Re: Are politicians averse to leaving LEO?

On 13 Jan, 21:47, nebu...@xxxxxxxxx (Joseph Nebus) wrote:
Michael Gallagher <mikejo...@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
Sticker shock is one possility, but why would politicians who shelve
ouy $1 trillion in bailouts shirk at $50 billion or $500 billion
spread out over decades to actually go someplace in space?  Is there
something else going on, some psycholigical aversion to goint to far
from "mother Earth"?  Did they just watch ALIEN a few times too many?
What?

        Assume that a Mission To Mars works right.  I'll even give you
it coming in on time and within range of the original budget estimates,
even though those traits have not been among those that past major
space projects have been renowned for.  How many people benefit, and
how much do they benefit?  How soon do these benefits arrive?  Do these
benefits outweigh the costs?  What of these benefits could be achieved
with a lesser expense?  How inconvenient would it be it to wait for
these benefits?  

Yes, but if you do "public works" people will get employed whatever
you do. You opnly get Keynsian benefits if what you have gone into
debt for earns you money. A manned expedition to Mars is unlikely to
earn any money.

The sort of project you want from the stand-point of Keynes is a big
construction project. Like the Hoover dam. A dam generates electricity
wheras a trip to Mars will generate no income and very little science.
The sort of thing that should bre looked at is high speed broadband
and solar power. I think the high voltage grid will need to be
upgraded to take account of the new generating pattern. People should
be allowed to sell their surplus power back to the grid.

You are right that historically budgets have been way way out. If you
take an estimate and multiply it by 3 this is what you can bet your
botton dollar it is goiing to cost. Why do you suppose that a Mars
mission would be on budget. It would be a historical first if it were.

        Now do me the favor of assuming the bailout of financial
institutions works half as well as its proponents hope.  Again, how
many people benefit?  How soon do those benefits arrive?  Do those
benefits outweigh the costs?  What of those benefits could be achieved
with a lesser expense?  How inconvenient would it be to wait for those
benefits?  

They are not affected by any film. What would concern me, if I were
American, is the fact that developments in robotics seem to be taking
place outside the US. The US once led the world in broadband. Now S
Korea does. The Scandanavian countries have thier place too. As a
Briton I feel, well in fact I have always felt this, that our future
is in Europe and as far as Asia and the US goes we should be on the
winning side.

If it is possible to build a VN machine it will be built, make no
mistake about it. The sons of dogs do not control, or have any
influence in Asia. Korea and Japan both believe in AI and robotics.
Korea certainly believes in Von Neumann although they might put it
differently. China is not that far behind either.

My postings are not really about whether Mars will be on budget or not
although there is every reason to believe it won't be. What I am
saying is that Mars is ultimately futile. It will cost ANOTHER 40
billion to send a second expedition there and what do you do after
that?

You have to use the resources of space, you have to mine robotically.
You simply cannot afford to send astronauts to the Asteroid belt, or
at least not in significant numbers. If you are going to get benefits
from space they will be technological benefits. What benefits would be
be looking for? Benefits in robotics would be high on the list. In
point of fact a lot of work is being done with no space applications
in mind.

People in the group seem to want to persuade us that there are no
benefits in that direction. One might ask, what benefits are there in
any direction.

On the Apollo project a minicomputer was used when Apollo was on the
dark side of the Moon. This did give a stimulus to minicomputer
development. As I said everyone seems to be trying to persuade us that
no benefits of that kind would accrue. I think the onus should be on
them to tell us what benefits they see.


- Ian Parker
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: To Mars and Back With Less Fuel
    ... ice) produce Hydrogen and Oxygen, put it into a tank ready to be used. ... What sophisticated robotics are required? ... Are you aware of Robert Zubrin's proposal 'Mars Direct'? ... The technology required is no more sophisticated than anything that already ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: NASA Rushing To Mars As Per Bushs Policy
    ... >>NASA rushes plan to send humans to moon, Mars, despite doubts ... >>NASA officials like to say. ... >>Budget Director Joshua Bolten told congressional budgeteers last year. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Terraforming Mars
    ... > Exactly like all the settlements that have sprung up around the ... If the transportations costs were the same, ... The original question was, "Should we terraform Mars?" ... > living in a space colony? ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Smart-1 Images of the Moon
    ... is why we have focused on Mars instead. ... The biggest challenge in space exploration is escaping the Earth's ... Moon as it does to get from Earth to Mars. ... require a sat that does not yet exist, adding to the costs. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Go To Mars?
    ... could have been other life involved with what looks shelter and a bit ... Venus puts even this Mars image to shame, and that's too gosh darn bad ... since it's better than 100:1 easier for getting robotics into the Venus ... Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree; WAR is WAR, ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
Loading