Skip to comments.Focus on Putting Humans on Mars, Group Argues
Posted on 11/13/2008 4:49:56 PM PST by KevinDavis
NASA and other spaceflight programs worldwide should focus on putting people on Mars, not the moon, an advocacy group for space exploration said in a new plan announced today.
"The U.S. landed humans on the Moon nearly 40 years ago," said Louis Friedman, executive director of The Planetary Society. "Returning to the moon has not sufficiently excited the public and will require resources that will be badly needed elsewhere in the space program."
(Excerpt) Read more at space.com ...
I’m a huge Mars fan. Heinlein, Bradbury, Burroughs, they pointed us towards Mars and we should make it a priority. Love the Rovers (one is pretty sick, sad).
I suspect “The One” will cave in to the fix earth first crowd.
Considering what the economy is headed for I think NASA will be grounded for a long time to come. They won’t even be able to send people to the ISS after the shuttle is retired and I’m certain there won’t be any new funding, just drastic budget cuts in store for them.
While other programs get a nice increase..
I move that we first send the entire Congress of the US along with the newly elected executive branch (what the hell? send all the RINOs too.)
I hereby nominate all Democrats to go first.
...and all non-democRAT enviro-wackos. (I hear there’s global warming on MARS!!!)
Mars is a bit of a white elephant. The moon has Helium-3 deposits, which can be the source of fuel for fusion powerplants. China realizes this, and we’d be fools to ignore it and let the Chinese gain control over Helium-3 just to be the first to Mars.
Mnay, many years ago when the president of France was the insufferably arrogant Charles DeGaulle, a political satire show featured the wife of Monsieur le President, “Madame DeGaulle” being interviewed concerning the French space progam.
It seemed that France was bypassing the US/Soviet race to the moon, in order to be first to launch a manned space probe to the planet Mars.
“Madame DeGaulle, why do you wish to be first to land on Mars?”
“Because, if there is intelligent life on Mars, it will speak FRENCH, of course!!”
Better clean my contact lenses! The first time I read it, I thought it said:
Focus on Putting Hamas on Mars.
Hmm! Now, that's an idea.
I agree about the H3 aspect on the Moon.. Whoever controls the H3 is going to be richer than oil rich nations..
This needs to be done privately, if to be done by Americans at all. It will not happen as a public venture in the US.
Human exploration of Mars is a huge waste of money and time. The place will never habitable due to it not having a powerful magnetic field. Costs of ensuring safe travel to and from the planet would dwarf any economic gain.
As for the ‘it’s human nature to explore’ argument, Queen Isabella sent Columbus on a trade mission, not on a journey of personal discovery.
Spending $700 billion to pay for mistakes is a waste of money.. Not sending humans to Mars..
The first humans on Mars will be Indians or Chinese - and they won’t get there before about 2040.
Some already there.
Q: How do you get a manned mission to Mars funded?
A: Have GM and Ford change their incorporation registration location to Mars.
I know who we can send to Mars. You know, the enemy we cannot name.
From Scary Movie Four via the Internet Movie Database.
Henry Hale: I fear the presence of the outsiders will attract those of whom we do not speak.
Female Elder #2: But if you talk about those of whom we do not speak, have you not spoken of that about which we do not talk.
Henry Hale: Do not speak of that of about which we talk of not speaking... about
Obama got zero votes from Mars; there has to be intelligent life there. I am double certain because McCain didn’t get any votes either.
Going to Mars won't excite them either. The Moon/Mars boondoggle is another major screwup by W.
The bottom line is we need a better launch system for getting off this planet, regardless of the ultimate goal.
“Returning to the moon has not sufficiently excited the public...”
Why set any mission priorities based on a less than desired factor of public excitement when there are so many out there who either can’t appreciate the mission because of their not having lived until the after the Challenger disaster or for the fact that they’ve taken on a certain jadedness towards space exploration as if they’ve “been there” and “done that”. I have a feeling that some of that jadedness stems from their being so immersed as “gamers” that they have a hard time appreciating the realities of the physical aspects of actual space exploration.
Talk to a fighter pilot (a real one) or an aeronautical engineer and I’ll bet the prospect of the NASA missions excites them. If you talk to your average stay-at-home mom or a HOOTERS-type girl, they’ll probably tell you that it’s a huge waste of time and money or even have not one iota of understanding of what NASA’s mission has EVER been.
So, why even bother with whether or not there is an ‘appropriate’ level of public excitement when by the time the technology is ready to come out of the labs and servers, into the machine tools and onto the launch pad, the population that the public would then consist of may have had an awakening to those modern marvels.
I don’t think it would wise for any administration to give up on the NASA missions, nor would it be wise to give up on public excitement for them, however jaded or unappreciative they may seem today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.