could correct me, but launching from the moon wouldn't be as easy as launching from Earth orbit or from one of the L points. You wouldn't want to launch something that humans would live in for a couple of years from a planet. The fuel cost and stresses would be prohibitive. Better to build it in and launch it from orbit.

[Marc]

we have occational problems just with the permanent placement of the International Space Station. Why not build that up to it's full potential rather than waste the time and risks with a permanent place on the moon?

I would love to see people going to mars, but the practicality of it and risk/benefits do not add up in favor of the trip. Maybe this is Bush trying to set up his legacy, national debt that will last for centuries.

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Upchurch
FINALLY, a Bush backed policy that I'm enthusiastic about!

This might be more of a Science question, but concerning the rationel that we'll use the Moon as a staging ground to get to Mars: Is the idea that by launching from the Moon, they don't have to waste as much fuel escaping the atmosphere?

No. The idea is to visit the moon first to test out new planetary mission equipment on trip that takes three days, rather than have the first real test be after the 6 month journey to Mars.

(And if that isn't the idea then it ought to be. :D)

[Tmy]

People like space projects! Look at this Mars thingy. NO ONE has complained about the costs. Why? Cause we love to look at the pictures of Mars.

I think a moon trip would be a big moral boost. Just like those fake moon trips all those years ago.

With the technology we have today, wouldnt we be better able to explore the moon?

[Crossbow]

It is all too easy for any President to use the Bully Pulpit to propose all sorts of things.

And it is quite another to actually make those things happen.

[aerocontrols]

As a test run:

Bjornart is partially correct. It would be to test out equipment.

An equally important test, however, would be to people. A Mars shot takes several months... several months of weightlessness. We know from the space station that often people who experience several months of weightlessness are weak as babies.* Can Man spend 5 months in space, climb out of the landing craft in .4g, set up a Mars base without assistance, live for (I think the duration of a Mars stay needs to be 9 months) then get back in a vehicle and launch back to Earth? A simulated Mars trip that has as its destination the Moon instead could give us better answers to these questions than any test on the space station. The only difference would be that our simulated "Mars" would only have .2g. Plus, of course, we would be in a position to rescue them if we needed to.

If we don't go to the Moon to test this out, we should consider a 5 month earth orbit followed by a completely unassisted test of the astronauts ability to land in the middle of Death Valley and set up a mockup of our Mars base camp. Obviously the test on the Moon would make better science and be a more realistic test.

To answer Hexxenhammer's question: most of the weight at take-off from Earth is fuel. It would be much cheaper if we could carry rocket parts to the Moon and build the 'from Earth to Mars' rocket there, and fill it up with fuel we somehow process from Lunar soil.

MattJ

*sometimes. Making certain we can avoid this is an important step in the process of sending Astronauts to Mars.

[shemp]

I think it's a great idea if he plans to pay for it out of his own pocket.

Really, I'm surprised he didn't suggest that the private sector should do this. I can see it now, the "[Main Sponsor's Name Here] Mars Mission," with a ship festooned with logos like a NASCAR car.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by shemp
I think it's a great idea if he plans to pay for it out of his own pocket.

Really, I'm surprised he didn't suggest that the private sector should do this. I can see it now, the "[Main Sponsor's Name Here] Mars Mission," with a ship festooned with logos like a NASCAR car. Dammit! The Onion used to have a story online called "Nasa, Nascar merge" with a picture of the space shuttle all decked out in logos. But it's not available in the archives anymore.

I tend to think that the private sector is the salvation of space exploration. When natural resources become scarce here, someone will head to the moon, Mars, or the asteroid belt.

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Dammit! The Onion used to have a story online called "Nasa, Nascar merge" with a picture of the space shuttle all decked out in logos. But it's not available in the archives anymore.

Google to the rescue:
http://www.sayitaintso.com/sayit0220/nasacar_0220.html

:)

[Giz]

What Aero said. There are a few problems with low-g that have to be fixed prior to a mars mission.

Primarily there is the massive bone weakening that occurs as calcium leaches out. I think the NASA nightmare is a 6 month trip to the red planet followed by a weakened astronaut slipping as he exits the lander and immediatly breaking his leg. He's then stuck at the bottom of the lander (could his weakened colleagues lift/manuever him?) with a minimum of 6 months until medical attention. Not good!
(Of course large mammels like dolphins live in a wieghtless environment and dont suffer this effect so maybe some funky physiological dodge could be effected).

The moon would be a perfect dress rehearsal stage for a mars mission.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Someone who knows more could correct me, but launching from the moon wouldn't be as easy as launching from Earth orbit or from one of the L points.

I think the idea is that if materials can be produced locally on the moon, they can be launched from there for a lot cheaper than from the earth.

You wouldn't want to launch something that humans would live in for a couple of years from a planet. The fuel cost and stresses would be prohibitive. Better to build it in and launch it from orbit.

Yeah, I'm sure it wouldn't launched in one piece. But you still save a lot of money if you only have to lift the payload from the moon.

Personally, I think this is the wrong time for anything so ambitious. I think we should scrap manned space travel (including the ISS white elephant) altogether and concentrate on some kickass probes instead. The technology is still in its infancy, and a few more decades of advancement will make the whole thing a lot cheaper and safer.

Jeremy

[whitefork]

Originally posted by toddjh
I think the idea is that if materials can be produced locally on the moon, they can be launched from there for a lot cheaper than from the earth. Wouldn't you need a near Kennedy center-sized labor force to assemble the spacecraft, launch pad, and all the associated infrastructure? I can't see it being cheaper, rather a lot more expensive. You'd have to house and feed the work force.

Unless.... we enslave the moon men. Yeah.... that's the real secret plan.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by toddjh
Personally, I think this is the wrong time for anything so ambitious. I think we should scrap manned space travel (including the ISS white elephant) altogether and concentrate on some kickass probes instead. The technology is still in its infancy, and a few more decades of advancement will make the whole thing a lot cheaper and safer.

Jeremy I disagree. I understand where you're coming from and I hope we churn out a bunch of cool probes, but the only way to really get people excited about space travel and exploration is to have people do it. Robots are cool, but nothing would beat a martian "The Eagle has landed." And I disagree about the safety of manned space travel. Apollo 11 was 35 years ago. If we'd have kept up the pace of the Apollo program we could have landed people on Mars 10 years ago and we'd now be looking at Jupiters moons and the asteroid belt. We need our pioneer spirit back. We're too timid. I think we'll overcome the health problems easily. It's not like the astronauts coming back from the space station can't walk under their own power. Spin the whole space ship-no moving parts. Stop rotation when you get in orbit.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
I disagree. I understand where you're coming from and I hope we churn out a bunch of cool probes, but the only way to really get people excited about space travel and exploration is to have people do it. Robots are cool, but nothing would beat a martian "The Eagle has landed."

True, but I don't see what that changes. It will still be true 100 years from now, when it's a lot easier and cheaper to do. Public enthusiasm for manned space travel is practically zero right now; it seems to me that we have nothing to lose by waiting.

We need our pioneer spirit back. We're too timid.

The problem is, there are no tangible benefits for doing it. Sure, we could colonize dustballs like the moon or Mars, or plant a flag on a giant ice cube, but what's the point? There will be no return on the investment.

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see it happen too. But to see the benefits of colonization requires a long-term perspective, and a long-term perspective suggests it's better to wait until it's easier and cheaper.

Jeremy

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by toddjh


True, but I don't see what that changes. It will still be true 100 years from now, when it's a lot easier and cheaper to do. Public enthusiasm for manned space travel is practically zero right now; it seems to me that we have nothing to lose by waiting.



The problem is, there are no tangible benefits for doing it. Sure, we could colonize dustballs like the moon or Mars, or plant a flag on a giant ice cube, but what's the point? There will be no return on the investment.

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see it happen too. But to see the benefits of colonization requires a long-term perspective, and a long-term perspective suggests it's better to wait until it's easier and cheaper.

Jeremy I think discovery and exploration are their own rewards. There will be profit in it sooner or later. If you wait, you'll never start. The reason the public doesn't care is that everyone tells them there's no point. There was no point in going to the moon except "because it is hard."

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
I think discovery and exploration are their own rewards.

There are rewards in them, yes. But there are also rewards in spending half a trillion dollars here on earth. That money could save an awful lot of lives -- hundreds of millions, maybe, if it were used to eradicate HIV.

If you could press a button, and it would pop a moon colony into existence, but also kill 100 million people, would you press it? I wouldn't.

There will be profit in it sooner or later.

Sure, but there will be more profit later. It will also be cheaper, and the money could be used for tons of other profitable ventures in the meantime. It's just good economics to wait.

If you wait, you'll never start.

Nah. If there's profit in it, then there will be incentive to go. It's not like people will just forget about the idea just because we decided against it in 2004.

There was no point in going to the moon except "because it is hard."

Apart from pride, what was the point of going to the moon?

Jeremy

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by toddjh


There are rewards in them, yes. But there are also rewards in spending half a trillion dollars here on earth. That money could save an awful lot of lives -- hundreds of millions, maybe, if it were used to eradicate HIV.

If you could press a button, and it would pop a moon colony into existence, but also kill 100 million people, would you press it? I wouldn't.Strawman. Funding space exploration doesn't mean NOT funding something else. This is the biggest argument people use against it and it's ridiculous. Technology spawned from the space program has big time benefits. Producing drugs and materials in freefall could turn out to CURE disease. Cut the military budget and a million other crappy government programs before space. NASA's budget is a drop in the bucket. BTW I think humanity can just about anything it wants if it puts its mind to it. This is how we got to the moon. If a government said "we're going to cure aids in 10 years" and didn't stop throwing money at it, they would.

Originally posted by toddjh

Sure, but there will be more profit later. It will also be cheaper, and the money could be used for tons of other profitable ventures in the meantime. It's just good economics to wait. I don't know much about economics but I do know that the first companies with their feet in the space door will reap the most benefit. This has already started. Hopefully business will push space travel into the public view and conciousness because the government can't seem to do it.

Originally posted by toddjh

Nah. If there's profit in it, then there will be incentive to go. It's not like people will just forget about the idea just because we decided against it in 2004.They might not forget the idea, but by your logic, the Wright Brothers should have waited to try flying because it was dangerous and they needed better materials. You can't just build a F-22 without starting with a Sopwith Camel.

And time does matter. It's running out all the time. If humanity wants to stick around, we need to get off this rock now, not later. That starts with the moon and Mars. No reason to wait.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Strawman. Funding space exploration doesn't mean NOT funding something else.

Umm. I don't even know what to say to that one. You should be Bush's financial advisor. :D

This is the biggest argument people use against it and it's ridiculous. Technology spawned from the space program has big time benefits. Producing drugs and materials in freefall could turn out to CURE disease.

Maybe. Zero-g research might be a legitimate short-term goal of space programs, but it has anything to do with a moon or Mars colony. Tell me something we could do there that we couldn't do on earth for a hundredth the price.

Cut the military budget and a million other crappy government programs before space.

Strawman yourself. Cut them all.

NASA's budget is a drop in the bucket. BTW I think humanity can just about anything it wants if it puts its mind to it. This is how we got to the moon. If a government said "we're going to cure aids in 10 years" and didn't stop throwing money at it, they would.

When we do that with HIV, malaria, and cancer, and got some working fusion power plants here on earth, I'll be more willing to entertain the notion of throwing half a trillion dollars on a space project.

I don't know much about economics but I do know that the first companies with their feet in the space door will reap the most benefit. This has already started. Hopefully business will push space travel into the public view and conciousness because the government can't seem to do it.

There's money to be made in Earth orbit (although not always -- see Iridium). But name one major company that's looking to fund a Mars colony.

They might not forget the idea, but by your logic, the Wright Brothers should have waited to try flying because it was dangerous and they needed better materials. You can't just build a F-22 without starting with a Sopwith Camel.

I don't think we're even to the Sopwith Camel stage in space. And there were immediate practical benefits to air travel. There simply isn't anything to be gained in the next century by going to the moon or Mars.

And time does matter. It's running out all the time. If humanity wants to stick around, we need to get off this rock now, not later. That starts with the moon and Mars. No reason to wait.

A few decades won't make any difference. I guess I'm not as pessimistic as you are. I seriously doubt we could do anything to screw up the earth to the point where it's uninhabitable in less than 200 years.

Jeremy

[patnray]

In the 60's dreams of exploring Mars meant assembling a huge rocket in earth orbit that would carry the astronauts, all supplies, and all the fuel for the return trip. It would have to be enormous.

Now people envision sending smaller craft, starting with robotic probes to deliver living quarters and supplies and a chemical plant to produce fuel, water, and oxygen from the martian atmosphere before the astronauts arrive. That requires smaller rockets and allows faster transits to Mars, but also means we need much better robotic spacecraft that can land much more softly and precisely than the current versions.

The chemistry for processing the martian atmosphere uses a tank of liquid hydrogen which is reacted with CO2 from the atmosphere to produce methane and water. The water can be decomposed into oxygen and more hydrogen. All powered by solar panels. Arriving up to a year before the astronauts, it supplies them with fuel for the return trip, plus water and oxygen.

I don't see the moon as being necessary in that process. Yes, one can launch from the moon, but one can launch from earth orbit just as well. Producing fuel from moon rocks? Show me the chemistry. To launch from the moon one would have to lift everything to the moon, decellerate it for a soft landing, assemble a craft and then accellerate it again. Seems to me this would be easier and much more efficient in earth orbit...

My own feeling is that there are other reasons for wanting to go to the moon that GWB doesn't want to articulate, so he uses Mars missions as a smoke screen: To beat the Chinese there. To establish a military presence there (so no one can conduct secret nuclear tests on the far side of the moon, except maybe us). Belief that such a large program will stimulate the economy much as Bush's wars have artificially boosted the GNP. Corporate welfare for defense contractors and other campaign contributors.

It is very romantic, but the best science comes from robotic probes, and robotic probes will be crucial even for a manned trip to Mars. That is where our research effort will have the biggest return. Focusing on the moon could actually delay a manned mission to Mars...

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

...and hold the world ransom for one million dollars.

"Do you expect me to talk, Bush?"

"No, I expect you to die Bond."

oh, wait , wrong episode

that should be:

"Look after Mr. Bond. See that some harm comes to him."

[DanishDynamite]

There are many reasons for setting up bases on other planets/moons, not least the basic tenet encompassed by the saying "Don't keep all your eggs in one basket". Major meteorite strikes, Ice Ages, Global Warming, subtle pollution, tricker-happy nations, some new ultra-AIDS, super-vulcanoes, magnetic pole reversal leading to increased mutation rates, etc, etc. There are lots of possible, albeit perhaps low probability, end-scenarios. The fact is that the fossil record has quite a number of examples of sudden mass exterminations of species occuring throughout the ages. And by "mass" I mean on the order of 50% to 90% of all existing animal species.

The above is reason enough for me to spend substantial amounts in getting Man out of the cradle.

Still, one often hears that the money invested could be better spent on local (Earth-based) problems which have existed and will continue to exist as long as Homo Sapiens exist. That the money spent is a waste.

OK. I challenge people of this opinion to show that research done and technology developed for space travel hasn't paid for itself many, many times over already.

Some inventions from space technology research. (http://spaceplace.jpl.nasa.gov/spinoffs2.htm)

[toddjh]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
OK. I challenge people of this opinion to show that research done and technology developed for space travel hasn't paid for itself many, many times over already.

Some inventions from space technology research. (http://spaceplace.jpl.nasa.gov/spinoffs2.htm)

Space travel, yes. Manned space travel, not so much. I see only a handful of things on that list that were the result of a manned space program, and a lot of them (like cordless appliances and smoke detectors) would most likely have been invented independently anyway.

I'm all for sending probes and testing new technologies. I want people to get off this rock too, I just think we should go about it in a pragmatic fashion, and not let idealism goad us into jumping the gun.

Jeremy

[shuize]

... a lot of them ... would most likely have been invented independently anyway ...

Yeah, the airplane would have been invented eventually anyway, so why bother giving the Wright brothers so much credit ....

edited to include proper quotation marks

[toddjh]

Originally posted by shuize
Yeah, the airplane would have been invented eventually anyway, so why bother giving the Wright brothers so much credit ....

Have a little perspective here. We're talking about cordless vacuums and ski boots. These are not things that changed the course of history. :)

Sure, I give the manned space program credit for inspiring those things. But at what cost? Was it worth billions of dollars? I vote no.

Jeremy