Moon, asteroids, and Mars are GO!

My position is exactly the same, and since those economic conditions don't exist, neither does Deans support.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The Victims of this Manned spaceflights:

http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2298003

Yes I am begining to see the rhetoic's game being played in Washington, to Mars...hehe, yah right! With A budget deficit consuming 6% of the US GDP, things aren't likely to be to rosy for the US. Cheney remember thinks that deficits aren't a bad thing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Interplanetary travel is not the only pursuit involving new technology: Government subsidy addressing problems threatening our present biosphere can have equivalent but more practical and beneficial catalytic motivational and economic effects. We can marvel at the universe for now with our feet on the ground.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And when we need it and we don't already have it,...we're in trouble. We should be prepared.

 

We should be prepared.

At what cost here on earth? For an "if"?

 

Man,...you can start by reading this simple pdf-file from NASA Themselves.

 

There is no justification for manned spaceflight in that .pdf

 

Man,...you can start by reading this simple pdf-file from NASA Themselves.

NASA does that within her existing budget firstly, so thanks for proving that no increase is needed. As hype has already said it does not give me anything about manned flight to the moon, you have yet to show me the returns ($1 trillion) from a moon mission.

 

E.I. Sparks: I picked up The High Frontier last night off Amazon for $3.00. I'm going to arm myself with the facts on this one so that I can convince my insanely stubborn girlfriend (professional geologist) that we can justify the pricetag. Wish me luck...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

And you've yet to show why Zubrin's Mars Direct programme wouldn't work (and it cost about $8 billion, not $1 trillion as you keep quoting. And please don't tell me the office of budget control knows more about building spacecraft than anyone else...).

 

Actually, Zubrin's program might even be cheaper to execute if construction of spaceships and launches would happen from the moon!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Everybody is whining about the cost, but what about the jobs it inevidable WILL create? Isn't that a possitive issue surrounding the matter? How much revenue will that be for the state?

 

Excellent 15

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And when you're done with that, may I recommend John Lewis's Mining the Sky (a geological survey of the moon and asteroids and an economic analysis of the possibilities of in-situ resource utilisation) and Zubrin's The case for mars? They're probably on special with amazon allready, and if not, probably will be within the week

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Sparks do you deny that this program will go into the hundreds of billions of dollars? Do you deny that the US will have to borrow money to do this (military spending dreams of yours not applicable), and do you deny that the only reason for this mission is to compete with China? Do you actually in sound mind a body deny all this?

Everybody is whining about the cost, but what about the jobs it inevidable WILL create?

The USSR created jobs the exact same way, and look at her now. When and if the program dries up (as it eventually will) who will employ those thousands of employees? Also in order to create a real positive effect to the US economy it must employ a significant amount of low skilled workers. Then all economic progress will be fruitless when the US cannot afford the program any longer because of the horrendous debt, and budget deficit. Please learn some basic economics.

How much revenue will that be for the state?

Will it make $550 billion and more in revenue for the country? i don't think so, rather it will make the budget crunch that much worse. Again, learn economics.

 

That's just dumb. This only work in a country with the possibility of large numbers of exports (depression era USA). This is NOT true in the US today.

Regardless, the number of US jobs created is stupidly low compared to the cost.

 

It is unreasonable to assert that manned-spaceflight subsidy somehow creates more jobs and has more technology transfer than other possible initiatives.

Consider for example The Apollo Alliance :

"Imagine spending serious money... on an ambitious 10-year, $300 billion effort for sustainable jobs, cleaner manufacturing, youth and urban apprenticeships and smarter transportation. The program pays for itself with jobs and greater energy independence in U.S. exports. Revitalizes the U.S. manufacturing base. Creates three million jobs. Heals labor vs. environmental grouchiness over Arctic drilling. Fuels the hopeful, can-do spirit that put America on the moon. And maybe even inspires the right kind of patriotism."

 

I strongly deny the very idea that you, someone who hasn't even bothered to read the full editorial pages of the Washington Post, let alone the primary source material, and who has absolutely no notion of the involved tasks and technologies, could think up any kind of realistic estimate for the entire project.

What dream? That a spending cut which has to happen will happen?
Tell you what, do you deny that if you tell me that the logical course of action cannot occour that the response will be useless since you'll have limited my answer to what you want to hear?

Damn straight I deny it - any idiot can see that Bush's motivations have nothing to do with China and everything to do with being seen as a "president with vision" just before an election. And NASA's motivations have squat to do with China and everything to do with manned spaceflight.

No, it didn't. Not even close. Totally incorrect. You're comparing a stalinist state with a capitalist one and not even bothering to note the economic and socio-political differences. Which makes this discussion a waste of time and bandwidth.

If 15 can go read a book ($3? C'mon undecided, even you can afford that - hell kid, get your parents to loan it to you if you can't find it by saving your pocket money) so can you. So go do so before you jump down my throat screaming "No! It can't be done! It's fiscally irresponsible!" as if any of that actually had any effect on a presidential decision in an election year, and as if you shouldn't react to seeing mushrooms in shit by picking them and composting the manure...

 

The US today? You mean the country with the developed world's largest trade imbalance (ie. the nation that imports far more than it exports?).
Yeah, there's no way they could export more...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No it isn't. It is highly unreasonable (because it ignores historical fact) to insist that the manned space programme does not raise interest in science and engineering, create jobs, promote technological and scientific progress and return far more than any other government programme per dollar invested.

 

Perhaps if you read you will notice I said 'possibility of large numbers of exports'. The US is not ready to produce any relevant number of exports at a cost that the world would buy. Regardless, this is a different topic.