Courtesy of NASAWatch is a link to a Congressional debate about Mars reported by The Hill, a newspaper about Congress. Although dated July 5, the debate over Mars happened last week, as I discussed a few days ago.
In an unusually lucid moment — really unusual, given we’re talking about Congress — this exchange took place:
After a few other members, Republicans and Democrats alike, rose in opposition, Frank became exasperated. “Can’t we get an honest debate about whether or not to go to Mars?†he asked.
“Not in five minutes, unfortunately,†conceded Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.).
I applaud both Representatives: Frank for wanting an honest debate, and Mollohan for understanding it’s not a simple issue. Even scientists disagree over this, but that’s because the real debate isn’t whether or not we should go to Mars, but whether we can afford it in the current environment. I think we should go to Mars eventually, but it’s a dream to think we can have the tech know-how in less than 20 years. And that’s assuming the funding starts flowing… and even if it does, the timeline is a serious issue, since the plan to phase out the Shuttle in the next few years assumed NASA would have had ten flights under its belt over the last two years. We’ve had two flights, and the schedule is for more than 4 per year.
This is a very serious issue, and it calls for serious debate. To be honest, I haven’t seen much of it, whether it’s in Congress, or in NASA. I would love to hear NASA Administrator Mike Griffin talk about the impact to the schedule due to the Shuttle’s slowdown– if he has, I didn’t see it. Seriously, if someone has heard him talk about it, please leave a comment. I’d like to read what he has to say.
July 6th, 2006 at 5:45 am
If they are so scared now about launching the shuttle (re: catastrophy), what are they going to do when the stakes are higher? A mission to low earth orbit is peanuts (so to speak) compared to going to the Moon and Mars. Heck, NASA doesn’t even want to service HST one more time (but I hope they will).
Going to the Moon and Mars sounds fun, but where is the driving imperative to do it? Sure, the science and exploration, but – as proven on Mars – we can do that with rovers.
Kennedy’s mission statement about going to the moon worked fine during the early 1960’s, when we were in a cold war with the Soviet Union. It was more a political stunt than a scientific one. Sure, we’re still studying that data today, but back then there was a “purpose” for going. But now? Where’s the real purpose?
Congress would have to basically hand NASA a blank check and say “go out and explore.” But it won’t happen, thanks to today’s politicians.
You saw it just after Apollo 11, when there was talk about cutting back the lunar missions (which they eventually did). Special interest groups, professional lobbyists – they all want their piece of pork. Shortsightedness lost us the moon in 1972.
I just think someone with a clear vision needs to step forward, because Congress sure doesn’t have any of them, and I’m not sure NASA does as well.
July 6th, 2006 at 6:27 am
Bob Park over at What’s New (University of Maryland) opposes manned missions to space, which he dismisses as NASA theatrics. He wants all further exploration to be performed by robots. He does seem to be in a minority, though.
July 6th, 2006 at 7:25 am
Robots are fine for reconnaisance, but real discoveries and analysis can’t be made when it takes fourty minutes for round trip communications. And that’s just for Mars. You need someone on site to make instantaneous decisions and able to see the big picture. Most people don’t understand the amount of programming or remote control needed to do, sometimes, even the most basic task. Granted, people are much more vulnerable to anything that goes wrong, but we’re also more motivated and adaptable. If you don’t know what you’re getting yourself into, by all means, send a robot. However, if you’re looking to make real discoveries, sending someone capable of making on the spot decisions is the way to go.
July 6th, 2006 at 8:37 am
In addition to what Berlie said, the problem with robotic exploration missions is they don’t solve any of the problems of manned space exploration. Robots only have to go one way. They are also designed to survive the conditions they will encounter. People don’t have that luxury.
If we have any plans of sending people into space, then we have to start sending people into space.
July 6th, 2006 at 9:29 am
Of course, if we go to Mars, we’ll find the real site of the fake moon landing.
July 6th, 2006 at 12:01 pm
I can foresee funding for a lunar orbit space station before any plans are approved for a Martian Flight.
Sending human beings to the lunar surface and returning them back to the Earth was always seen as an experiment.
The U.S. governments target year of 2020 (lunar landing) is a ball park figure. Novel technologies shall certainly be invented before 2020.
Funding should concentrate on those yet-to-be-launched innovations first.
You know! Don’t put the cart before the horse….
July 6th, 2006 at 1:40 pm
The problem there is there’ll always be novel technologies somewhere down the road. It’s like buying a computer…there’s always something better coming later, but if you always wait for it, you’ll never end up buying anything.
July 6th, 2006 at 4:11 pm
I don’t think NASA should be doing manned exploration flights at all. As we can see, it sucks up all the money, and the pure science gets axed. We need NASA to do the science because the private sector won’t. I believe the private sector will go to the moon and Mars eventually–look at all the space tour companies. When orbit is blase, the planets will be next.
July 6th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
I agree with Kevin (first post) that we need a new driving force to get us out there. The benefits will out way the cost eventually. But what’s the motivation? Just because we might be able to? I believe it needs to be an international goal.
The Space Station, although not a perfect example, shows that multiple countries can work together on a common goal in space. China now wants to go there. All the big guys/gals wanna go out there. Let’s start an International Space Association to get to Mars. That way the cost is spread a little more around and everyone gets to participate.
July 6th, 2006 at 6:49 pm
Heyy! That’s my Representative! Finally, someone from West Virginia and OTHER than our state hero, Sen. Robert C. Byrd, gets it right on space exploration. About time…
July 7th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
As I see it, the debate over robotic missions or manned missions is one of PR. We in America are seeing interest in science at an all-time low. If we want to get Americans back into science, we need something like a manned lunar/mars mission. Robots gather invaluable data, but the public at large simply cannot find a personal resonance with machines other than there cars.
That being said, I think NASA’s priority right now should be replacing the shuttle. Once a more reliable orbital vehicle is available it will become easier to move ahead with the other, bigger projects.
July 27th, 2006 at 11:16 pm
I think they should look at Robert Zubrin’s ‘Mars Direct’ plan – cheaper and involves Martian landing in ten years or so with present technology.
I think both manned and robotic spaceexploration have their pros & cons and both types of exploration are needed to get the full picture.
I think NASA and co should stop talking and start acting -build the new rockets, fly the shuttle, launch more spaceprobes and work more with other national space agencies.
I think NASA should get the funding it needs – that it should be prioritised because it represents whats best for America and the world and helps the image of the USA and helps popularise and encourage science for you plus everyone else. Moreover, it shouldn’t be stopped even buy ‘Columbia’ type disasters – the people were volunteers doing what they loved and the craft was made as safe as possible in an area where risk is inevitable, minimised and worth taking.
Finally, I strongly feel, think and believe that, as the money for the above has to come from somewhere, the funds needed to help NASA should come through cutting excessive military expenditure, cancelling a few wars instead of a few science programs and ending the huge subsidies supplied to the Israeli military and economy that cause everyone so much harm around the globe. Including, I think, ultimately the Israelis themselves and certainly American and other Western nations. That’s where money is being grossly wasted not merely for nothing but actually harming everyone.
Fund science, fund NASA – & take that money from counter-productive wars, invasions and supporting a nation that murders innocent civilians and unarmed UN peace-keepers.
I suggest we adopt the slogan – “invade planets in space not nations on Earth!”