Men on Mars

[dar512]

Originally posted by tw
Its not possible to talk about a man to Mars mission and not talk about why the idea exists.

The idea of and the desire to go to other planets existed long before Dubya was born. Dubya is not "why the idea exists."

Originally posted by tw
Provided is not one logical reason - from George Jr or hot_pastrami - to send a man to Mars.

<Using Inigo voice>
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
</Inigo>

Originally posted by tw
Quite bluntly - you can't because the logical reasons do not exist! Demonstrated by hot_pastrami's implicit concession: advancement of science is not a reason for this mission.

This is an obviously bogus argument for two reasons. First, many here have given reasons why manned missions would "advance science" more than unmanned missions. So, saying that HP has implictly conceded so is untrue.

Secondly, you have implicitly defined "logical reasons" == "advancement of science". I don't buy this definition. There are many things that are logical to do in this world that don't advance science.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally posted by tw
snip...Do any reasonable humans still exist?....snip

Just you TW, just you. All alone, like the man in the moon.

[Torrere]

battleships vs aircraft carriers: both suck. There are only two types of military boats in the ocean: submarines, and submarine targets.

We did not originally go to Antarctica for the advancement of science. We went there for glory, riches, and curiousity.

Most of the tech that we use these days has roots in World War I, World War II, or the space program.

-----


I think that tw knows some stuff and could have very interesting posts. Unfortunately, he has fallen into a rut and has only a handful of significant ideas anymore. He seems to bring these narrow ideas into EVERY post. He needs to be jolted into thinking some new thoughts. He needs to stop making posts which contain all the same ideas, every single time, which we all already know. Perhaps you could write a handful of articles on these subjects, host or post them somewhere, and reference them?

Undertoad, could you put a filter on the Cellar which prohibits tw from posting the following strings:
MBA
George Jr.
Dubya
Dichead
logic
emotion
extremist

Thanks.

[xoxoxoBruce]

And super collider.

[hot_pastrami]

And boondoogle.

[tw]

Originally posted by Torrere
Undertoad, could you put a filter on the Cellar which prohibits tw from posting the following strings:
MBA
George Jr.
Dubya
Dichead
logic
emotion
extremist

Openly criticize the mental midget president and I will not have to. Even when it is obvious that he lied about WMD, still, the many here remain silent rather than call a spade a spade. Here, most cannot see (or at least do not post) the difference between a stupid president who would waste $4trillion on a boondoogle, and Richard Nixon - another president in the same mold who also advocated destruction in America. Both even openly lied so as to attack a sovereign nation without provocation! How can a good president like George Sr have a son so bad like George Jr.

Ironic since I was posting some years previous how George Jr was a compassionate conservative who worked even better with the opposition party. How wrong I was then. When a president would advocate wasting money everywhere to the detriment of America - just like Nixon - then I cannot be silent about that mental midget.

At no time ever - and over a decade of the Cellar demonstrates this - have I ever been so critical of any leader - ever. UT - when did I ever in the entire history of the Cellar find something more evil than George Jr? Never. Even Barak was not this bad.

It been decades since we had a president so destructive and devisive. He even made America's allies into adversaries. No president - even Nixon - did that. When so many like this destructive president, then I cannot be silent. Man on Mars further demonstrates a bad president.

A silly Mars mission bluntly demonstrates how destructive leaders think. It is not about science - as demonstrated here by not one good example of why a Mars mission would advance science. Mars is about the greater glory of George Jr who finds no problem with even destroying the most productive space science tool in the history of the world - Hubble. Hubble's death is directly traceable to top management - George Jr. One cannot be silent about that either.

[lumberjim]

Originally posted by tw
It is not about science - as demonstrated here by not one good example of why a Mars mission would advance science.

I, personally, think that the MOST important reason to go to mars is what we would learn about MANNED space missions.

not so much mars, more about what it takes to put PEOPLE in a position to explore the only thing left to explore. baby steps.

And if you had paid attention, tw, you'd have noticed that hp mentioned this. I realize that you are too busy spouting about logic and emotion and robots, ( which, for reasons i can well imagine are apparently very near and dear to your heart) but the fact remains, that because YOU don't see a reason as valid, does not make it invalid.

edited to remove unneccessary shot at tw. sorry.

[Brigliadore]

Originally posted by tw
At no time ever - and over a decade of the Cellar demonstrates this - have I ever been so critical of any leader - ever. UT - when did I ever in the entire history of the Cellar find something more evil than George Jr? Never. Even Barak was not this bad.

First off Bush Sr. was not that good a president. Second, nothing can be done RIGHT NOW about the fact that Bush Jr. is a moron. As far as I can tell no one is arguing with you on the fact that Bush Jr. is a stupid president. Just because a monkey is dumb doesn't mean it cant find its ass once in a while. Yes the current president sucks, yes he is a moron, But the proposal to go to Mars IS A GOOD ONE. By the time we are able to go to Mars, Bush Jr. will not even be in office any more, and some other president (hopefully a good one) will be the one pushing for funding of the mission.

If you don't like the president then don't vote for him for a second term. RIGHT NOW he is in office and there is nothing that can be done about it. Good or bad he is our president, and we all have to live with it, even those (like me) who voted against him. Thats what the United States of America is all about, yes sometimes the country votes a bad person into office, the beauty of the system is they don't stay in office very long. We only have to deal with him till November and then god willing someone better can step up and try and fix the mess he put us in.

Point is just because a stupid leader proposed putting man on Mars it doesn't mean its a bad idea. And frankly man going to Mars is a good 10-15 years away so really its not worth worrying about right now. Nothing can be done right now about Hubble because right now Bush Jr. IS our president, comparing the plight of Hubble to the Mars Mission is like comparing apples and oranges. One is happening RIGHT NOW and the other wont happen for 10-15 years. One will not affect the other, and one is not the cause of the other.

Get over your Bush hating and move on with your life, there is no point giving yourself a stroke worrying about a president that we can't change right now.

[Torrere]

I apologize for the thread-jacking.

Originally posted by tw
Openly criticize the mental midget president and I will not have to. Even when it is obvious that he lied about WMD, still, the many here remain silent rather than call a spade a spade. Here, most cannot see (or at least do not post) the difference between a stupid president who would waste $4trillion on a boondoogle, and Richard Nixon - another president in the same mold who also advocated destruction in America.

Add 'mental midget' to my list.

I've mostly given up criticizing Bush on the Cellar, because I've already given my spiel and it's become boring to bash Bush -- too easy. It's much more challenging trying to defend Bush, and even more challenging (but the most fun!) trying to find the reasons behind why he acts as he does.

However, on other forums or in spoken conversation, I still regularly bash Bush. I had a discussion with a LaRouche-movement girl a few days ago where we tried to come to an agreement as to who the most awful and blame-worthy person associated with Bush was: I argued in favor of Karl Rove (the Nixon-CREEP prodigy), she in favor of Dick Cheney ("the Beast-Man").

Both even openly lied so as to attack a sovereign nation without provocation! How can a good president like George Sr have a son so bad like George Jr.

"Tyrant" was originally a favorable term. The first generation of tyrants were generally good rulers. The second generation sucked. I had thought that it was a rule of thumb that the son of a good prince is a bad prince (there are exceptions). The "Five Good Emperors" of Rome (under whom the Mediterranean enjoyed the Pax Romana were all adopted. Rome's fall began when the son of the last of the Five Good Emperors inherited (as described in the movie "Gladiator").

Ironic since I was posting some years previous how George Jr was a compassionate conservative who worked even better with the opposition party. How wrong I was then. When a president would advocate wasting money everywhere to the detriment of America - just like Nixon - then I cannot be silent about that mental midget.

No. You cannot. But you could refrain from repeating yourself to the point of inanity. You could try to convince people that aren't in the choir that Bush is a bad president. Failing that, you could try to convince the people who are in the choir to do something about it; you ought to be organizing the secret meetings, purchasing white suits with pointy hats, finding wood that burns well, and getting the congregation into the streets.

At no time ever - and over a decade of the Cellar demonstrates this - have I ever been so critical of any leader - ever. UT - when did I ever in the entire history of the Cellar find something more evil than George Jr? Never. Even Barak was not this bad.

Sharon

It been decades since we had a president so destructive and devisive. He even made America's allies into adversaries. No president - even Nixon - did that. When so many like this destructive president, then I cannot be silent.

Man on Mars further demonstrates a bad president.

A silly Mars mission bluntly demonstrates how destructive leaders think. It is not about science - as demonstrated here by not one good example of why a Mars mission would advance science. Mars is about the greater glory of George Jr who finds no problem with even destroying the most productive space science tool in the history of the world - Hubble. Hubble's death is directly traceable to top management - George Jr. One cannot be silent about that either. [/b]

I agree and disagree. On the one hand, Man on Mars would be good. We have so much money right now that it's incredible how frivilously we spend it, when we could be going to Mars!

On the other hand, it sounds like desperation. Bush knows that the tide is going to surge against him, and he has to postpone that until after November. Americans have grown to docile to revolt against him -- if he gets re-elected, he will probably be able to remain in power for another four years and possibly retain his reign until death (even if indirectly).

He's done two wars, he's currently advocating a glorious space program (all-win, no loss: he gets a lot of support for doing nothing but making a speech: his plan calls for his successors to act) and he has enough money to do a lot of things that I predict will be difficult to conceive of today.

It actually reminds me of the Argentinian junta in the 1980s. Trying to stave off their fall, they diverted the nation's attention by invading the Falkland Islands, delivering a dose of national pride for good measure. The British defeated them, and the junta fell.

Even if we can evict Bush, America might be due for a tumble.

[Brigliadore]

Originally posted by hot_pastrami
1. You don't like George W. Bush (neither do I).

Also like to point out that right there HP said he didn't like the president. What was it you were saying TW about no one openly saying they didn't like him?

Originally posted by tw
It is not about science - as demonstrated here by not one good example of why a Mars mission would advance science.

No one can know before hand all the useful things that will come out of the Mars Mission. No one knew all the advancements that would come from the Apollo missions before they happened. Unless someone on this list can predict the future we have no way to see all the possible benefits to a Mars landing. Its called a leap of faith, you trust that because other great things were discovered in other space programs that this one will yield the same results.

[tw]

Originally posted by Brigliadore
No one can know before hand all the useful things that will come out of the Mars Mission. No one knew all the advancements that would come from the Apollo missions before they happened.

We knew, in the ballpark, what would come from those Apollo missions. They delivered just about what we expected. Not much science, but some interesting lessons. The difference between then and now - leadership first learned from those who come from where the work gets done. As Paul O'Neill demonstrates in his book, this president's eyes glaze over when anything new is introduced. He has no clue.

Before we can go to Mars, we must have a strategic objective - as any good military man understands. That is the problem. This president does not have the mental abilities nor ability to understand things technical to define a strategic objective - which is why he provides none. Why go to Mars? No scientific (logical) reasons provided.

Clinton did not do it - therefore is must be right? A joke - but just barely. This president does not make decisions based upon learned facts be it from science or history - ie a threatened war over a silly spy plane, all but banning stem cell research, the mythical weapons of mass destruction, destruction of the Oslo Accords, destruction of the anti-ballistic missile treaty, and the constuction of an anti-ballistic missile system that does not even work in test).

Hubble sticks out like a sour thumb. Push science for political gain, and better science is killed. Again, the world's most successful space science tool is being destroyed because we tried to do too many other things too fast - (ie ISS). How much more good science will be killed by a Mars mission? Do we advance science by letting the scientists first say what is best next done - or do we promot the legacy of George Jr - science be damned? Promoting George Jr's Mars mission is like sending the US military into VietNam. It was a sin against good military people and it will be a sin against mankind's advancement of science.

[tw]

Originally posted by lumberjim
I, personally, think that the MOST important reason to go to mars is what we would learn about MANNED space missions.

We already have our hands full both learning how to put man in space (being done on ISS) and so many other functions that would be necessary for long duration spaceflight (being tested by robots). The failure of so many robots to Mars demonstrates we still have too much to learn about long duration spaceflight. Even the Wright Bros did not go to Kitty Hawk until they had done substantial testing and development. Successful because they did not try to do too much too fast. We don't even know how to protect astronauts from radiation hazards. Even the most simple technology still requires more basic research. We must do the science - not promote the legacy of a president.

If not obvious from ISS - we don't have the technology for long duration space flight. Low orbit long duration spaceflight is still not reliable - obvious from ISS. We tried to do too much too fast for the wrong reasons - thereby even destroying the world's most successful space science mission - Hubble. Destruction of Hubble demonstrates that much more good science will be destroyed by a Mars boondoogle.

Time is the great cure-all. Eventually we will have the need and abilities to put a man on Mars - when science tells us. It will be sooner if science - and not dictates of an MBA educated president - makes this decision. This president, with a three year history of repeatedly lying, is the last person to say when it is time to go to Mars.

Other important projects should be done first. One might be the X-39 - an unmanned cargo ship. That still only for low earth space flight. But then low earth orbit that is where our long duration manned abilities lie. Still too much basic research required before we can spend big bucks on application research for a Mars mission. Basic research verses application research? As Paul O'Neill demonstrates, this is when George Jr stops listening to what he does not comprehend. His Mars mission is not based upon what science says. It is based on the same thinking that said Saddam had WMD.

Liberate science. Do not make science a slave to an MBA president. Science - not the president - should be saying what is best done in space. Then we would not be destroying Hubble. (this is where we start singing the Freedom music - god save us from this president).

[lumberjim]

i'm with you on the george bush is an idiot and a liar, but this is about putting more emphasis on the space program. period.

you say that gwb is the last person that should say when it's time to go to mars. let me ask you this: who the fuck else would the whole country hear and listen to? Regis? Larry King? If the president says " let's go to mars", then....fuckin A! let's go to mars. It doesn't really matter that it's mars or the moon or jupiter. the fact that there is money being spent in that area is a positive. I think( you're sometimes a little bit hard to follow) you say we should first perfect low orbit manned sattelites before we go galavanting off to mars. Why? the ships we send won't be orbiting mars or the earth during the journey, will they? That's like honing your knife to a razor edge to cut ice cream. we just need to get there and be able to lift back off with enough juice to make it back here. there are lots of ways to do that, and I don;t think low orbit satellites would be involved in many scenarios.

When science has a goal, and we're employing application research, the focus is on results. This minimizes tangental time wasting research and at the same time increases productivity of research because more people are paying attention. We will hit obstacles on the road to mars, and really smart people will invent things to overcome them. that's where you get your velcro's and tangs. The president announcing it just gives it legs. you shouldn't let your emotions carry you away like that. Your hatred for gwb has clouded your vision.

[Brigliadore]

Originally posted by lumberjim
.When science has a goal, and we're employing application research, the focus is on results. This minimizes tangental time wasting research and at the same time increases productivity of research because more people are paying attention. We will hit obstacles on the road to mars, and really smart people will invent things to overcome them. that's where you get your velcro's and tangs. The president announcing it just gives it legs. you shouldn't let your emotions carry you away like that. Your hatred for gwb has clouded your vision.

Well Said!!

[Brigliadore]

Originally posted by tw
Time is the great cure-all. Eventually we will have the need and abilities to put a man on Mars - when science tells us.

Thank you for agreeing with what we have all been saying. NO ONE is saying we need to go to Mars tomorrow, we are all saying its a real possibility in 10-15 YEARS! HOW DO YOU know that in 10 years we wont have a need to go to Mars? Wouldn't it be better to start planning for it now then in 10 years when a "need" arises?

Originally posted by tw
This president does not have the mental abilities nor ability to understand things technical to define a strategic objective - which is why he provides none.

Again you show us all the the only reason you don't think we should go to Mars is because George W. said we should. Thats not a good reason, because by the time we go to Mars HE WILL NO LONGER BE PRESIDENT. When we do go to Mars a new president (we probably will have had several) will be in power and will have been able to work out the holes and gaps in the current President's plan. You seem to think George W. is the first person to propose going to Mars, he is not. Stop fighting so hard against this for one second to realize the only reason you don't like it is because bush proposed it.

Also as I said before the Hubble has no relevance on the Mars Mission. Right now the a big reason George W. is scraping the Hubble project is because our country has no money, he blew it all on a war and other silly things. Yes the Hubble would have been a much better thing to spend the money on but what's done is done. We get another president like Clinton (not saying he was the best but he did help the country financially) and we can afford to do things like Hubble AND the Mars mission. Good science like Hubble is not necessarily going to be sacrificed for the Mars mission. If our country can do well with its finances and not have a president piddle them away then we should be able to afford both.