TheAnvil 0 #1 January 14, 2004 I would like to know. 5% increase per annum for NASA in order to establish a lunar base and get to Mars was reported today. Eager to see what he has to say tomorrow. Given the massive $$ associated with anything manned, I'd think a 5% increase wouldn't even come close unless we're on a very very very very very very very very very very long term time table. I LAUD the idea with enthusiasm conceptually, but don't think the finances are feasible with only a 5% increase. The only way this will be affordable given the pending budget crisis from Medicare/SS would be to reform SS and do it soon. Via partial privatization I hope. Other than that I see no feasible way to afford it. A shame if it DOESN'T happen, because I've long thought that a national goal of getting to Mars would do wonders for the nation. Funding it will be a great challenge and I'll be eager to see if GWB addresses it in his speech. Looking forward to it. Thoughts, anyone?Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #2 January 14, 2004 I am hoping the Gov't would start giving incentives for businesses to invest in space exploration. Problem is that until something is discovered on another planet that would result in a profiable venture, no business is going to be interested. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #3 January 14, 2004 There's always all the raw material available on the Moon... Too bad we haven't found oil on Mars...--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #4 January 14, 2004 I think it -may- be possible to work -toward- a Moon base on a 5% per year increase -if- they redirect -all- NASA funding toward that goal. I'm not wild about that idea. I don't think they'll actually be able to put anyone back on the Moon for only an additional 5%. Meanwhile, the rumors run rampant about scratching the Shuttle program. While that -should- have been done years ago, there simply is no replacement vehicle. This whole thing smells like GWB got an idea in his head and only got yes men to consult with. I'll be interesting to see what he has to say tomorrow.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #5 January 14, 2004 Quote I'll be interesting to see what he has to say tomorrow. "His cats breath smells like cat food" Ok, actually, I'm a Bush supporter, but the joke was right there...and you can't pass up a good joke.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fudd 0 #6 January 14, 2004 Over 10 years, that is a 63% increase in funding. But counting inflation it's probably not that much anyway. There are only 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfc 1 #7 January 14, 2004 What is GWB Thinking? Well, it is an election year, so I wonder what he could be thinking... Anyway 5% would hardly pay for the restroom in a new shuttle, if he was serious he would have to at least double the budget, but then he would have to take out a second or third mortgage on the country, but thats probably fine seeing how he would borrow the money from the folks he has given billions in tax breaks to in the last couple of years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TitaniumLegs 8 #8 January 14, 2004 Quote Too bad we haven't found oil on Mars... It's carefully guarded by Martian Weapons of Mass Destruction. Apparently, the leaders of Mars used them on the planet that used to orbit between Mars and Jupiter. All that's left is a pulverized asteroid belt. (>o|-< If you don't believe me, ask me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #9 January 14, 2004 Well, interest rates would be low on that mortgage right now.... I wonder if I could take a mortgage against my liver....Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #10 January 14, 2004 Quote I am hoping the Gov't would start giving incentives for businesses to invest in space exploration. Problem is that until something is discovered on another planet that would result in a profiable venture, no business is going to be interested. Nicely put, I didn't know anyone else felt the same way here. As a selfish, uncaring, quasi-conservative, I'd say that if it's worth doing, eventually the private sector will get to it and do it cheaper than the government anyway provided they aren't regulated to death in the endeavor. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #11 January 14, 2004 Vinny, You are getting the whole thing wrong. It is actually a perfectly-conceived plan. You just have to grasp the subtleties. 5% is more than enough, when it is tied into Medicare/SS reform. You see, GWB is planning to offer seniors the option of emigrating to Mars. They will be the next pioneers of spaceflight. How will the finances work, you ask? Simple. As the seniors all leave for Mars, we stop paying for their medical care and SS. I mean, hey, they don't live here any more. Once you wrap your brain around those tremendous cost savings, you might wonder how we can economically get all the seniors to Mars. Simple. Freeze-drying. With the human body being well over 90% water, if we freeze-dry them and send them to Mars, we only have to deal with a shipping weight of a few pounds per person. How to reconstitute and revive them? Well, there has to be water there somewhere. And does it matter anyway? By then, they'll be foriegners, so according to GWB, they won't matter anyway. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #12 January 14, 2004 Quote Given the massive $$ associated with anything manned, I'd think a 5% increase wouldn't even come close unless we're on a very very very very very very very very very very long term time table. 5% is plenty. NASA is going to hire all the newly legalized mexicans for minimum wage. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfc 1 #13 January 14, 2004 That would probably help more. It would be of such significant scientific interest given that it has been fed so much tequila and survived, that you could get a good proce for it I'm sure Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyhi 24 #14 January 14, 2004 Quote There's always all the raw material available on the Moon... Are you guys forgetting the many benefits we garnered from the first moon shot? teflon, velcro, Tang, Depends... Those alone were worth the trip. Best description I ever heard of NASA is "white collar welfare."Shit happens. And it usually happens because of physics. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumper03 0 #15 January 14, 2004 Quote I think it -may- be possible to work -toward- a Moon base on a 5% per year increase -if- they redirect -all- NASA funding toward that goal. I'm not wild about that idea. I'm not wild about that part either - NASA pays my salary. As for raw materials on the moon - don't get your hopes up. It's just basalt and some anorthosite up there. Mars is a completely different kettle of fish (or nanobacteria ) in this case. JumpScars remind us that the past is real Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,085 #16 January 14, 2004 >I am hoping the Gov't would start giving incentives for businesses to invest in space exploration. Robert Zubrin's plan for Mars exploration is simple - a $10 billion government award to the first company that does it. Additional incentives for science done while there; progress payments for things like return vehicles landed or booster development. It would be cheap compared to Apollo program which came it at about $14 billion (in adjusted dollars.) Unfortunately, there's no money to be made in manned exploration of space. It will be a massive money sink for some time; the most likely first industry to make money in manned spaceflight will be transportation between the first extraterrestrial manned base and earth. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,114 #17 January 14, 2004 Quote >I am hoping the Gov't would start giving incentives for businesses to invest in space exploration. Robert Zubrin's plan for Mars exploration is simple - a $10 billion government award to the first company that does it. Additional incentives for science done while there; progress payments for things like return vehicles landed or booster development. It would be cheap compared to Apollo program which came it at about $14 billion (in adjusted dollars.) reply] I think any CEO could get a better return on investment playing craps in Las Vegas.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #18 January 14, 2004 Quote I think any CEO could get a better return on investment playing craps in Las Vegas. Oh great! another statistics thread I mean (I agree with you for now, though, technology needs to be better before this become a potential for profitable business...) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,085 #19 January 14, 2004 >I think any CEO could get a better return on investment playing >craps in Las Vegas. A CEO of a big company? Yep. But someone like Burt Rutan could do it and pocket a few billion. After all, he built a working spacecraft for $20 million. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #20 January 14, 2004 Quote While that -should- have been done years ago, there simply is no replacement vehicle. There doesn't need to be. The only commitment the space shuttle has now is to the ISS. Using the STS to launch satellites is a complete waste - that can be done much more efficiently with unmanned rockets. The only reason the US government keeps the shuttle is ego - to keep ahead of the few other countries that are doing manned space trips. There is currently no economic or military reason for humans to go into space, and until we find one, we'll continue to have little or no funding for it. Look for future space developments from corporations.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #21 January 14, 2004 Quote Vinny, You are getting the whole thing wrong. It is actually a perfectly-conceived plan. You just have to grasp the subtleties. 5% is more than enough, when it is tied into Medicare/SS reform. You see, GWB is planning to offer seniors the option of emigrating to Mars. They will be the next pioneers of spaceflight. Quite true. In fact the first senior GWB plans to send to Mars is Paul O'Neill."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #22 January 14, 2004 Finally, somebody that understands! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #23 January 14, 2004 http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040114/ap_on_sc/bush_space_19OK. 2015 for another lunar landing. That's achievable, I think, but not with the budget as presented. Now what I want to know, is what idiot thinks there is air on the moon? http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040114/ap_on_sc/bush_space_19Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,114 #24 January 14, 2004 Quote http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040114/ap_on_sc/bush_space_19OK. 2015 for another lunar landing. That's achievable, I think, but not with the budget as presented. Now what I want to know, is what idiot thinks there is air on the moon? http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040114/ap_on_sc/bush_space_19 "An extended human presence on the moon "will enable astronauts to develop new technologies and harness the moon's abundant resources to allow manned exploration of more challenging environments," the White House said in a prepared statement." Must be thinking of all that basalt and anorthosite.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumper03 0 #25 January 14, 2004 Quote ["An extended human presence on the moon "will enable astronauts to develop new technologies and harness the moon's abundant resources to allow manned exploration of more challenging environments," the White House said in a prepared statement." Must be thinking of all that basalt and anorthosite. I really would like to know just what the hell they think is up there in abundance.... I wish someone would ask him today to specify what they are after... If you want to tap abundant resources, you'd have better luck with capturing asteroids I think.... You could even have a little space ship that looks like GWB that would fly around in the asteroid belt and Lasso them!!!! JumpScars remind us that the past is real Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
