Jump to content

Mars by 2010?


blike
 Share

Will we make it to mars by 2010, as [US] President Bush has suggested?  

4 members have voted

  1. 1. Will we make it to mars by 2010, as [US] President Bush has suggested?

    • Yes
      15
    • Maybe..
      26
    • No way!
      74


Recommended Posts

Doh! Blike you tricked us!

 

The new vision of space outline is something like this:

 

International Space Station Completion - 2010

Retirement of shuttle and completion of the new Crew Exploration Craft -2008

Lunar robotic missions to research for future colonization - 2008-2015

Manned Lunar mission - 2015

Lunar manned base - 2020

Manned Mars mission - 2020-2030

 

But if the private sector kicks it into high gear there will probably be a hotel built on Mars for the astronauts to stay in. They can charge NASA an arm and a leg for the per/night fee. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Bush should concentrate on fixing the earth first he send people to f*@! up another planet.
I disagree, maybe he should stop f***ing it up in the firstplace though!. The so called national defence budget is more than 10 times that of NASA's. If you want to hug more trees its easy to see which area you could squeeze. SPace exploration has been underfunded for decades, cant the PC people give the guys advancing mankind a break for once?.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, I support space exploration, I just don't think Bush is sincere in his efforts to reach mars. 2010? yeah right. I seriously doubt Bush gives a damn about space exploration. Maybe he thinks we'll find oil on Mars. How does he think we'll get to outerspace if he continues to cut spending on non-military research?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
  • 2 months later...
  • 5 years later...

I predict a maned mission to the mars will happen ten years after some president doubles the nasa budget

Or after someone comes up with a bargain method that no budget-hawk could refuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or after someone comes up with a bargain method that no budget-hawk could refuse.

lol

or they open nasa to public donations...or even offer to sell services to compinies such as etching a logo into the martian surface or instead of saying "one small steep for man..." saying "5....5 dollar foooooot looooonggg"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol

or they open nasa to public donations...or even offer to sell services to compinies such as etching a logo into the martian surface or instead of saying "one small steep for man..." saying "5....5 dollar foooooot looooonggg"

Really, it is unfortunate that in order for a government to fund expensive science and technology developments it is necessary to extract so much extra money out of the economy. To the extent that economic growth pollutes Earth and uses up its resources faster, it would be a shame if getting to Mars destroys Earth in the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really, it is unfortunate that in order for a government to fund expensive science and technology developments it is necessary to extract so much extra money out of the economy. To the extent that economic growth pollutes Earth and uses up its resources faster, it would be a shame if getting to Mars destroys Earth in the process.

why would it?

if nasa allowed people to buy "space bounds" than we would have no economic problems getting to mars

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why would it?

if nasa allowed people to buy "space bounds" than we would have no economic problems getting to mars

Commodity trading is what it is. The commodity can be any object or piece of paper from a jewel to an old vase to a painting to "space bounds." The point is what happens on Earth as a result of money changing hands that depletes resources and exploits people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Commodity trading is what it is. The commodity can be any object or piece of paper from a jewel to an old vase to a painting to "space bounds." The point is what happens on Earth as a result of money changing hands that depletes resources and exploits people.

money is nothing it's just paper the resources that they represent are whats important, and even if we send a ship to space the only tangible resources lost to the earth is the ship which is worth far less as scrap metal.

as long as we use us goods it might not even damage the us economy.

after all the money would go directly back into the economy through the people supplying the resources

Link to comment
Share on other sites

money is nothing it's just paper the resources that they represent are whats important, and even if we send a ship to space the only tangible resources lost to the earth is the ship which is worth far less as scrap metal.

as long as we use us goods it might not even damage the us economy.

after all the money would go directly back into the economy through the people supplying the resources

I agree, if it were only about the ship, etc. it wouldn't be a resource waste. It's the fact that everyone who gets paid from the giant budget wastes resources, along with all the people they pay, etc. The basic issue is which forms of social-economic distribution foster the most deleterious cultural-economic practices. It's a tough question because of the complexity of large regimes of consumption-production chains that flow out of any given investment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I agree, if it were only about the ship, etc. it wouldn't be a resource waste. It's the fact that everyone who gets paid from the giant budget wastes resources, along with all the people they pay, etc. The basic issue is which forms of social-economic distribution foster the most deleterious cultural-economic practices. It's a tough question because of the complexity of large regimes of consumption-production chains that flow out of any given investment.

but the funds would be taken from something (such as getting involved with every conflict in the world) i really doubt that it would change the economy much.

it would just change what money is being spent on not how much is being spent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but the funds would be taken from something (such as getting involved with every conflict in the world) i really doubt that it would change the economy much.

it would just change what money is being spent on not how much is being spent

My point was that the expense of space-travel is due to the high wages and revenues of businesses that create a standard of living that is non sustainable for even an aristocracy indefinitely, let alone everyone globally. Ironically, you mention world conflicts, which are also caused by large economic differences between high paid people like engineers and poor people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point was that the expense of space-travel is due to the high wages and revenues of businesses that create a standard of living that is non sustainable for even an aristocracy indefinitely, let alone everyone globally. Ironically, you mention world conflicts, which are also caused by large economic differences between high paid people like engineers and poor people.

the more advanced the slower it's population growth hopefully the advanced nations will begin to have a negative population capable of making the world population growth 0 or even negative

then HOPEFULLY the population will shrink to the point that the whole world will be able to have the standard of living as the US does now

at this point i would like to see a 1 child policy in the US (perhaps cutting tax breaks for multiple children born after the making of the law) but strategies of cutting global population deserves its own thread

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 years later...
On 1/20/2003 at 5:16 AM, blike said:

Will we make it to mars by the year 2010, as president Bush has suggested?

 

On 1/20/2003 at 8:08 PM, fafalone said:

I'd say by 2020.

Nope.

Early 2030s I reckon. Elon might disagree, but what does he know.

On 6/18/2004 at 3:43 PM, budullewraagh said:

not a chance in hell; we'll be $1.2 trillion in debt by then if bush stays in office. good thing he won't

Lol.

As of August 31, 2020, federal debt held by the public was $20.83 trillion and intragovernmental holdings were $5.88 trillion, for a total national debt of $26.70 trillion.[5][6] At the end of 2020, debt held by the public was approximately 99.3% of GDP.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.