Being Canadian, I feel a little uncomforatable in suggesting how americans should spend their tax dollars. There are plenty of spinoffs from space technology that is reported properly by the media. There are good development projects and there are bad ones.
In the 1960's US government gave NASA a blank cheque to put a human on the Moon by the end of the decade. Although this was a tremendously amazing feat I believe those development dollar were poorly spent. In the 70's the moon missions were canceled and there has been no human on the moon since. Why did US government spent billons of dollar to go. Explorering the moon could have been just as effectively using robotics for a fraction of the cost. You are going to have ask yourself the same question again when a manned mission to Mars is undertaken.
Another project that I felt was poorly thought out was the space shuttle program. This was a project to realize a space truck for satellites in orbit. It was found that other platforms like the delta rocket and Arrienne[sic] and other launchers that Russia and China have are more cost effective in launching satellites.
There were many spinoff from both these programs but did their development justify the expenditure of scarce development dollars when purpose was not clear
or realized. I believe that is why the Media could be jaded towards the space
exploration.But there is a bright light. There are tremendous battles rage within the walls of NASA on how to spend those presently scarce development dollars. Thats why I believe there should be no more blank cheques. NASA has to take there time and think things through
There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot. - Aldo Leopold
Being an Aussie I have similar thoughts. Exploration takes place in a social context. Always has really.
I sympathise heavily with the view of neatening up out own back yard first. Moving to another, or expanding the current one, will not escape problems which are largely of our own making. Not only is space too big, but humans are too narrow in focus - timewise particularly. Were we always that way?
Some history books I read seem to imply not so - a society takes 5 years to decide to go to war say, but then consistently spends the next 30+ years doing it as well! We will need deliberately trans-multi-generational social mechanisms to achieve the consistency required to reach the stars, light speed or not, and that's within us to sort out, alas ...
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
I first read it as: 'Vast stories of water ice on Mars' which is the usual thing! :-)
I think if it was thawed out, even a bit, you'd end up with a mist for starters. Maybe if sufficient came out into the atmosphere, you'd be able to get enough mass and depth so that ground level would have a decent pressure. Gravity strength at surface is about one third that of Earth I think.
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
Being Canadian, I feel a
)
Being Canadian, I feel a little uncomforatable in suggesting how americans should spend their tax dollars. There are plenty of spinoffs from space technology that is reported properly by the media. There are good development projects and there are bad ones.
In the 1960's US government gave NASA a blank cheque to put a human on the Moon by the end of the decade. Although this was a tremendously amazing feat I believe those development dollar were poorly spent. In the 70's the moon missions were canceled and there has been no human on the moon since. Why did US government spent billons of dollar to go. Explorering the moon could have been just as effectively using robotics for a fraction of the cost. You are going to have ask yourself the same question again when a manned mission to Mars is undertaken.
Another project that I felt was poorly thought out was the space shuttle program. This was a project to realize a space truck for satellites in orbit. It was found that other platforms like the delta rocket and Arrienne[sic] and other launchers that Russia and China have are more cost effective in launching satellites.
There were many spinoff from both these programs but did their development justify the expenditure of scarce development dollars when purpose was not clear
or realized. I believe that is why the Media could be jaded towards the space
exploration.But there is a bright light. There are tremendous battles rage within the walls of NASA on how to spend those presently scarce development dollars. Thats why I believe there should be no more blank cheques. NASA has to take there time and think things through
There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot. - Aldo Leopold
RE: Being Canadian .......
)
Being an Aussie I have similar thoughts. Exploration takes place in a social context. Always has really.
I sympathise heavily with the view of neatening up out own back yard first. Moving to another, or expanding the current one, will not escape problems which are largely of our own making. Not only is space too big, but humans are too narrow in focus - timewise particularly. Were we always that way?
Some history books I read seem to imply not so - a society takes 5 years to decide to go to war say, but then consistently spends the next 30+ years doing it as well! We will need deliberately trans-multi-generational social mechanisms to achieve the consistency required to reach the stars, light speed or not, and that's within us to sort out, alas ...
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
Well, Mars is within easy
)
Well, Mars is within easy reach, and there's plenty of water: Vast stores of water ice on Mars
RE: Well, Mars is within
)
Nice one.
I first read it as: 'Vast stories of water ice on Mars' which is the usual thing! :-)
I think if it was thawed out, even a bit, you'd end up with a mist for starters. Maybe if sufficient came out into the atmosphere, you'd be able to get enough mass and depth so that ground level would have a decent pressure. Gravity strength at surface is about one third that of Earth I think.
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal