In any case, did I not clearly state that private industry should feel free to expend their resources on it and also, therefore, exploit any profit to be had from it?  I don't object to "space travel."  I object to having my pocket picked to finance it.

That's up to you. Me, I like myself, I like having other humans around and I think that preserving your own genetic line (and the species it represents) is the primary motivation in sexually-reproducing life forms.

The big obstacle to privately-funded space exploration is the issue of incentives: according to the 1967 "Treaty On Principles Governing The Activities Of States In The Exploration And Use Of Outer Space, Including The Moon And Other Celestial Bodies", no one can claim title to any extra-terrestrial resources.

If the first company to land an employee on Mars could claim, say, full title to all the real estate within a 2,000 km radius of the landing site, then I think we'd see much more interest from the private sector.

Just to throw this out there, a manned mission to mars would not cost anywhere near the $100 billion price tag that they claimed for the 1990 era SEI style misssion. Using Mars Direct it would cost between 30 to 50 billion. for the first mission and about 2 billion per year after that. NASA's budget is $15 billion a year, as you can see fiscally it would be very doable spread out over a few years of development and a decade of flying missions.

As far as the fact that the Saturn V was retired plans already exist for using shuttle hardware as a heavy lift launch vehicle. Instead of the orbiter put a cargo fairing on the ET with 3 SSME's on the bottom and voil' you can put 80 tonnes into LEO right there, with nothing new to develop. Or you could duct off the plans for the good old Saturn V and unpdate it to reflect modern engines. That'd be good for prolly 150 tonnnes to LEO with very little development, or go to Russia and by the world largest launch vehicle the Energia which can put in around 200 tonnes in LEO. If we need a HLV trust me we will be able to get one in fairly short order. [:D]

Yes, I don't believe the technology is what's holding us back.  It's simply that the mainstream of our society isn't interested in a mars trip.  If it were only a technological issue I believe we could overcome that with ease as we did with Apollo.

I hope it doesn't become an international affair either.  Unfortunately that seems to be the theme of the decade.  Everything is so political....

Another fear I have is the commercialization of mars or space in general.  I felt sick to my stomach when pizza hut paid to put its logo on a russian launch.  I don't buy pizza hut any more.

What is so sacred about space travel that advertisements on a vehicle nauseate you?  Capitalism is going to pay the way for this, good idea or not, if it ever happens.  Do advertisements on buses and taxis sicken you too?  Jeez, people get all mystical and goofy over space travel.

I vote for it.  However, I would want it to be a USA only mission.  I wouldn't want other nations riding our coat tails to Mars and trying to hog our glory.

I have to agree that the lack of gravity poses a huge problem for space travelers.  There is not enough empirical data concerning the long term effects of years of microgravity.  Some effects have already been catalogued.  Your bones decalcify because they have no loads applied to them.  Your muscles atrophy because of the lack of work applied to them.  Your heart doesn't work as hard to maintain your blood pressure.  Many of the Mir cosmonauts are carried out of the Soyuz when staying in space for a few months.  [url] http://www.ibiblio.org/astrobiology/index.php?page=adapt02 [/url]  There will be no assistance available for astronauts at Mars after being in space for 2 years and then another 2 on the return.  

If you send a mission to an asteroid, how are you going to send along enough mining and refining equipment to actually produce parts of a base?  And how would you power it?

It's the next logical step. Well, unless you think about a permanent moon base being a more realistic goal for the time being.

I mean, we don't even have a really spiffy space station out there yet! If I remember anything about the movie [i]2001: A Space Odyssey[/i], it's that space station at the beginning of the film!

Compare that one with the 'International Space Station' that's just now getting started. Pretty lame, huh?

So first things first!

Eric The(AndTheByproductsWillPropelUsEvenFurtherAlong)Hun[>]:)]

A mission to Mars or the asteroid belt would require a large expenditure of money, manpower, materials, expertise, etc.  I believe these assets would be more efficiently used if not allocated to either of these ideas.

However, as long as I am not infringed upon I have no say in the matter.

In reality, spending money "efficiently" has never been an ability of the government.  What they would do with the money, basically, is WASTE it.  If we are going to otherwise throw the money away on pork barrel projects and other useless crap, I would much rather see it spent on space exploration and exploitation.

In my post I did not specify the party, private or government, that would be spending the money.  By "efficiently" I meant that the ROI of space exploration and exploitation would be less than the ROI of whatever would happen with those resources if they were not allocated for that.

If we presume that the government is going to spend $X anyway, I would prefer it be spent on cancer research instead, for instance.  There would be fraud and graft and waste with either expenditure, so the money would still be better spent on cancer research in this example.

Francisco

Which probably isn't true.  Investments in space exploration tend to have many side-benefits, as they result in technologies that would not otherwise be discovered as quickly.



Actually no, it wouldn't.  Cancer research is an area where private firms would be much better involved than the government, because there would be a HUGE and recognizable profit motive for discovering a cure for cancer.

Return on investment is a difficult standard to apply to exploration.  In the short term, there would be huge expenditures to establish a base on Mars, an asteroid or the moon (or all three [:D]).  In the long term, though, just having mankind's eggs in more than one basket could be priceless.

And then there's the important yet intangible benefit of giving America a new frontier.  How much is that worth?

 I think that with sealant & a good crimp on primer & bullet they would stay together. After all if they were loaded at sea level they would only have about 15psi inside.Additionally they could be loaded inside  a sealed chamber with lower or even 0 pressure.

 I think that with sealant & a good crimp on primer & bullet they would stay together. After all if they were loaded at sea level they would only have about 15psi inside.Additionally they could be loaded inside  a sealed chamber with lower or even 0 pressure.

As long as the senior Sen from SD is sent

Got nothing against going to Mars, I just dont like trying another manned cannonball shot like the Apollos were.

We need to have a spaceship first, one that you can actually fly and isn't a prisoner of Newtonian Physics and can abort or divert if it has problems, is large enough to repair itself.  Better yet build two so one could go and rescue the other if things really got cocked up.

It would still be the outer space equivilant of a carrack, but it would be a safer way to do it than trying to piece togeather some girders and tin cans, and slingshoting them out into space on the shortest Hohmann orbit, which will still get the crew microwaved for 11 months each way and stranded for another 12... no thanks thats just asking for trouble.

Develop the Moon first. Build foundries there. Build a true space ship, nuclear powered, about the size of a [i]Ohio[/i]-class SSBN. A couple inches of Ti or HY80 steel will keep out all the nasty rays and micrometeoroids much better than 2gm/cm2 standard aluminum shielding they got on the ISS. Also make nice containment for a real nuclear reactor rather than wimpy solar panels and batteries. Assemble it in Lunar orbit, you'd have to since there no way we could afford to launch something that massive entirely from the Earth.