The Next Giant Leap For Mankind
60 Minutes Reports On NASA's Plans To Return Men To The Moon In Preparation For A Manned Flight To Mars

Quote :

"The biggest obstacle NASA faces is money. One critic has called the Constellation program 'Apollo on food stamps.' During the 1960s, 4 percent of the entire national budget was spent on space. Today one-sixth of 1 percent goes to NASA. 'The average American's bill, if you will, for the space program, is 15 cents per person, per day,' says Griffin. 'I don't know about you, but I spend more than that on bubble gum.' And there are worries there could be further cuts. Constellation is a tempting target in a difficult economy. The money squeeze is the main reason why the U.S. won't set foot on the moon until 2020. A Mars landing won't take place until about 2030. To defray costs for the trip to Mars, NASA may need an international partner. If it's up to Congressman Barney Frank, D-Mass., who tried to halt the Mars program, Americans won't be part of any human missions to the planet. So what does he have against Mars? 'I don't have anything against a lot of things I don't wanna spend hundreds of billions of dollars on,' says Rep. Frank. 'Sending human beings there for the sole purpose of proving that we can do it and bringing them back requires an enormous amount of money at a time when we have a serious deficit, when we are not adequately funding a lot of very important needs right here at home.'"

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/04/60minutes/main3994925_page3.shtml

I disagree with Frank and say that we should be going back to the moon and on to Mars. What say you?

4/7/2008 4:48:27 AM

He didn't make a blank statement.

He qualified it with:

Quote :

"[...] we have a serious deficit, when we are not adequately funding a lot of very important needs right here at home.'""

There is no way anybody can disagree with that, as those are facts, not opinions.

4/7/2008 7:27:09 AM

Barney Frank hates Mars because he's more of a fan of Uranus.

4/7/2008 8:12:22 AM

^^ Um. . ."a lot" and "very important" and "needs" are actually subjective. And by Frank implying that these things other than the Mars program should be funded, he has issued a normative statement.

But even if you disagree with me--you would be wrong, of course--why does Frank feel the need to kill the Mars program?

Quote :

"If it's up to Congressman Barney Frank, D-Mass., who tried to halt the Mars program, Americans won't be part of any human missions to the planet."

^ ZING!!!1 I WAS WAITING FOR THAT ONE! (It was too easy, marko.)

[Edited on April 7, 2008 at 8:19 AM. Reason : .]

4/7/2008 8:17:43 AM

the money spent on Iraq/Afghan would get us 5 star resorts on Mars.

4/7/2008 8:47:23 AM

^ And I could argue that losing a few slivers of the "Other" slice might do the trick.



http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_about_ben_jerrys_chart_saying.html

4/7/2008 9:09:38 AM

And both of you would be missing the fact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not part of the yearly federal budget...

That's Chinese money, boys.

[Edited on April 7, 2008 at 9:42 AM. Reason : i guess the interest counts a LITTLE bit...]

4/7/2008 9:41:02 AM

id much rather cut the government's 'other' expenses completely and lower than taxes than just waste it on mars exploration.

4/7/2008 9:41:50 AM

i wonder how much fuel it takes to get to mars and then get back to earth

4/7/2008 10:07:56 AM

Deep thoughts


By drunknloaded

4/7/2008 10:13:51 AM

I'd rather see the money spent on researching alternative fuel technology. I guess I'm a Mars hater as well.

4/7/2008 10:27:11 AM

^^ LOL

^ Don't some of you see the either-or fallacy there? Governments must be concerned with many things simultaneously--it's like those stupid bake-sale-versus-bombs bumper sticker.

BTW:

Quote :

"And both of you would be missing the fact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not part of the yearly federal budget... That's Chinese money, boys."

Gamecat

Though much of the wars' costs and related costs are appropriated separately, there is overlap. I mean, it's defense spending after all.

[Edited on April 7, 2008 at 10:34 AM. Reason : .]

4/7/2008 10:33:45 AM

Quote :

"I disagree with Frank and say that we should be going back to the moon and on to Mars. What say you?"

If you're so gung-ho about it, I'm sure NASA accepts donations...

4/7/2008 10:38:17 AM

^ You interpreted that statement as "gung-ho"? Wow.

4/7/2008 10:40:12 AM

Quote :

"I disagree with Frank and say that we should be going back to the moon and on to Mars. What say you?"

Why does the gov't have to be the one going to Mars? Sounds like a great project for someone like Richard Branson and his ilk.

4/7/2008 10:45:33 AM

Quote :

"You interpreted that statement as "gung-ho"? Wow."

Allow me to rephrase. "If you're so gung-ho about it that you feel it's worth spending other peoples' money on it, I'm sure NASA accepts donations..."

4/7/2008 10:46:49 AM

Quote :

"Don't some of you see the either-or fallacy there? Governments must be concerned with many things simultaneously"

Maybe. If the current government concerned level is:

Mars: ++++++++
Alternative fuel: +++++++++++++++++

I'd rather it be:
Mars: +
Alternative fuel: ++++++++++++++++++++++++

4/7/2008 10:49:35 AM

Quote :

"hooksaw: Though much of the wars' costs and related costs are appropriated separately, there is overlap. I mean, it's defense spending after all."

You're the master of understatement.

If there's such overlap, why the need for an extra several hundred BILLION dollars yearly in ADDITION to the huge portion of Federal defense spending evidenced in your nifty little pie chart?

[Edited on April 7, 2008 at 12:21 PM. Reason : ...]

4/7/2008 12:08:53 PM

^ So no defense spending from the annual federal budget is being used in Iraq, Afghanistan, and on related items? You sure about that?

And it's not my "nifty little pie chart"--it's the Congressional Budget Office's. BTW, why has the Democrat-led Congress continually allowed the separate appropriations at issue?

4/7/2008 12:28:46 PM

4/7/2008 12:31:33 PM

Quote :

"id much rather cut the government's 'other' expenses completely and lower than taxes than just waste it on mars exploration."

i'd rather have people get a job or if they have one buy their own health insurance so i do not have to pay for them.

4/7/2008 12:37:23 PM

This is the kind of research that only the government can fund. Its not profitable yet, so you wont see private industry handling it. But its still hugely important to all of mankind.

The only other things that the government should provide instead of the market are defense and education.

Everything else should be handled by the market.

4/7/2008 1:01:59 PM

^ Charity is a cruicial element of 'the market'. If it is as important to go to mars as you say it is, then I suspect you will be donating some money towards it, right? Or are only our tax dollars green enough?

4/7/2008 2:09:41 PM

Mars is red so it's all communist like?

The moon on the other hand, that's American.


But seriously, our moooon base plan is going to take enough money the way I see it. Phase out the ISS spending and get our moon base running. Seriously talking about funding a Mars camping trip before then is just silly the way I see it.

Not to mention we have clear (and tenable) plans for the moon thing. In regards to a proposal for increasing NASA funding to develop a plethora of new technologies to get ppl to Mars, I agree with the people in this thread who are saying it should go towards energy slash alternative fuels slash "how can we not kill the earth" research.

[Edited on April 7, 2008 at 2:28 PM. Reason : And let's get that space tourism going in the real market place!]

4/7/2008 2:27:42 PM

^ FYI: The moon-Mars missions are linked. It's safer to go from the moon to Mars than from Earth to Mars--so I heard.

BTW, to those calling for donations to fund the missions at issue--good luck with that:

Quote :

"The cost of the human and robotic missions to the moon and Mars would total roughly $120 billion by 2020, according to estimates from a NASA chart. NASA's current annual budget is $15 billion."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2004-01-14-bush-space_x.htm



[Edited on April 7, 2008 at 2:44 PM. Reason : .]

4/7/2008 2:39:39 PM

Oh. So when it's your ox being gored, suddenly voluntary charity is insufficient. As is private capital in general.

Brilliant!

4/7/2008 2:55:46 PM

^ Um. . .I simply posted "good luck with that." The billions of dollars needed would be extremely difficult if not impossible to raise through private donations.

4/7/2008 3:04:17 PM

Quote :

"FYI: The moon-Mars missions are linked. It's safer to go from the moon to Mars than from Earth to Mars--so I heard."

I would be fine with that, but with a constant funding regime for NASA, the mars thing isn't going to happen as soon as they want it to.



Simply, I am not in favor of giving them funding anything above the inflationary growth. If we can get to Mars with that, then horrah. Otherwise, an orbital-moon human space presence is the most important part of NASA's mandate. The most important thing for them now, though, is to get that darned shuttle retired and finish work on the funding black hole that is the ISS.

4/7/2008 3:22:05 PM

as someone who will pretty much directly impacted by nasa funding, i have to say that i don't like the direction nasa has taken recently. they have seriously under-funded many other aspects of research for this moon/mars shot. i understand the importance of manned space flight and am in general in support of it. but it shouldn't be at the cost of our much more cost-efficient and scientifically beneficial unmanned probes. not to mention the leg of nasa that does research into other aspects of flight has been cut back severely as well.

[Edited on April 7, 2008 at 3:40 PM. Reason : .]

4/7/2008 3:39:48 PM

Quote :

"'d rather have people get a job or if they have one buy their own health insurance so i do not have to pay for them."

me too

4/7/2008 3:41:45 PM

A direct to mars mission is totally doable. We could be there by 2020 and for under 100billion. Theres a really good documentary about the "Mars Direct" plan called The Mars Underground. The plan would be a direct shot from the earth to mars for less than NASAs current plans. I watched the documentary when it was on the Science channel and it pretty much summarizes my thoughts on space exploration.

4/7/2008 3:44:31 PM

^^^ I'm very interested in this outlook. Let's say we don't do either the moon or mars. Send lots of probes, but no humans anywhere but orbit. Once the ISS is finished and (hopefully) the shuttle is replaced with something more efficient, then what would we do? This would free up a bunch of funds, what would they go to and how would it benefit us?

orbital elevator? lol

4/7/2008 4:01:55 PM

Charitable Donations by Americans Reached $295 billion in 2006. So, if you got a good viral video on youtube and really motivated the American public to donate to the cause, such as by getting a popular TV Show Host to harp on it constantly, I suspect you could raise the $55 billion needed.

Hell, here is a bright idea: for $1000 we will engrave your name on the outter hull of the ship and plant it on mars when we get there. For $10,000 you get to include a personal message. You would be immortalized, perhaps forever! This way, it would not just be Americans fitting the bill, but Britains, Canadians, and Russians!

4/7/2008 4:51:49 PM

so if we land on mars first we officially own the moon and mars...russia can put their flag on the north pole, i dont give a fuck...we get the moon and mars

[Edited on April 7, 2008 at 5:26 PM. Reason : .]

4/7/2008 5:25:51 PM

Well, as happened with Alaska, I fear the north pole might turn out to be more valuable in the long run than both the moon and mars (excluding celestial effects, obviously).

4/8/2008 12:15:02 AM