Bush wants Mars

Bush has officially announced that he wants to get the US back on the moon, and then on to Mars. While it may have to do with his immense hubris (wanting to be seen as the first President willing to take on the pagan God of War), or as a very realistic reaction (and IMO very late realization) to China gaining an advantage on us in space, there is an insistence by his cronies that he is motivated by a desire for better science.This last reason seems impossible since he has been a major proponent of faithbased education, ID in all schools, attributions of the Grand Canyon's development to creationist dogma, loading a shuttle mission with religious garbage (certainly accomplished nothing scientific), etc etcBut let's say he is for real about this. Personally I am all for manned missions, especially to the moon (to establish a better base than a freaking space station), to mars (so we can actually study another planet first hand), and at some point to Europa (looking at best conditions for finding life on another planet plus studies of a gas giant).Dropping debate of whether this is just a ploy on his part, would you welcome this initiative?And what about this proposal... I say we have a triple prong moon/mars project. One will be run by MN based scientists. The other by ID theorists. The last by creationist theorists.The catch is each group will have to design and and operate their own missions using their own specific theories and methodologies. Thus ID/creationist theorists must limit their use of technology to that they can explain. For example if radiation, and radioactive decay cannot be correctly measured, they cannot avail themselves to those methods when dealing with cosmic radiation and/or experiments once mars is reached.Once on Mars, each team will have to produce geologic charts and data according to their specific methodology.Once back, each team will present its evidence and models and the US gets to vote on which one makes the most sense. After the vote, money can only be channeled into programs based on the winning methodology, and education will not have to include detours into the losers (except when dealing with history of a topic). In addition public signs and literature at federal locations (for example in national parks) will be changed to reflect factual findings under the winning methodology.Frankly after the last shuttle mission, I am worried that when we finally get back to the moon, or to Mars, we'll be planting Bibles instead of Flags, and would like to avoid that somehow. I mean I am sick of MN getting kicked around by the likes of Bush, while he takes advantage of all that it has achieved. I say let's put MN vs Faith as science to the test once and for all.How's about it, any takers?[This message has been edited by holmes, 01-15-2004]

Oh, it hurts. It hurts so bad. I so want to see a man on Mars or a moonbase sooner rather than later.On the other hand I also want a sports car. And there's a reason that both of those things shouldn't happen right now - financial responsibility. Space exploration is a peace-time activity. We can't afford the two wars we're fighting now. And now he wants to pay for Wagon Train to the Stars, too?

Holmes,Man on Mars? Nah, it's political & nothing more. Interesting? Yes. Exciting? Yes. Efficient? No. A colossal waste of money? Yes.Send probes. For the same cost you can learn a thousandfold(?) more about Mars by NOT sending people, & sending robots instead. Given this is true (quibble about the thousandfold if you will, but the point stands), and a finite & limited budget, sending a manned mission to Mars will actually slow down the aquisition of knowledge regarding the solar system, & that has to be a bad thing.Mark[Alcohol is having a bearing on my otherwise flawless spelling & punctuation, please forgive the stutteriness, punc. just aint my thang, soz [This message has been edited by mark24, 01-15-2004]

You know the problem with creationist astronauts is that the very act of launching oneself into the heavens would be seen as hubris and punishable by the almighty to them. One need only look at the story of the Tower of Babel to see what I mean.Furthermore, the philosophy of creationism is incompatible with scientific curiosity. If God Did It why would we need to spend money going into space? That money could be better spent building more missions and on rigorous schools to study the Bible and nothing else.

quote:

---

On the other hand I also want a sports car. And there's a reason that both of those things shouldn't happen right now - financial responsibility.

---

Yeah. Money's a little tight right now. But I went ahead and bought a Playstation anyway. Just treated myself.I didn't try and send a freakin' man to Mars.As for any fear of Bush getting credit and littering Mars with Bibles, etc, etc, don't worry about it. Last I saw, the projected moon date is 2015. I don't care how astoundingly stupid the voting public is, they can't re-elect him enough times.

And I guess Halliburton is invested there too. Anyway, the fact that G'Dub won't commit funds long-term, he's leaving that up to presidents in the future, indicates that he and his cadre are really only concerned about the space station contracts.[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-15-2004]

Have you tried to decipher his environmental economics in the business context? I'11 bet on better science and the Chia topography instead of ENV being EVC for DOuble U,"W". G it almost works.

The tower of babel was only looked down upon by God because they were rebelling him, trying to reach Heaven (not just the sky) without God. We are not going into space, (lol) the final frontier, for religous reasons, but to explore the universe that God gave us.

Well, I think that we should send humans to Mars at some point but with our current budget situation it isn't very practical. Also I think that this is just a ploy by the Bush administration to try to get more votes in the up coming election.As for the heaven issue it wouldn't think it would be a problem for creationist. I mean we know heaven isn't floating around in the clouds and we are pretty sure that it isn't some where in our solar system so I don't see why going into space should be any big deal.

Wow this got so many responses so quickly, this reply is going to try and include replies to everyone so far.I really wanted this thread to be more of a theoretical thing, than what might actually be driving Bush's announcement and the actual decision of if we do.IMHO it is a political move, ironically the same one his dad tried and failed. I guess maybe he thinks it'll sound better because he beat Saddam? I dunno.It may also be a fiscally ridiculous move at this time. Yeah, we got wars still going, and it seems almost schizo mentally as well as financially to be saying "We are under attack and must give up money and liberties the fight is so desperate... Yet... Hey everybody, now's the perfect time to spend money to do science research off the planet."If we want to open another thread I am willing to argue we can afford it, but I really want to concentrate here on whether it is worthwhile in any economy. I think Mark was the only one to really hit on that issue.Now I'm going to lay out my argument (besides the tongue in cheek triprong science test) for why IMO, it looks like a good idea to me... as long as we can afford it.While I do agree that probes are faster and cheaper all around when trying to get some basic data, I feel that one shot raw data is not the only issue in exploration.Probes have very limited ranges and functionality. Humans on site can change mission on command and create new directions/methods for exploration. This minimizes the risk (for failed missions) by reducing the number of probes we have to send out over time. Less probes also means less space junk floating around when we finally decide to get going.But even if we like the idea of probes, if we had a moon base, probes to the rest of the solar system could be created and launched there with greater ease and cost than from the earth. Low gravity is a HUGE benefit. It also eliminates (or one could say greatly expands) launch windows for missions. Remember there ain't no weather to screw things up.These conditions would also make better (larger) telescopes possible. Better even than Hubble. And if something happens to the telescope, going out to repair it would not be as risky.This is not to mention that a moon base will have communications and national defense capabilities mere satellites do not deliver. I am not going to argue that enemies would use the moon as a nuclear missile platform (at least not for a long time), but there are certain advantages a stable manned satellite would give any nation.And pretty much, whoever establishes a presence on the moon first, will have a jump on this. It will lead to increasing science and defense knowledge, far greater than just using probes.With no competition in sight we could easily take our time, but I feel we are in a space race and to dismiss China's efforts is to make the same mistake we did when Russia started their missions long ago.As a result of their efforts they STILL lead us in real space knowledge. Kind of interesting if the greatest space exploration results of humanity will have generally come from communist/totalitarian nations.While it may sound a bit paranoid, and very strange coming from me, I do believe we should be concerned that China may have men on the moon before us. Yeah, we can keep sending probes to dig, but they will eventually be acquire a permanent presence.Will it cost more? Probably. But will it be able to do more over time? Yes.Hmmm, I'll let it sit here and see what people have to say.

---

holmes...
But what a fool believes he sees,
no wise man has the power to reason away.
...(D. Bros)

I really just brought up the Creationist issue, because despite what you just said (Xians accepting that the heavens aren't floating around in the clouds) Creationism demands certain adjustments to scientific reality which preclude obtaining real data from space missions.How are we to measure radiation? How are we to date any features we find?If the argument goes that we cannot really know what happened on THIS PLANET without first referencing the Bible, what can we learn about any other planet from mere science missions? The methodology of science would have to be the same apparently mistaken one we've been using all along. Unless we have a replacement (and thus my challenge)?Will Mars will be allowed to have a 4+Billion Year age, while the earth must only be 5-10K? How will we explain this? Or will we have to judge every find on Mars with scripture first, to make sure no inconsistencies are found?Bush and his colleagues are pushing for this very thing in earth centered geology and biology education. It seems odd to at first say science is all confused so it must be badmouthed in education, and then say our future is scientific exploration.

---

holmes...
But what a fool believes he sees,
no wise man has the power to reason away.
...(D. Bros)

Heheh... but remember we already had a religious shuttle mission. Fundamentalist Xian and Jewish leaders turned that ill-fated flight into a humongous statement of the power of their lord to overcome everything.Maybe you didn't catch all that around the launch time (and during the mission). They had two astronauts whose only real credential (the one Bush and Sharon wanted discussed anyway) was their religion. They even gave the Jewish guy a torah which had survived the holocaust.There was a whole speech given by Sharon (and I believe Bush too) specifically on how that was an exhibition of God's power and how the future of fundamentalists was in exploring God's creation... gag.Never did hear much about what "sign" God was giving when he burned that torah up on reentry. However I did get to hear how devoted and faithful the Xian was (I could only get in local Fox News at the time and the Xian had relatives here).So apparently they do have designs on the cosmos. I suppose one thing to look forward to is the explanation by fundmentalist rocket designers why spaceships will fly better if they are shaped like large crosses or stars of david.

---

holmes...
But what a fool believes he sees,
no wise man has the power to reason away.
...(D. Bros)

I think everyone is failing to see a great opportunity here....let's get the space program up and running to the point that we can send people to Mars..then we can send Bush, Blair, Berlusconi et al. and then leave them there.

Holmes, I think it can always be afforded, the moolah is there, it's simply a matter of priorities. As to whether it is worthwhile, taking the word in the strictest sense, it will never be worthwile until space travel becomes an extremely fast & relatively trivial thing. By that I mean until we can get to Mars in a few days mitigating the need for a huge vessel able to keep the astronaughts alive for literally years, with all the associated costs & difficulties.. But human missions are still limited in scope because they can only use the equipment they take with them. It is going to be multi-billion dollar project to put humans on Mars, yet you can put a probe there for a few million (I dimly recall a documentary on Discovery that quoted 10 million pounds/probe for that particular vehicle). You can fulfil the number of potential missions many times over by sending probes for the less cost. Human missions do have greater flexibility, no question about it, but is that extra flexibility cost effective? IMHO it isn't even close. Why not build the buggers in space & get rid of the gravity problem altogether? We could drop the political crap & cooperate with China, of course. That would halve the cost of putting a Homo sapien on Mars at a stroke by sending one manned mission rather than two. There's something about national pride, patriotism, competition etc. that just seems out of place when talking about humans in space.Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-16-2004]

I got a picture you Commies might like: