OT McCain would like to see a man on Mars

Question

AFPPresumptive Republican White House nominee John McCain said Thursday he would like to see a manned mission to Mars as part of a "better set of priorities" for NASA that would better engage the public. At a townhall event in Florida, the Arizona senator was asked about funding for the US space agency's shuttle program, which is due to end in 2010.He said he "would be willing to spend more taxpayers' dollars" to continue the program but argued that NASA must do a better job of inspiring the American public, as when it sent a man to the moon in 1969. McCain said one of his favorite books as a child had been Ray Bradbury's1950 novel "The Martian Chronicles," about humans colonizing the RedPlanet."I am intrigued by a man on Mars and I think that it would excite the imagination of the American people if we can say, 'Hey, here's what it looks like," he said."We know that now, and here's what may be there and let's all join in that project. I think Americans would be very willing to do that."++Well, Senator... I don't think we need to spend trillions of dollars just to see what it looks like. THIS is what it looks like:"I read the script and I get it. If I don't get it, I can't do it." - Morgan Freeman

Usenet · Accepted Answer

Um, there are several men I'd like to see on Mars - do I get to pick?

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]AFP Presumptive Republican White House nominee John McCain said Thursday he would like to see a manned mission to Mars ... "I read the script and I get it. If I don't get it, I can't do it." - Morgan Freeman[/nq]
You know, I've been a supporter of space exploration since I was a kid but this business of a retread of the Apollo Program building an incredibly huge pyramid of money and technology to lift a handful of men to the moon for a matter of a few days only on a vastly bigger, more distant, and riskier scale is nuts.
If, since the time of the Apollo missions, we had had a sane, sustained, long term and reasonable space program, aimed at getting people and technology into orbit at a sensible price, we might now have sufficient experience doing it that a manned Mars mission might make sense. It might make sense economically. It might make sense because we'd have experience with people working and living in space for prolonged periods of time safely.
But we didn't, and it doesn't.
There's a reason why, every time a rocket goes up, everybody at Mission Control holds their breath.
It's because the damned things still blow up. When it's a space shuttle, it tends to make front page news, but even the regular ordinary rockets blow up on the pads at pretty regular clip.

And it still costs something on the order of ten thousand dollars a pound to lob something into low earth orbit never mind the cost of whatever it is that you're building.
And if you look at these long range planetary missions, the rate of total or partial failure is exceptionally high. And while they like to tout the "partial failures" as partial successes hey, the main antenna failed, but we were able to reprogram this little bitty antenna so we were able to get one tenth as much data as we wanted - but it's not nothing so hey, success!!
Yeah, you can say that one tenth is better than nothing if you're talking about an antenna failure fifty million miles away.

But if some critical aspect of the life support system goes from a hundred percent down to ten percent you don't get to call that a partial success because whether it happens going out or coming back, if those astronauts end up dead because of some technical *****- up, that trillion dollar mission ends up as a total failure.

Surely, even for those who believe in space exploration, there are so many better ways to spend our money that a manned Mars mission. Even if you believe in the manned exploration of space, there are so many better ways to spend our money, that a manned Mars mission.

The first priority, that we've been dragging our feet on for thirty years is to build the next generation shuttle that can, first of all, fly both manned and unmanned (because every mission doesn't need a crew) and second of all can be flown *cheaply.*

We've got an atmosphere full of oxygen that runs three-quarters of the way up to space there really isn't any necessity to carry along gigantic tanks full of liquified, heavy, and extremely explosive O-2, along with you. You can get most of it as you go.
They've been working, in a completely half-hearted way, to develop this technology the space shuttle is aging. It isn't long for this world. NASA has no back-up technology, in the way of heavy-lifting unmanned rockets, for putting anything into orbit and the next shuttle that goes down (and we all know that one will) is almost certain to ground the fleet.
And if they don't have something to replace the damned things by then, what's going to happen to NASA, what's going to happen to the U.S. position in space?
And this ridiculous "inspiring" Mission to Mars is the best that Bush has been able to come up with, and that McCain is now parrroting.

NMS

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]AFP Presumptive Republican White House nominee John McCain said Thursday ... don't get it, I can't do it." - Morgan Freeman[/nq]
[nq:1]You know, I've been a supporter of space exploration since I was a kid but this business of a retread ... a matter of a few days only on a vastly bigger, more distant, and riskier scale is nuts.[/nq]
Sure it is - not. The Chinese are planning to put something on the moon, last time I checked, and Putin has his own plans. It might actually become a turf war up there.
[nq:1]If, since the time of the Apollo missions, we had had a sane, sustained, long term and reasonable space program, ... experience with people working and living in space for prolonged periods of time safely. But we didn't, and it doesn't.[/nq]
(snip to get to the real objection)
[nq:1]And this ridiculous "inspiring" Mission to Mars is the best that Bush has been able to come up with, and that McCain is now parrroting. NMS[/nq]
If a Democratic candidate was touting it you'd be jumping up and down in favor of it. Why do you have to write so many paragraphs to *** yourself?
There's a fairly good possibility that Mars could be terraformed. If you kept up with the actual science you'd know that.

What's YOUR idea about space, I mean, other than ********?

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]And if you look at these long range planetary missions, the rate of total or partial failure is exceptionally high. ... able to get one tenth as much data as we wanted - but it's not nothing so hey, success!![/nq]
It's a give and take. Manned missions are more complicated because life support consumes significant resources, but the payoff in interplanetary travel is that the reaction time is reduced from minutes or hours to a reflex. By the time we get word on earth that a probe has run into trouble, it is far too late to do anything about it. A manned mission not only can correct itself, it can provide the operation base for future unmanned exploration.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]And this ridiculous "inspiring" Mission to Mars is the best ... come up with, and that McCain is now parrroting. NMS[/nq]
[nq:1]If a Democratic candidate was touting it you'd be jumping up and down in favor of it. Why do you ... you kept up with the actual science you'd know that. What's YOUR idea about space, I mean, other than ********?[/nq]
Obviously Neal can speak for himself, but I'd like to see space policy being dictated by space scientists which, in today's highly evolved scientific community, involves physicists, engineers, chemists, biologists, mechanics, astronomers, geologists and a host of other specialists, but no politicians or political scientists.
Bush has an extensive record of disregarding both scientific, military and national intelligence guidance and going with an entirely political and self-serving expedient. He and his administration couldn't be trusted to make a sound decision on space exploration. It calls into question any situation in which McCain plans to expand on ideas that Bush originated.

At the moment we're having great luck with small, highly targeted, unmanned scientific missions to Mars. Why would we make the leap to manned missions before there's a definite goal for those people to accomplish beyond planting an American flag? Planting a flag on the Red Planet would be tantamount to the Russian's recent attempt to claim the North Pole as their own by planting a flag on the ocean floor; an attempt that the world, quite rightly, ignored.
A sound decision on building a Martian outpost would involve a huge build-up beginning with multiple unmanned forays such as we're doing now. I'm as excited as the next homonid about our future as citizens of the solar system, but if the American public can't get excited about actual scientific research versus billions of dollars being wasted on pointless me-first-isms, then, as Reagan would say, that's just another sign of the failure of the American education system.
Alan Brooks

A with an Underwood
Win one for
the Dipper.
MWSM FAQ: http://www.panix.com/~mwsm/faq.html
Filtering Trolls: http://www.panix.com/~mwsm/trolls.html

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]AFP Presumptive Republican White House nominee John McCain said Thursday he would like to see a manned mission to Mars ... "I read the script and I get it. If I don't get it, I can't do it." - Morgan Freeman[/nq]
All right...let's send him there.
W ; )

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]If a Democratic candidate was touting it you'd be jumping ... What's YOUR idea about space, I mean, other than ********?[/nq]
[nq:1]Obviously Neal can speak for himself, but I'd like to see space policy being dictated by space scientists which, in ... that's just another sign of the failure of the American education system. Alan Brooks A with an Underwood[/nq]
Here's what Bush actually said, dumbass. It's amazing how you punks just decide what Bush said or did without actually checking.

Note this part:
The president did not announce a date for a Mars mission, but administration sources said the earliest date for a journey to the red planet would be 2030.
***
Bush unveils vision for moon and beyond
President seeks $1 billion more in NASA funding
4:31 PM EST (2131 GMT)

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/14/bush.space/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) Saying "the desire to explore and understand is part of our character," President Bush Wednesday unveiled an ambitious plan to return Americans to the moon by 2020 and use the mission as a steppingstone for future manned trips to Mars and beyond.

"We do not know where this journey will end, yet we know this human beings are headed into the cosmos," Bush said. "Mankind is drawn to the heavens for the same reason we were once drawn into unknown lands and across the open sea. We choose to explore space because doing so improves our lives and lifts our national spirit."

The president unveiled what he billed as a "new course" for the nation's space program in a speech at NASA headquarters, shifting the long-term focus from the space shuttle and the international space station to the creation of a new manned space vehicle that will be flying with a crew in 10 years and will return humans to the moon within 16 years.
Bush proposed spending $12 billion over the next five years on the effort. About $1 billion of that will come from an increase in NASA's budget, while the other $11 billion would come from shifting funds from existing programs within NASA's current $86 billion budget. The overall NASA budget would stay at about 1 percent of the federal budget, according to White House figures.
But some in Congress questioned whether the funding would be enough to achieve the president's ambitious goals. And the project drew criticism from groups who say the money would be better spent on domestic programs. (Full story)
However, Bush conceded the initial funding for the space exploration plan would be "only a beginning" and that future funding decisions "will be guided by the progress we make in achieving these goals."

The idea behind returning to the moon will be to develop the capability to use it as a launch pad for deeper space exploration, as well as tapping resources on the lunar surface that could be used in those missions, Bush said.
"Establishing an extended human presence on the moon could vastly reduce the cost of further space exploration, making possible ever more ambitious missions," he said. "Lifting heavy spacecraft and fuel out of the Earth's gravity is expensive. Spacecraft assembled and provisioned on the moon could escape its far lower gravity using far less energy and thus far less cost."
Bush also said the soil of the moon "contains raw materials that might be harvested and processed into rocket fuel or breathable air."

"With the experience and knowledge gained on the moon, we will then be ready to take the next steps of space exploration human missions to Mars and to worlds beyond," he said.
The president did not announce a date for a Mars mission, but administration sources said the earliest date for a journey to the red planet would be 2030.
(more on the site)

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]And this ridiculous "inspiring" Mission to Mars is the best that Bush has been able to come up with, and that McCain is now parrroting.[/nq]
Well, I don't even believe those little toys are on Mars. They're in Idaho, with red gels over the lenses. Not to mention, what, exactly, is taking pictures of these toys doing their little digging in the dirt studies?

The Peripatetic Samurai Robot

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]And this ridiculous "inspiring" Mission to Mars is the best that Bush has been able to come up with, and that McCain is now parrroting.[/nq]
[nq:1]Well, I don't even believe those little toys are on Mars. They're in Idaho, with red gels over the lenses. Not to mention, what, exactly, is taking pictures of these toys doing their little digging in the dirt studies?[/nq]
Well, Chico, with that level of understanding, you'll enjoy this explanation -

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]If a Democratic candidate was touting it you'd be jumping up and down in favor of it. Why do you ... you kept up with the actual science you'd know that. What's YOUR idea about space, I mean, other than ********?[/nq]
No offense, non-political-posting-Skip, but right now I think developing some kind of energy other than oil (so we can get away from the rip-off monopolies) and the rebuilding our infrastructure, may be a bit more important than terraforming Mars.
Hey, did anyone notice the record jump in unemployment last month and Bush again saying we're not "really" in a recession? The "what me worry" president strikes again!

RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"

OT McCain would like to see a man on Mars

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions