McCain would like to see a man on Mars. A man named Obama

That's not the Mars Obama knew.

That's not chaaange we can buh-leeve in.

That'd be real change heh heh heh

Too late to save America.

And how long is this guy expecting to live?
A manned Mars mission will take decades.
Is this the kind of planning you're offering?

McCain would like to see a man on Mars. A man named Obama

Now there's a special interest group I could get behind. Where do I send my $20.00?

/only if he takes Michelle with him, tho'

Random Reality Check: And how long is this guy expecting to live?
A manned Mars mission will take decades.
Is this the kind of planning you're offering?

He'd be 72, his mother is 96. Close enough, heh.

I'd like to see a man on the moon first. I didn't like the directors cut of the "first" one.

This is positive. I think spending on science including space exploration, needs to be increased dramatically.

Of course we need offsetting cuts somewhere.

I'm looking at you, unnecessary war.

Which man on Mars?

This one?



Maybe he's just trying to hook up with the 3 boobed chick.

Link (new window)NSFW

Well that's great, John. Too bad your predecessor thoroughly pissed away the equivalent of several excellent quality Mars missions (and possibly a semi-permanent base) on his dirty little war in Iraq. I remember when a Mars expedition was estimated at $500 billion, and that was Way Too Expensive. That's what, HALF the cost of the war so far? Hell, I dunno, I lost track at the $100-billion-plus-100,000-dead mark.

Better luck next generation I guess. *shrug*

The real point to manned space missions is to squeeze NASA so they can't afford the 'Mission to Earth' - things like studying the affects of human activities on the environment.

Bush hates science, and McCain is following in his footsteps.

Problem is, with high definition TV you can't do what we did before. It's a lot harder to fake something like this than it was in the sixties when you couldn't tell what the heck you were watching on your little black and white set with the little rabbit ears.

We need to develop better unmanned missions to Mars because it's more cost-effective and we can actually gain more useful information from it.

/Don't know shiat about this topic, but a dude from NASA told me this.
//He also told me there are bunches of astronauts willing to go on a mission to Mars and other missions even if there is only a 50 percent chance of return.

"He'd be 72, his mother is 96. Close enough, heh."

And his father died at age 70. I wish him well, but I don't believe that losing another president in office is exactly what this country needs at this moment. And that vice presidential choice will be very very important.

Spending on science needs to be decreased exponentially, spending on drug research needs to be increased...

don't know if this is the same article I read, but in one article, he basically said "i know it will cost taxpayers trillions, but I'd really like to see it happen"

obama has the wisdom and balls to say "yeah, it would be really nice, but I'm focused on more...uh....terrestial issues. we have to fix what's going on HERE before we can worry about what we want to do...out there. the american people would rather have a stong economy and be out of iraq than be wasting more money on a project which means absolutely nothing"

The last thing the US needs right now is McCain pissing away the rest of your money on the Iraq war and a Mars-trip. How can this Bush2 guy even get votes?

coco ebert: We need to develop better unmanned missions to Mars because it's more cost-effective and we can actually gain more useful information from it.

/Don't know shiat about this topic, but a dude from NASA told me this.
//He also told me there are bunches of astronauts willing to go on a mission to Mars and other missions even if there is only a 50 percent chance of return.

Dude from NASA was right. The manned space station is almost useless from a science standpoint. A human trip to mars will be all about glory, not science. Given that, a one-way trip would cost maybe 1/4 as much as a round trip. Still about 50x what a fairly useful unmanned mission costs.

NeuroticRocker: don't know if this is the same article I read, but in one article, he basically said "i know it will cost taxpayers trillions, but I'd really like to see it happen"

obama has the wisdom and balls to say "yeah, it would be really nice, but I'm focused on more...uh....terrestial issues. we have to fix what's going on HERE before we can worry about what we want to do...out there. the american people would rather have a stong economy and be out of iraq than be wasting more money on a project which means absolutely nothing"

which is whole loads of stupid from Obama and the one policy point of his I absolutely totally disagree with. Every leap in space technology has improved living conditions on the mothership as well. Do I want to transfer a huge chunk of the NASA budget into the black hole of FAIL that is the education budget which is almost exclusively controlled by lobbyists and special interests? Fark NO!

How's that cure for pancakes going Mr. McCain?

I hate to say it, but... this is ANOTHER failure of the Bush administration that McCain wants follow. NASA has plenty to focus on, before it puts a man on Mars. Bush forced them to drop some good programs, and mis-spend money because it's politically expedient. McCain somehow thinks that's a good idea.

Where are the white martian women at?

A wise man once said, "Know thyself". And that man's name... was Obama.

/tater nuts

McCain wants to go to Mars AND have a 100-year war in Iraq? Where will this money come from?

He's against pork spending but he wants to spend trillions on a mission to Mars because he thinks it would be cool?

Please someone tell me the benefits of spending money on space exploration versus spending it on good ole planet earth.

coco ebert: We need to develop better unmanned missions to Mars because it's more cost-effective and we can actually gain more useful information from it.

/Don't know shiat about this topic, but a dude from NASA told me this.
//He also told me there are bunches of astronauts willing to go on a mission to Mars and other missions even if there is only a 50 percent chance of return.

Hell yeah. Can you imagine being the first human to set foot on Mars? I'd go even if there was a lower than 50% chance of returning.

/wife might not like it though

Anyway - as others have said, that would be a multi-billion dollar boondoggle with very poor return in terms of science. Obama's plan is better, it lets the science guide the missions until such time as we actually *HAVE* money in the budget to reach further.

JaMorg: NeuroticRocker: don't know if this is the same article I read, but in one article, he basically said "i know it will cost taxpayers trillions, but I'd really like to see it happen"

obama has the wisdom and balls to say "yeah, it would be really nice, but I'm focused on more...uh....terrestial issues. we have to fix what's going on HERE before we can worry about what we want to do...out there. the american people would rather have a stong economy and be out of iraq than be wasting more money on a project which means absolutely nothing"

which is whole loads of stupid from Obama and the one policy point of his I absolutely totally disagree with. Every leap in space technology has improved living conditions on the mothership as well. Do I want to transfer a huge chunk of the NASA budget into the black hole of FAIL that is the education budget which is almost exclusively controlled by lobbyists and special interests? Fark NO!

roffle, how are space missions helping global warming? The exhaust from spaceship launches, once brought into contact with plants, destroys their ability to produce chlorophyll...It also takes away massive amounts of oxygen. NASA is DESTROYING the "mothership" more than it's helping it...

Edsel: Anyway - as others have said, that would be a multi-billion dollar boondoggle with very poor return in terms of science. Obama's plan is better, it lets the science guide the missions until such time as we actually *HAVE* money in the budget to reach further.


yeah...

Computers
plastics
velcro
applied materials
battery technology
conservation and recycling tech


that Moon mission sure was a boondoggle with ZERO return....

I'd like to see a man on Mars too.

I would prefer to see the money spent on building an orbital energy infrastructure and the development of a permanent space-based economy.

You all act like we are sending a ship of money to mars.

Spending money on the space program = jobs for people here on good ol' planet earth. Jobs here means more money changes hands in the marketplace which = better economy which = more tax revenue to pay for all you libs precious social programs and kum-ba-ya/hand-holding festivals.

Not to mention all that body armor you libs like to talk about so much. Remember where that came from? The space program. There's no telling what life-saving product NASA could come up with next.

Don't forget Tang! Growing boys need their tang!

See how that works? Spending money on the space program is one of the few Government programs I support

JaMorg: Edsel: Anyway - as others have said, that would be a multi-billion dollar boondoggle with very poor return in terms of science. Obama's plan is better, it lets the science guide the missions until such time as we actually *HAVE* money in the budget to reach further.


yeah...

Computers
plastics
velcro
applied materials
battery technology
conservation and recycling tech


that Moon mission sure was a boondoggle with ZERO return....

Hmm, that's funny, I re-read my post and I don't seem to be seeing the part where I said the Moon mission was a boondoggle. Can you point it out for me?

A Mars mission is an entirely different animal. Any benefits in terms of applied sciences are crushed right now by the huge short-term cost. It doesn't make sense in a time of massive budget deficits. Check again when the economy is stable and the budget is balanced, kthxbai.

Jambuu: JaMorg: NeuroticRocker: don't know if this is the same article I read, but in one article, he basically said "i know it will cost taxpayers trillions, but I'd really like to see it happen"

obama has the wisdom and balls to say "yeah, it would be really nice, but I'm focused on more...uh....terrestial issues. we have to fix what's going on HERE before we can worry about what we want to do...out there. the american people would rather have a stong economy and be out of iraq than be wasting more money on a project which means absolutely nothing"

which is whole loads of stupid from Obama and the one policy point of his I absolutely totally disagree with. Every leap in space technology has improved living conditions on the mothership as well. Do I want to transfer a huge chunk of the NASA budget into the black hole of FAIL that is the education budget which is almost exclusively controlled by lobbyists and special interests? Fark NO!

roffle, how are space missions helping global warming? The exhaust from spaceship launches, once brought into contact with plants, destroys their ability to produce chlorophyll...It also takes away massive amounts of oxygen. NASA is DESTROYING the "mothership" more than it's helping it...

hmm...recycling technology, computers to model your climate studies.

You are smart enough to realize that recycling, building, and other technologies designed to allow a person to live with very few resources on another planet(oid) like the Moon or Mars could be directly applied to "the mothership"

would like to see your source on spaceship exhaust and chlorophyll and why it such a tremendous earth killing hazard outside a very small area in the US, Russia, India, and China.

Edsel: JaMorg: Edsel: Anyway - as others have said, that would be a multi-billion dollar boondoggle with very poor return in terms of science. Obama's plan is better, it lets the science guide the missions until such time as we actually *HAVE* money in the budget to reach further.


yeah...

Computers
plastics
velcro
applied materials
battery technology
conservation and recycling tech


that Moon mission sure was a boondoggle with ZERO return....

Hmm, that's funny, I re-read my post and I don't seem to be seeing the part where I said the Moon mission was a boondoggle. Can you point it out for me?

A Mars mission is an entirely different animal. Any benefits in terms of applied sciences are crushed right now by the huge short-term cost. It doesn't make sense in a time of massive budget deficits. Check again when the economy is stable and the budget is balanced, kthxbai.

Why is it an entirely different animal? seems roughly the same thing to me. Jobs for engineers? check. Revolutionary new technologies needed to accomplish task? check. This is all beyond the fact that the space program is one our few redeeming qualities as a nation.

If you actually looked at the money being spent on Constellation versus the Education Budget Obama wants to divert the money to which one is the boondoggle and which money is actually producing results and working for us hmmm?

Jambuu:
roffle, how are space missions helping global warming? The exhaust from spaceship launches, once brought into contact with plants, destroys their ability to produce chlorophyll...It also takes away massive amounts of oxygen. NASA is DESTROYING the "mothership" more than it's helping it...


Yes, because there is absolutely no vegetation around the shuttle launchpad.

Link (new window)

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.

Um, wasn't that Kennedy who really put the fire into the American public? You know, the leader was the one actually doing the inspiring. Not the guys that have their budgets cut at a whim when the Pres's buddy needs a new contract to keep their failed company afloat.

We need a manned mission to Mars. First step though is a moon base. If we can figure out fusion and there really is plenty of H3 or whatever in the moon dust, that is payment in full for the space program.

JaMorg: Why is it an entirely different animal? seems roughly the same thing to me. Jobs for engineers? check. Revolutionary new technologies needed to accomplish task? check. This is all beyond the fact that the space program is one our few redeeming qualities as a nation.

If you actually looked at the money being spent on Constellation versus the Education Budget Obama wants to divert the money to which one is the boondoggle and which money is actually producing results and working for us hmmm?

Look, I love the space program as much as you do, but from the standpoint of investment it's an ass-backwards approach to pour money into it and hope to recoup it off the spinoffs. Most of the money winds up going into areas like operations, personnel, etc., and not to the actual research.

If you want to develop new recycling tech or better computers, longer-lasting batteries, whatever, just invest heavily into R&D in those areas and you're more likely to accomplish it.

In terms off the tech that grew out of Mercury and Apollo, well, the applied sciences were younger there. It was easier to make a big discovery that could be applied to everyday life.

As far as the return on investment, I don't see how you can logically argue that it's a better return than the Department of Education. I think if you take away that budget and don't replace it on the state/local level, you're going to have kids that are a lot dumber and discovering a new Velcro is not going to make up for that.

Unmanned flight is cheaper and the returns in terms of science are better. We do need to go to Mars eventually but we just can't afford it right now.

They should put a clock on NASA's website, to remind everyone the last time McCain was on Mars. How can he talk about something, when he's never been there?

Pancakes.

Edsel:

Look, I love the space program as much as you do, but from the standpoint of investment it's an ass-backwards approach to pour money into it and hope to recoup it off the spinoffs. Most of the money winds up going into areas like operations, personnel, etc., and not to the actual research.

Where do you think that money goes? Back into the economy: that's where it goes.

If you want to develop new recycling tech or better computers, longer-lasting batteries, whatever, just invest heavily into R&D in those areas and you're more likely to accomplish it.

Some things can't be done in a gravity environment. For example several medicines must be made in space because they won't develop on earth.


In terms off the tech that grew out of Mercury and Apollo, well, the applied sciences were younger there. It was easier to make a big discovery that could be applied to everyday life.


Yes, let's just shut down the patent office and be done with all of this. There's no way we can develop anything new because we are *SO* smart and advanced. Please, don't be so arrogant.

As far as the return on investment, I don't see how you can logically argue that it's a better return than the Department of Education. I think if you take away that budget and don't replace it on the state/local level, you're going to have kids that are a lot dumber and discovering a new Velcro is not going to make up for that.

I can make that argument. Homeschoolers and reputable private school graduates get more scholarship dollars and better job opportunities than most public school graduates. Most of the time, they do that without the teachers union's political agenda being shoved down their throat.


Unmanned flight is cheaper and the returns in terms of science are better. We do need to go to Mars eventually but we just can't afford it right now.

Again, where do you think this money goes? We aren't shipping a metric ton of $100 bills to mars, we're putting money back into the economy and creating jobs (including mine, so piss off)

Edsel: JaMorg: Why is it an entirely different animal? seems roughly the same thing to me. Jobs for engineers? check. Revolutionary new technologies needed to accomplish task? check. This is all beyond the fact that the space program is one our few redeeming qualities as a nation.

If you actually looked at the money being spent on Constellation versus the Education Budget Obama wants to divert the money to which one is the boondoggle and which money is actually producing results and working for us hmmm?

Look, I love the space program as much as you do, but from the standpoint of investment it's an ass-backwards approach to pour money into it and hope to recoup it off the spinoffs. Most of the money winds up going into areas like operations, personnel, etc., and not to the actual research.

If you want to develop new recycling tech or better computers, longer-lasting batteries, whatever, just invest heavily into R&D in those areas and you're more likely to accomplish it.

In terms off the tech that grew out of Mercury and Apollo, well, the applied sciences were younger there. It was easier to make a big discovery that could be applied to everyday life.

As far as the return on investment, I don't see how you can logically argue that it's a better return than the Department of Education. I think if you take away that budget and don't replace it on the state/local level, you're going to have kids that are a lot dumber and discovering a new Velcro is not going to make up for that.

Unmanned flight is cheaper and the returns in terms of science are better. We do need to go to Mars eventually but we just can't afford it right now.

It might be ass backward but it is an easier sell. A farmer out in his field won't "get it" if you tell him his tax dollars are going to fund basic research into an Inertial Electrostatic Confinement fusion reactor. However, if you tell him "we are putting a man on Mars" and it just so happens in order to do that we have to develop and fund IEC reactor research well then he is cool with that and by extension his Congress slime must be too.

We can afford Constellation that is the point I was getting at with the education vs. Constellation point. The budget for Constellation is so small in comparison to the Education budget that the money is better left where it is. I still plan to vote for Obama but his stance on this is stupid.

for how many twinkies: Edsel:

Where do you think that money goes? Back into the economy: that's where it goes.

Sure, any money the federal government spends does that. However, my point is that it's wiser to put it in areas where the return on investment is higher.

Some things can't be done in a gravity environment. For example several medicines must be made in space because they won't develop on earth.

You don't have to go to Mars to do that.

Yes, let's just shut down the patent office and be done with all of this. There's no way we can develop anything new because we are *SO* smart and advanced. Please, don't be so arrogant.

That's a pure strawman. My point is made in relation to inventions that are spun off of the space program, not all inventions. This seemed to be clear to me, please work on your reading comprehension.

I can make that argument. Homeschoolers and reputable private school graduates get more scholarship dollars and better job opportunities than most public school graduates. Most of the time, they do that without the teachers union's political agenda being shoved down their throat.

I submit to you that the comparison you make is likely invalid due to confounding by multiple factors including socioeconomic status, parenting quality, etc.

Again, where do you think this money goes? We aren't shipping a metric ton of $100 bills to mars, we're putting money back into the economy and creating jobs (including mine, so piss off)

Please see above. The return on investment is the important factor here. A dollar spent that generates more dollars is more effective that a dollar that merely trickles down.

for how many twinkies: Yes, because there is absolutely no vegetation around the shuttle launchpad.

Owned!

JaMorg: We can afford Constellation that is the point I was getting at with the education vs. Constellation point. The budget for Constellation is so small in comparison to the Education budget that the money is better left where it is. I still plan to vote for Obama but his stance on this is stupid.

JaMorg: It might be ass backward but it is an easier sell. A farmer out in his field won't "get it" if you tell him his tax dollars are going to fund basic research into an Inertial Electrostatic Confinement fusion reactor. However, if you tell him "we are putting a man on Mars" and it just so happens in order to do that we have to develop and fund IEC reactor research well then he is cool with that and by extension his Congress slime must be too.

Sorry, but I can't accept that the whole point of this is to pull a sales job on voters. In fact, I think that if you tell the farmer that you're taking their tax money and putting it into tech that is going to cut his energy bills then I think that is a far easier sell than telling him you're shooting off rockets to Mars that may seem cool but which may not seem at all relevant to his daily life.

I think that is a fair point, but again, I think the money is better invested into pure R&D at this point. Maybe in 4-5 years when the budget looks better.

For what it's worth, as a federally-funded researcher, I'm all in favor of science over the stupid shiat we're currently blowing money on. I just think we need to get our house in order first.

The Zhti Ti Kofft have barely tolerated our unmanned probes. They absolutely will not tolerate a manned mission. Does McCain want War of the Worlds?
http://www.uncoveror.com/nomars.htm

"That's not change be can believe in...and what's all this nonsense about Yes we can?....No we can't! And get off my lawn."

JaMorg: Edsel:
yeah...

Computers
plastics
velcro
applied materials
battery technology
conservation and recycling tech

that Moon mission sure was a boondoggle with ZERO return....

Soooo, Velcro and Microchips were way later that the moon mission. Plastic was around way before. The only working recycling is of metals and that had nothing to do with NASA at all. Meaningful battery tech has been limited to portable device manufacturers.