digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at cbsnews.com

The Next Giant Leap For Mankind

cbsnews.com — NASA is serious, very serious, about launching the most difficult mission ever attempted by the human race - putting an astronaut on Mars. The voyage will cover hundreds of millions of miles and take two-and-a-half years roundtrip. It sounds like science fiction.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • spacyspacy, on 04/07/2008, -85/+17Two and a half years for printing a mars wallpaper and decore a room in red? :)
    • tbone8978, on 04/07/2008, -5/+37Enough with the conspiracies.
      • orangefly, on 04/07/2008, -10/+8that's what they want you to say....
      • TopherT, on 04/07/2008, -16/+6Personally I'd rather they did fake it, would cost a whole hell of a lot less, and would accomplish just as little.
        • thcobbs, on 04/07/2008, -1/+14No, the problem with them faking it is that it will cost JUST AS MUCH and will accomplish very little.
        • nospinhere, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1topher, do you think the moon landings were beneficial to the U.S.?
        • perral1, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1The amount of technology that came out of the massive budget to get us to the moon WAS beneficial to the U.S. IMO
        • TopherT, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1I think the moon landings did nothing except put a silly little flag on the moon. I think the PERCEPTION of the moon landings was an enormous psychological boost for the country, and inspired many. I would rather they had faked it, it would have had the same perceptual punch, but the money could be spent on matters that actually matter.
      • HeyLew, on 04/07/2008, -4/+2conspiracies are legit. i hope our government isnt giving one dime to nasa to help them with this. space exploration doesn't mean ***** right now. the economy needs to get back on track. .... also we already have jump rooms to mars, and their alien bases on the moon, thats why we havent been there since the 70s. check out "The Disclosure Project" over 400 high ranking military officers wanting to testify.
        • grinchdec23, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1And even if anyone did make the moon,, how is it NASA loses all tapes ?
          • nospinhere, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1If they lost the tapes and this is one big conspiracy, why didn't they just shot some more?
    • Wakuko, on 04/07/2008, -21/+3I'll believe that if we go to the moon again and return back safely.
      Meantime call me conspiracy nut, *****, tinfoil dick, whatever you like
      I´ll be here waiting all decade long
      • noahhoward, on 04/07/2008, -1/+13So the laser we're bouncing off a mirror on the moon is fake too? I'll be happy to call you moron as long as you want.
      • saxreturns, on 04/07/2008, -1/+6Tinfoil dick? You should get that seen to.
    • macweirdo42, on 04/07/2008, -3/+28No no, we're actually going to Mars. However, it's all part of an even bigger conspiracy - to cover up the fact that we DIDN'T go to the Moon. Think about it. How can you argue that we didn't go to the Moon if we can go to ***** Mars? That one oughta stump even the biggest tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorists. Yes, the Moon landing was faked, but not because we weren't technologically capable of going to the Moon. Oh no, the reasons were far more sinister. The fake Moon landing was all part of a greater conspiracy, aimed at keeping the Moon's greatest secret from all of mankind: that it's MADE OF CHEESE!
      • Cybereality, on 04/07/2008, -2/+4Nah they went, but they got frightened by what was already there. The whole faked landing conspiracy is psychological whitewash.
      • thcobbs, on 04/07/2008, -0/+3It's not a secret! I mean, google had it on their moon map for Chrissakes!
        • macweirdo42, on 04/07/2008, -0/+4Note the key word there - "had." I just checked - all images of Moon cheese on the Google Moon map have mysteriously disappeared. I KNEW IT!
      • MrSlumberjack, on 04/07/2008, -0/+3Yea.. where the ***** do you all think cheese comes from? If you didn't know that it falls from the moon, then you are sheltered.
        • macweirdo42, on 04/08/2008, -0/+31970s... Multiple government trips to the Moon. 1980s... Government starts handing out large blocks of "government cheese." Coincidence? I think not!
    • illt, on 04/07/2008, -1/+12Anyone claiming that we didn't land on the moon is severely insulting the brave men who did, and the thousands of engineers etc who helped made it possible.

      If yo uhaven't seen it, watch "in the shadow of the moon"
      • HeyLew, on 04/07/2008, -2/+5and your insulting the aliens that they me tthere
    • Osiriscky3, on 04/07/2008, -2/+7in before the conspira..... dammit
    • mikesbaker, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1that deserves a comment hijack
      this makes me want to go reread Red Mars
  • misterpony, on 04/07/2008, -50/+8We should be going directly to Mars without wasting the time and money to go to the moon again. Unless we're planning doing both simultaneously.
    • DrDragun, on 04/07/2008, -4/+25The moon would be a pretty tite strip mining resource, plus a good base for anti-asteroid nukes.

      Really we should shoot some algae to Mars soon though, to start reproducing and making some oxygen for us
      • nominalgeek, on 04/07/2008, -1/+10We aren't going to taint Mars with algae before we even get there to really explore and test for past life... Oxygen can be manufacured in better ways with no biological impact on Mar's biosphere if it exists.
      • CaptMonkey, on 04/07/2008, -3/+7I can't say I agree with your algae idea, especially when we're still looking for signs of life on the surface. Once you send Earth-based life to Mars, you've contaiminated a pristine environment. Not to mention how crappy we would feel if we discovered that the algae wound up taking over and extinguishing Martian life before we knew it was there.
      • SmpleJohn, on 04/07/2008, -9/+4Yeah, let's go f-up another planet. Brilliant idea.
        • lithera, on 04/07/2008, -3/+3By the way it stands now we simply have no choice if we, as the human race, want to survive.

          Basically we are parasites on earth. Our population is growing and growing. We are using up the natural resources here at such a insane rate it's inevitable that someday we simply run out of resources and have to many humans that need to be taken care of. The next logical step would be to find another planet to live on and start the process allover again. Sad but true.

          Alternatively, we could use a massive war or disease outbreak that reduces the human population drastically. That would either buy us time or maybe rethink the ways we do things here.
        • mnky9800n, on 04/07/2008, -0/+5You obviously have no idea how little power we have over the planet we live on. We can barely scuff the surface of our planet without it fixing the problems we caused easily. We haven't f-ed up the planet, as you so eloquently put it, we are just f-ing up our chances at survivability.
          http://qntm.org/?destroy
      • mnky9800n, on 04/07/2008, -0/+0That would do no good at all. Even if Mars had an oxygen rich atmosphere to begin with we still couldn't breath it because it is not dense enough. Mars is too small to keep an atmosphere dense enough for us to breathe unaided.
        • Roryking, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Yeah, but once the oxygen is there, packing it in to tanks and pressurized vehicles/structures becomes less of a challenge
      • humperdeath, on 04/07/2008, -0/+1Oh, F-it, lets go directly to Saturn!
    • meruru, on 04/07/2008, -0/+38If we send people to Mars they would need to spend 18 months on the planet before they could return. Going to the moon would provide a good test environment for whatever machinery/establishments they would need to construct on Mars.
      • nominalgeek, on 04/07/2008, -7/+0Martian/Lunar soil, Martian atmospheres vs No Lunar Atmosphere, and the techniques required to survive on mars and the moon are all vastly different. While there is stuff we can relearn from the lunar travel, there isn't much that will directly translate.
        • supras, on 04/07/2008, -0/+8Put this in perspective. It's like sailing to nearby rocky islands to test out your equipment vs sailing across an ocean in search of Eden. The sane man would go to the rocks first.
      • diggduggjoe, on 04/07/2008, -0/+10Which is exactly what the article said. It is not a rocketry issue this time, nor a computational one. It is an issue of long term habitats. Going to Mars will be a lot like being marooned on a island, but without the reality TV crew to help you, if things get nasty. There will be no 911 where they are going. A good test environment makes a great deal of sense.
        • humperdeath, on 04/07/2008, -0/+2But who's going to be holding the camera then? There has to be a film crew going along to mars too!
    • CaptMonkey, on 04/07/2008, -0/+19We haven't been to the surface of another celestial object in 36 years (it will be 47 by the next planned date of 2019). It's probably a good idea to test out our technology on something close like the Moon before sending people on a much longer and much more dangerous journey to Mars.

      Besides, even when we went to the Moon before, we didn't stay long. Mars missions are going to spend months on the surface. We have no experience doing this before at all, and again, the Moon is much much closer and safer.
      • grinchdec23, on 04/08/2008, -6/+1You are sure we have been to the moon ?? The more research one does into this results in more and more likelihood that they STILL couldnt make it.
    • gkwillie, on 04/07/2008, -15/+3A manned mission to mars is a shameful use of NASA resources. With a budget that is always first on the line to get cut in a crunch time, actually committing hundreds of billions of dollars to something that, in all reality, still has many (unsolved) technological hurdles like long term cosmic radiation shielding.
      The article makes a good point- what takes a robot a day to do an astronaut can do in seconds. Fine. But what a robot can do for a million dollars, a human would take hundreds of millions. And what, honestly is so important about having humanity standing on another planet? The ruskies are gone, America already has the upper hand in deep space exploration.
      Finally, and most importantly, a Mars mission takes funds away from REAL scientific (as opposed to patriotic) missions. Something like the terrestrial planet finder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrestrial_Planet_Fi ... postponed indefinitely in 2007 would arguably have a greater impact on our understanding of the universe then having some fragile schmo waltzing around the red planet for a couple of months, contaminating the unsoiled Martian landscape with her bacteria laden body.

      Ok. Rant over.
      • jmbillings, on 04/07/2008, -2/+4Solving those problems (such as radiation shielding) will benefit us all eventually though. That's why it needs to happen. Hell, humans seem intent on breeding non stop so we need to be looking at colonising other planets sooner rather than later. Population - it's the REAL cause of climate change, but no one will discuss it.
        • gkwillie, on 04/07/2008, -3/+1There really is no 'solution' to population, unless you are willing to advocate something like a controlled breeding scheme, a massive kill-off or some other draconian measure to control the population.
          I am fine keeping humanity in low earth orbit, the only planet we are contaminating is our own. Frankly, that fact that we have the ability to ***** up a planet that is perfectly suited for our living on it makes me hesitant about sending us to a planet that is much harder to live on. Don't get me wrong, I would be alright sending humanity to Mars EVENTUALLY, but sending them to Mars in the next thirty years is a misuse of scarce resources. The technology will be developed, no doubt. It is just that, with existing technology we can do so much more for mankind without a Martian mission.
        • daguito81, on 04/07/2008, -0/+2and then in 30 yeras the next guy says the same thing and the next 30 years the next guy says the same thing and when you realize it you never tried doing it and therefore your engineering development towards colonizing new planets is at a standstill for centuries. This type of research and advancements are better off being done as early as possible; with increasing oil demand and higher populations in 50 yeras there might not even BE resourses to send someone to Mars
      • nominalgeek, on 04/07/2008, -1/+1We can ultimately setup a sister civilization on mars, it has everything needs for mass industry that could one day supply Earth with a lot of it's needs. If you need any proof or reading matter there is a lot out there.
        • gkwillie, on 04/07/2008, -3/+1I agree. Ultimately. Not in the next thirty years though.
        • B1663r, on 04/07/2008, -2/+2Wow, civilization hasn't taken off in Greenland or Antarctica, and they are practially right next door, and much warmer, and they have air and water.

          Also, a lot of sci-fi books have waved their hands and developed methods to break the speed of light, I think Nasa should be spending the research dollars on that instead.
        • mnky9800n, on 04/07/2008, -0/+0yes, bigger, lets pursue fictional devices instead of doing things in the real world. I know anyone want to volunteer to jump into a black hole to see if its a "stable worm hole". Science fiction says it is so lets try it! Or I know, why don't we go hang out around some nuclear waste, I am sure we will get super powers and not leukemia.
          • B1663r, on 04/07/2008, -1/+1Real world things like colonies on mars? Um, not gonna happen. It is an interesting science fiction hook, but it is not real.
      • Zernhelt, on 04/07/2008, -0/+1In the process of getting to Mars those unsolved technological problems will be solved.

        And who said that this was all about science? What happened to engineering (yes, they are two distinct things).
        • gkwillie, on 04/07/2008, -0/+1You are talking to a born and bred engineer here, please don't misunderstand. The whole Ares program at NASA is designed to get large payloads like people to Mars. I am all about technological innovation, IF there are unlimited resources. The article said it- 1/6th of 1 percent of America's budget is spent on space travel. By prioritizing a very limited application (I.E. safe interplanetary human travel), you take away funds from other NASA programs, like robotic missions, space and ground based telescopes, all of which find novel ways of improving existing technology and inventing new technology. All with a limited budget (which is a pretty solid engineering goal). I dislike a manned Mars mission because it takes away that limited funding for EVERYTHING else.

          That was acceptable in the sixties, when there was a need to get to the moon FIRST. I don't see that need now, and I don't believe that it should be a priority for NASA.
    • cschmitz, on 04/07/2008, -0/+2Holy cow, did you miss all of the reasons they listed to go to the moon first??!

      I would say RTFA but they you don't even have to do that in this case because the article is just a transcript of the video. WTFV!!!! How lazy are you?!
    • 4pple5auce, on 04/07/2008, -2/+1We should've been on Mars long ago in my opinion. It took less than ten years from the beginning of the Apollo program until we landed on the moon.
      • grinchdec23, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Indeed ,, getting through that radiation belt is a problem though,, funny enough one that was insurmountable even in 1968 according to scientists,, then suddenly VOILA,, our tech hasnt improved but we are going !!
  • gregrp, on 04/07/2008, -11/+153"What’s impossible? What can’t we do if we wanna do it badly enough?"
    The answer:
    "During the 1960s, 4 percent of the entire national budget was spent on space. Today one-sixth of 1 percent goes to NASA. "

    And once bush has gone the vision for space exploration will be quietly swept aside for a couple of decades.
    • fuhcough, on 04/07/2008, -18/+7you forgot "and replaced, streamlined, and advanced by COMMERCIAL space exploration."
      • SpykerSpeed, on 04/07/2008, -9/+3Nooo!!!1 Teh money must come from unwilling taxpayers so we can say NASA did it! Screw private enterprise and voluntary investment!
        • asauterChicago, on 04/07/2008, -5/+4It's ironic that the very computer you type on, and the delivery system that the message has been sent (read: the internet) was developed by NASA and funded by "unwilling taxpayers".
          Investment in technology and education of it's citizens always makes global economic sense in the long. Somehow we've all forgotten that, and some people would like to take America a few steps backwards, so I guess we can be a little more like Mexico.
          • dougmc, on 04/07/2008, -3/+6If you're referring to DARPA who came up with TCP/IP, that was the DoD, not NASA.
            As for the computer he's using, probably not true either. NASA generally uses off the shelf computers rather than designing their own (though they might ask chipmakers to make chips or components to their specifications, but for the most part, they don't develop computers or computer components.)

            You probably think they made the astronaut pen too, right?
          • archiesteel, on 04/07/2008, -3/+3dougmc, whether it's NASA or DARPA, the original point still stands: it was funded by taxpayer money.
          • asauterChicago, on 04/07/2008, -2/+2The point is Dough that computing made huge leaps in the space race because NASA needed the equipment: http://www.computerhistory.org/timeline/?category= ... . These innovations, for guidance systems and satellite tracking have spurred future innovations in computing. Either way your point is moot, almost all early computer innovation came from goverment funding programs... from unwilling tax payers.

            Those of you digging him up are severly missing the point.
          • dougmc, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2My point is that these things you attributed to NASA -- WERE NOT DONE BY NASA.
            If you want to say they were funded by tax payer dollars, OK, that's closer to the truth, but even so, the government didn't develop our computers either.
            As for guidance systems and satellite tracking, these things can be done with minimal computing power. Yes, NASA does have some big honking computers and clusters and such, but they're not needed for the things you've mentioned -- and NASA didn't do *that* much to develop or further them for the rest of the world.

            Yes, NASA did pioneer many new technologies ... but you've chosen very poor examples, as one wasn't done by NASA at all (instead it was DARPA), and the other, well, it wasn't done by NASA either -- that was done by Intel, IBM, AMD, Motorola, Dell, Apple, whatever.
        • mikebaldwin67, on 04/07/2008, -0/+1Don't worry Mexico's working on it
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Space_Agency
      • Tyr7BE, on 04/07/2008, -0/+9There has to be some kind of incentive. Tourism is all well and good, but it's not going to pay the bills forever. We need to get started on remote mining. I guarantee if we can come up with cost-effective technologies to bring back minerals or gases from other planets/moons in our system, you'll see space technologies start lighting up at a ridiculous rate.
        • XBSHX, on 04/07/2008, -1/+4just tell bush there are terrorists on mars and they have a bunch of oil.
      • CaptMonkey, on 04/07/2008, -1/+10As excited as I was about Spaceship One's flight. The commercial space industry has a long way to go before it even catches up to the Mercury program. Spaceship One went to 100km... the thing is, they need to go over twice that high, just to make it into orbit. I won't even mention the hurtles for a private company to get to the Moon or Mars. There are some things the government is just better suited to do than the private sector, for the time being, space exploration is one of them.
        • fuhcough, on 04/07/2008, -4/+2the only reason the government is "better suited" for space exploration is because you're obligated by law to involuntarily fund NASA. next time you get your pay stub, look at the "Federal Withholding" amount and you'll see what I mean.

          And I wasn't inferring that tourism was the primary incentive for commercial efforts - it's merely a stepping stone to help fund the sector's growth (e.g., $250K spaceship tickets).
    • halobender, on 04/07/2008, -15/+7I didn't know Bush was big on space exploration.
      You made that up didn't you?
      • RevJonathan, on 04/07/2008, -6/+7You can thank the President for getting us back to the moon. He's been very big on it.
        • Gustomucho, on 04/07/2008, -4/+14No he hasn't. He is giving NASA pocket change and giving the war effort billion. Let's see, 17,3 billion vs 144 billion..

          The war effort in 5 years cost almost more than 50 years of NASA. Smoke that.
          • madpie, on 04/07/2008, -6/+1Then how come we have a base on the moon right at this moment? I think President Bush's moon program has been very successful, and you obviously don't know much about it. You probably haven't even read about the moonbeam harvesting program, which just shows how ignorant you are.
          • Gustomucho, on 04/07/2008, -1/+2Mankind has a base on the moon? Please tell me about it, how much structures? How many person are living on the moon and what are those names?

            Project Constellation is the only plan for man on the moon and mars right now. Moon by 2020 and Mars by 2030. Bring facts and we'll talk.
          • BoltonWanderers, on 04/07/2008, -1/+1I think he was being sarcastic, referring to RevJonathan's quote about us getting back to the moon... which we haven't.
          • grinchdec23, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1Ill see aliens before i see humans off to anywhere farther than the international space station.
          • madpie, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1Facts shmacks. This is the Internet. I deal in moonbeams.
        • PolishLogic, on 04/07/2008, -2/+3@Gustomucho

          So you're saying that NASA should receive more funding than a war? WTF is the point of comparing those two numbers? Why not just say "we throw 66 billion a year at a crappy education system"?
          • Gustomucho, on 04/07/2008, -2/+2"You can thank the President for getting us back to the moon. He's been very big on it."

            I am saying no, I say he's more interested in war and getting more oil than to invest in space exploration.

            BTW, it has nothing with this disscussion but 66 billion for the education system is good, but not when compared to the war effort. What's more important, getting your people educated or waging a war?

            When was the last time America was treatened by Iraq on the American ground? Yeah thats right NEVER. You went there and started a fight you won't finish, jacked up the price of oil because of the insecurity. Gave al quaida a better hold in Iraq. GWB just wanted to show his dad he could do it too. History will remember your actual president as the worst president in America so far. From the top country in almost every field you went down and down and down.
          • PolishLogic, on 04/08/2008, -2/+1American was only threatened by the British and Mexico on the ground, so by that logic we shouldn't have been involved in countless wars. However, I'd argue that some of those brought about good things (and Canada was involved in some of those same wars), and some didn't. You're not going to have a great outing every time. No nation has in the history of the world.

            As for "more interested in war and getting more oil than to invest in space exploration", show me one time in US history where more has been spent on space exploration than on defense (which is what funds a war). Since you're Canadian, I'm sure you might not have that much insight into US spending, so I'll answer that for you, if I may. It's never happened, I don't care who the president was.

            As for worst president ever, who knows how history will remember Bush 2. I think he'll be remembered as mediocre, but not horrible. However, at the time he was in office Franklin Roosevelt was considered a less than decent president, yet today he's viewed as one of the country's best.

            Only time will tell.
    • iloveliberals, on 04/07/2008, -7/+7This time around, it would be free, at least for us. Everything would be paid for with debt that would be repaid by people who haven't even been born yet.
      • dougmc, on 04/07/2008, -0/+2I'm pretty sure my children (already born) will be repaying this debt ...
        In fact, I suspect I'll be working on repaying this debt myself.
      • Fathom, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1lol market to market book keeping, just like enron
    • cawpin, on 04/07/2008, -7/+2Go Boilers!
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 04/07/2008, -10/+50Thanks to Bush, a lot of REAL research at NASA was scrapped -- some of it, like cataloging the Voyager transmissions, costs more to mothball than to keep going. As typical of their ham-fisted, "we know it all" approach, they just said "we are going to Mars" and everything else was pushed aside. This was like the Reagan "Star Wars" boondoggle, where lasers that don't work yet to shoot down missiles are developed over necessary things like transports.

      By and large, the weapons systems used in the Iraq wars, have been the "un sexy" equipment that was pushed by Carter and Clinton. The Reagan and Bush era weapons, are trotted out (like the Stealth Bomber) to safely blow up a power plant and then sent back for repairs. Things like the A-10, C5A, GPS over Laser-guided bombs. Does anyone hear about the "missile shield" or the Patriot Missile System without the words "promisng tests" in the first paragraph?

      The Mission to Mars, like so many ham-fisted, expensive and poorly implemented Bush programs (which usually requires a highly-placed political loyalist), won't spend much of the money until Bush is out of office. Just like the "African AIDs" program, it stole money from the Malaria programs, and then the bulk of the money is spent when Bush is out of office, so that he can crow about "Twenty Billion of love for AIDs victems in Africa" and spend the money on a no-bid contractor.

      The scientific endeavors of this administration have been under-funded, total shams. And money seems to only go to private contractors. I don't expect anything out of the mission to Mars and it should be scrapped until we can set up a real space platform either on the moon or in orbit. It will be a lot cheaper to get to Mars if we can build in space, and come up with better rocket systems. We have no business trying to do a 2-year space mission with humans right now -- it is idiotic.

      Yes we CAN do these things. But right now, with the Government-hating crooks we have, we can't even build a bridge that works. It will be 10 times the original quoted costs, and we will have some flunky explaining; "Well, we need to keep parts of this important work classified. And as to the cost over-runs, these things happen."

      I'm sorry for harping on the "Bush thing" all the time. But he is emblematic of everything that is failing (on purpose or accidentally -- who cares) in America. Failure is not inevitable. It happens when people have agendas and loyalties over dealing with the facts as they learn them and valuing people who are competent.
      • sharkd, on 04/07/2008, -0/+2While it is true that much of the unglamorous aeronautical research that has been a critical element of NASA's since the days of NACA, has been shelved by the Bush Administration, your weapon systems characterizations are wrong.

        The Have Blue/Senior Trend/F-117A and ATB/B-2A programs were both begun under the Carter Administration. LGBs were first used during the Nixon Administration, the C-5A began flying during the Johnson Administration, which also started the AX program that resulted in the A-10.

        Of course, the bigger picture is that the ISS will probably become unusable by 2012, given that the Solar Beta Rotary Joints are already at 80% of their design lifetime -- overused due to their prolonged placement atop the main truss assembly. Similarly, already one Solar Alfa Rotary Joint has failed, there's no way to replace it on-orbit without a new assembly being sent by Shuttle (which will be defunded in 2010) and it prevents the installation of the final array assembly, which will prevent a full complement of 6 crewmembers and the final portion of the Japanese Kibo module from ever arriving.
      • TypeEE, on 04/07/2008, -10/+2I always have the impression that it's pretty useless to go to space. What good achievement had been done in space that is beneficial to mankind?
        • DrWho520, on 04/07/2008, -1/+5Dude, TANG!?!
        • rderveloy, on 04/07/2008, -1/+20"What good achievement had been done in space that is beneficial to mankind?"
          Here are just a handful:

          (I apologize for the long comment, but I felt simply posting the link wouldn't have as much of an impact.)

          “Computer Technology - NASA Spinoffs

          GROUND PROCESSING SCHEDULING SYSTEM - Computer-based scheduling system that uses artificial intelligence to manage thousands of overlapping activities involved in launch preparations of NASA's Space Shuttles. The NASA technology was licensed to a new company which developed commercial applications that provide real-time planning and optimization of manufacturing operations, integrated supply chains, and customer orders.uu

          SEMICONDUCTOR CUBING - NASA initiative led to the Memory Short Stack, a three-dimensional semiconductor package in which dozens of integrated circuits are stacked one atop another to form a cube, offering faster computer processing speeds, higher levels of integration, lower power requirements than conventional chip sets, and dramatic reduction in the size and weight of memory-intensive systems, such as medical imaging devices.

          STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS - This NASA program, originally created for spacecraft design, has been employed in a broad array of non-aerospace applications, such as the automobile industry, manufacture of machine tools, and hardware designs.

          WINDOWS VISUAL NEWS READER (Win Vn) - Software program developed to support payload technical documentation at Kennedy Space Center, allowing the exchange of technical information among a large group of users. WinVn is an enabling technology product that provides countless people with Internet access otherwise beyond their grasp, and it was optimized for organizations that have direct Internet access.

          AIR QUALITY MONITOR - Utilizing a NASA-developed, advanced analytical technique software package, an air quality monitor system was created, capable of separating the various gases in bulk smokestack exhaust streams and determining the amount of individual gases present within the stream for compliance with smokestack emission standards.

          VIRTUAL REALITY - NASA-developed research allows a user, with assistance from advanced technology devices, to figuratively project oneself into a computer-generated environment, matching the user's head motion, and, when coupled with a stereo viewing device and appropriate software, creates a telepresence experience.

          Other spinoffs in this area include: Advanced keyboards, Customer Service Software, Database Management System, Laser Surveying, Aircraft controls, Lightweight Compact Disc, Expert System Software, Microcomputers, and Design Graphics.

          Consumer/Home/Recreation - NASA Spinoffs

          ENRICHED BABY FOOD - A microalgae-based, vegetable-like oil called Formulaid developed from NASA-sponsored research on long duration space travel, contains two essential fatty acids found in human milk but not in most baby formulas, believed to be important for infants' mental and visual development.

          WATER PURIFICATION SYSTEM - NASA-developed municipal-size water treatment system for developing nations, called the Regenerable Biocide Delivery Unit, uses iodine rather than chlorine to kill bacteria.

          SCRATCH-RESISTANT LENSES - A modified version of a dual ion beam bonding process developed by NASA involves coating the lenses with a film of diamond-like carbon that not only provides scratch resistance, but also decreases surface friction, reducing water spots.

          POOL PURIFICATION - Space technology designed to sterilize water on long-duration spacecraft applied to swimming pool purification led to a system that uses two silver-copper alloy electrodes that generate silver and copper ions when an electric current passes through them to kill bacteria and algae without chemicals.

          RIBBED SWIMSUIT - NASA-developed riblets applied to competition swimsuits resulted in flume testing of 10 to 15 percent faster speeds than any other world class swim-suit due to the small, barely visible grooves that reduce friction and aerodynamic drag by modifying the turbulent airflow next to the skin.

          GOLF BALL AERODYNAMICS - A recently designed golf ball, which has 500 dimples arranged in a pattern of 60 spherical triangles, employs NASA aerodynamics technology to create a more symmetrical ball surface, sustaining initial velocity longer and producing a more stable ball flight for better accuracy and distance.

          PORTABLE COOLERS/WARMERS - Based on a NASA-inspired space cooling system employing thermoelectric technology, the portable cooler/warmer plugs into the cigarette lighters of autos, recreational vehicles, boats, or motel outlets. Utilizes one or two miniaturized modules delivering the cooling power of a 10-pound block of ice and the heating power of up to 125 degrees Fahrenheit.

          SPORTS TRAINING - Space-developed cardio-muscular conditioner helps athletes increase muscular strength and cardiovascular fitness through kinetic exercise.

          ATHLETIC SHOES - Moon Boot material encapsulated in running shoe midsoles improve shock absorption and provides superior stability and motion control.

          Other spinoffs in this area include: Dustbuster, shock-absorbing helmets, home security systems, smoke detectors, flat panel televisions, high-density batteries, trash compactors, food packaging and freeze-dried technology, cool sportswear, sports bras, hair styling appliances, fogless ski goggles, self-adjusting sunglasses, composite golf clubs, hang gliders, art preservation, and quartz crystal timing equipment.

          Environmental and Resource Management - NASA Spinoffs

          MICROSPHERES - The first commercial products manufactured in orbit are tiny microspheres whose precise dimensions permit their use as reference standards for extremely accurate calibration of instruments in research and industrial laboratories. They are sold for applications in environmental control, medical research, and manufacturing.

          SOLAR ENERGY - NASA-pioneered photovoltaic power system for spacecraft applications was applied to programs to expand terrestrial applications as a viable alternative energy source in areas where no conventional power source exists.

          WEATHER FORECASTING AID - Space Shuttle environmental control technology led to the development of the Barorator which continuously measures the atmospheric pressure and calculates the instantaneous rate of change.

          FOREST MANAGEMENT - A NASA-initiated satellite scanning system monitors and maps forestation by detecting radiation reflected and emitted from trees.

          SENSORS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL - NASA development of an instrument for use in space life support research led to commercial development of a system to monitor an industrial process stream to assure that the effluent water's pH level is in compliance with environmental regulations.

          WIND MONITOR - Development of Jimsphere wind measurement balloon for space launches allows for making high resolution measurements of the wind profile for meteorological studies and predictions.

          TELEMETRY SYSTEMS - A spinoff company formed to commercialize NASA high-data-rate telemetry technology, manufactures a high-speed processing system for commercial communications applications.

          PLANT RESEARCH - NASA research on future moon and Mars bases is investigating using plants for food, oxygen, and water to reduce the need for outside supplies. This research utilizes Hydroponics (liquid nutrient solutions) instead of soil to support plant growth and finds applications for vegetable production on Earth.

          FIRE RESISTANT MATERIAL - Materials include chemically-treated fabric for sheets, uniforms for hazardous material handlers, crew's clothing, furniture, interior walls of submersibles and auto racer and refueler suits.

          RADIATION INSULATION - Aluminized polymer film is highly effective radiation barrier for both manned and unmanned spacecraft. Variations of this space-devised material are also used as an energy conservation technique for homes and offices. The materials are placed between wall studs and exterior facing before siding or between roof support and roof sheathing. The radiant barrier blocks 95% of radiant energy. Successful retrofit installations include schools and shrink wrap ovens.

          Other spinoffs in this area include: Whale identification method, environmental analysis, noise abatement, pollution measuring devices, pollution control devices, smokestack monitor, radioactive leak detector, earthquake prediction system, sewage treatment, energy saving air conditioning, and air purification.

          Health and Medicine - NASA Spinoffs

          DIGITAL IMAGING BREAST BIOPSY SYSTEM - The LORAD Stereo Guide Breast Biopsy system incorporates advanced Charge Coupled Devices (CCDs) as part of a digital camera system. The resulting device images breast tissue more clearly and efficiently. Known as stereotactic large-core needle biopsy, this nonsurgical system developed with Space Telescope Technology is less traumatic and greatly reduces the pain, scarring, radiation exposure, time, and money associated with surgical biopsies.

          BREAST CANCER DETECTION - A solar cell sensor is positioned directly beneath x-ray film, and determines exactly when film has received sufficient radiation and has been exposed to optimum density. Associated electronic equipment then sends a signal to cut off the x-ray source. Reduction of mammography x-ray exposure reduces radiation hazard and doubles the number of patient exams per machine.

          LASER ANGIOPLASTY - Laser angioplasty with a "cool" type of laser, caller an excimer laser, does not damage blood vessel walls and offers precise non-surgical cleanings of clogged arteries with extraordinary precision and fewer complications than in balloon angioplasty.

          ULTRASOUND SKIN DAMAGE ASSESSMENT - Advanced instrument using NASA ultrasound technology enables immediate assessment of burn damage depth, improving patient treatment, and may save lives in serious burn cases.

          HUMAN TISSUE STIMULATOR - Employing NASA satellite technology, the device is implanted in the body to help patient control chronic pain and involuntary motion disorders through electrical stimulation of targeted nerve centers or particular areas of the brain.

          COOL SUIT - Custom-made suit derived from space suits circulates coolant through tubes to lower patient's body/ temperature, producing dramatic improvement of symptoms of multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, spina bifida and other conditions.

          PROGRAMMABLE PACEMAKER - Incorporating multiple NASA technologies, the system consists of the implant and a physician's computer console containing the programming and a data printer. Communicates through wireless telemetry signals.

          OCULAR SCREENING - NASA image processing techniques are used to detect eye problems in very young children. An electronic flash from a 35-millimeter camera sends light into the child's eyes, and a photorefractor analyzes the retinal reflexes, producing an image of each eye.

          AUTOMATED URINALYSIS - NASA fluid dynamics studies helped development of system that automatically extracts and transfers sediment from urine sample to an analyzer microscope, replacing the manual centrifuge method.

          MEDICAL GAS ANALYZER - Astronaut-monitoring technology used to develop system to monitor operating rooms for analysis of anesthetic gasses and measurement of oxygen, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen concentrations to assure proper breathing environment for surgery patients.

          VOICE-CONTROLLED WHEELCHAIR - NASA teleoperator and robot technology used to develop chair and manipulator that respond to 35 one-word voice commands utilizing a minicomputer to help patient perform daily tasks, like picking up packages, opening doors, and turning on appliances.

          Other spinoffs in this area include: Arteriosclerosis detection, ultrasound scanners, automatic insulin pump, portable x-ray device, invisible braces, dental arch wire, palate surgery technology, clean room apparel, implantable heart aid, MRI, bone analyzer, and cataract surgery tools.

          Industrial Productivity/Manufacturing Technology - NASA Spinoffs

          MAGNETIC LIQUIDS - Based on the NASA-developed ferrofluid concept involving synthetic fluids that can be positioned and controlled by magnetic force, the ferrofluidic seal was initially applied in a zero-leakage, nonwearing seal for the rotating shaft of a system used to make semiconductor chips, solving a persistent problem‹contamination due to leaking seals.

          WELDING SENSOR SYSTEM - Laser-based automated welder for industrial use incorporates a laser sensor system originally designed for Space Shuttle External Tank to track the seam where two pieces of metal are to be joined, measures gaps and minute misfits, and automatically corrects the welding torch distance and height.

          MICROLASERS - Based on a concept for optical communications over interplanetary distances, microlasers were developed for the commercial market to transmit communication signals and to drill, cut, or melt materials.

          MAGNETIC BEARING SYSTEM - Bearings developed from Space Shuttle designs support moving machinery without physical contact, permitting motion without friction or wear, and are now used in electric power generation, petroleum refining, machine tool operation, and natural gas pipelines.

          ENGINE LUBRICANT - A NASA-developed plasma-sprayed coating is used to coat valves in a new, ten-inch-long, four-cylinder rotary engine, eliminating the need for lubricating the rotorcam, which has no crankshaft, flywheel, distributor, or
          • TypeEE, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2Aren't they all from earth? They could have achieved all of the above without human in space, right?
          • rderveloy, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2Aren't they all from earth? They could have achieved all of the above without human in space, right?

            It is unreasonable to speculate on alternative realities. It would be like asking, "Would we have invented the atomic bomb if we never went to war with Japan?"

            Yes, it is quite possible that these would have eventually been produced without the space program, but because of the program, we got them sooner rather than later.

            If you want to be taken seriously, it is generally a bad idea to use hypothetical suppositions to base your arguments on.
            See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_probability
            Additionally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
        • Zernhelt, on 04/07/2008, -2/+2I don't know if it's the best source, but it's the first to come up on google. Here's a list of technologies developed by NASA.

          http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

          Also, these space programs create a lot of jobs not only within NASA, but also within the contractors that are building the components (like Boeing and Lockheed-Martin).
        • staffa, on 04/07/2008, -1/+2If a speck of dust were to represent Earth and the sole home to all that mankind has ever accomplished, on that scale the nearest star is still billions of miles away. Our galaxy is 25,000 times larger then the distance between our sun and its nearest neighbor. The universe that we can see is a million times larger then our galaxy, the actual size of the Universe is totally unknown.

          If you believe in God, whats the point of such a staggeringly large Universe if not for us to explore and to someday visit.
          If you don't believe in God, there is still a staggeringly large Universe out there for us to explore and to someday visit.

          We will never get there if we are to timid to put our dinghy in the shallow water that is our solar system.

          And to not sound to grandiose, but when life ends here on Earth, and it most certainly will (the sun has an expiration date) the benefit that all this space stuff will have is the continued existence of mankind.

          But to answer the question you were actually asking, go here
          http://techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/at_home.html

        • rderveloy, on 04/07/2008, -1/+4my reply continued...

          ENGINE LUBRICANT - A NASA-developed plasma-sprayed coating is used to coat valves in a new, ten-inch-long, four-cylinder rotary engine, eliminating the need for lubricating the rotorcam, which has no crankshaft, flywheel, distributor, or water pump.

          INTERACTIVE COMPUTER TRAINING - Known as Interactive Multimedia Training (IMT), originally developed to train astronauts and space operations personnel, now utilized by the commercial sector to train new employees and upgrade worker skills, using a computer system that engages all the senses, including text, video, animation, voice, sounds, and music.

          HIGH-PRESSURE WATERSTRIPPING - Technology developed for preparing Space Shuttle solid rocket boosters first evolved into the U.S. Air Force's Large Aircraft Robotic Paint Stripping (LARPS) system, and now used in the commercial airline industry, where the waterjet processing reduces coating removal time by 90 percent, using only water at ultra-high pressures up to 55,000 psi.

          ADVANCED WELDING TORCH - Based on the Variable Polarity Plasma Arc welding technology, a handheld torch originally developed for joining light alloys used in NASA's External Tank, is now used by major appliance manufacturers for sheet metal welding.

          Other spinoffs in this area include: Gasoline vapor recovery, self-locking fasteners, machine tool software, laser wire stripper, lubricant coating process, wireless communications, engine coatings, and engine design.

          Public Safety - NASA Spinoffs

          RADIATION HAZARD DETECTOR - NASA technology has made commercially available new, inexpensive, conveniently carried device for protection of people exposed to potentially dangerous levels of microwave radiation. Weighing only 4 ounces and about the size of a cigarette pack, it can be carried in a shirt pocket or clipped to a belt. Unit sounds an audible alarm when microwave radiation reaches a preset level.

          EMERGENCY RESPONSE ROBOT - Remotely-operated robot reduces human injury levels by performing hazardous tasks that would otherwise be handled by humans.

          PERSONAL ALARM SYSTEM - Pen-sized ultrasonic transmitter used by prison guards, teachers, the elderly, and disabled to call for help is based on space telemetry technology. Pen transmits a silent signal to receiver that will display the exact location of the emergency.

          EMERGENCY RESCUE CUTTERS - Lightweight cutters for freeing accident victims from wreckage developed using NASA pyrotechnic technology.

          FIREMAN'S AIR TANKS - Lighter-weight firefighter's air tanks have been developed. New back-pack system weighs only 20 lbs. for 30 minute air supply, 13 lbs. less than conventional firefighting tanks. They are pressurized at 4,500 psia (twice current tanks). A warning device tells the fireman when he or she is running out of air.

          PERSONAL STORM WARNING SYSTEM - Lightning detector gives 30-minute warning to golfers, boaters, homeowners, business owners, and private pilots.

          SELF-RIGHTING LIFE RAFT - Developed for the Apollo program, fully inflates in 12 seconds and protects lives during extremely adverse weather conditions with self-righting and gravity compensation features.

          Other spinoffs in this area include: Storm warning services (Doppler radar), firefighters' radios, lead poison detection, fire detector, flame detector, corrosion protection coating, protective clothing, and robotic hands.

          Transportation - NASA Spinoffs

          STUDLESS WINTER TIRES - Viking Lander parachute shroud material is adapted and used to manufacture radial tires, increasing the tire material's chainlike molecular structure to five times the strength of steel should increase tread life by 10,000 miles.

          BETTER BRAKES - New, high-temperature composite space materials provide for better brake linings. Applications includes trucks, industrial equipment and passenger cars.

          TOLLBOOTH PURIFICATION - A laminar airflow technique used in NASA clean rooms for contamination-free assembly of space equipment is used at tollbooths on bridges and turnpikes to decrease the toll collector's inhalation of exhaust fumes.

          WEIGHT SAVING TECHNOLOGY - NASA research on composite materials is used to achieve a 30-percent weight reduction in a twin-turbine helicopter, resulting in a substantial increase in aircraft performance.

          IMPROVED AIRCRAFT ENGINE - Multiple NASA developed technological advancements resulted in a cleaner, quieter, more economical commercial aircraft engine known as the high bypass turbofan, featuring a 10-percent reduction in fuel consumption, lower noise levels, and emission reductions of oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, and unburned hydrocarbons.

          ADVANCED LUBRICANTS - An environmental-friendly lubricant designed to support the Space Shuttle Mobile Launcher Platform led to the development of three commercial lubricants for railroad track maintenance, for electric power company corrosion prevention, and as a hydraulic fluid with an oxidation life of 10,000 hours.

          ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM - The Flywheel Energy Storage system, derived from two NASA-sponsored energy storage studies, is a chemical-free, mechanical battery that harnesses the energy of a rapidly spinning wheel and stores it as electricity with 50 times the capacity of a lead-acid battery, very useful for electric vehicles.

          NEW WING DESIGN FOR CORPORATE JETS - NASA-developed computer programs resulted in an advanced, lighter, more aerodynamically-efficient new wing for Gulfstream business aircraft.

          AIDS TO SCHOOL BUS DESIGN - Manufacturer uses three separate NASA-developed technologies originally developed for aviation and space use in their design and testing of a new school bus chassis. These technologies are a structural analysis computer program infrared stress measurement system, and a ride quality meter system.

          Other spinoffs in this area include: Safer bridges, emission testing, airline wheelchairs, electric car, auto design, methane-powered vehicles, windshear prediction, and aircraft design analysis.”


          From: http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

          Not to mention the benefits to science the space program has provided.
        • designerutah, on 04/07/2008, -1/+0Too many to list actually. Better question to ask is this. When has funding high tech researc
        • jjb123, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1How about our species needs to keep advancing our technology and pushing the envelope or we will eventually die out.
      • iamthenoise, on 04/07/2008, -1/+1its called velcro.
    • kss42, on 04/07/2008, -0/+6Does anyone know what (if anything) the current candidates have said about their space program plans? Wikipedia has one sentence in Obama's position page (it says he'll cut NASA's funding) and nothing at all on Clinton or McCain. I'd be interested to hear from someone who knows more about where NASA would be under one of the potential next presidents.
      • th3heretic, on 04/07/2008, -0/+4Obama plans on cutting the budget further, unfortunately. http://www.google.com/search?q=Obama+space+program ...
      • BoltonWanderers, on 04/07/2008, -4/+2Obama will have to temporarily cut what the majority of politicians see as "excess" spending in order to pull this country out the the hole we have dug for ourselves over the past eight years... Sucks.
        • mooseontheloose, on 04/07/2008, -0/+8Whew, good thing he's scrapping that gigantic .025% of the budget - that's what's killing us, not the 50% spent on the war in Iraq and other useless *****.
          • netant, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1No, he will probably torpedo the money going for a new Moon/Mars program initiated under Bush. If you cared about space sciences, you should have fought the Iraq war or the Bush re-election harder.
      • maybeishould, on 04/08/2008, -0/+6I have researched this topic quite a bit (candidates views on the space program). Barack Obama wants to cut a huge chunk of money out of Project Constellation. I'm definitely not a fan of that.

        From the Hillary for President website:

        "Hillary will enhance American leadership in space, including:

        * Pursuing an ambitious 21st century Space Exploration Program, by implementing a balanced strategy of robust human spaceflight, expanded robotic spaceflight, and enhanced space science activities."

        From McCain's website:

        "John McCain is a strong supporter of NASA and the space program."
        • netant, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1America is a country packed with idiots demanding to spend for things they can't afford. "I want to invade Iraq", "I want the rich people to get tax cuts", "I want an anti-missle defense system", "I want to go to Mars, like my grandpa's generation did in '69"

          When this country is in an economic depression, and 1 out 10 people can't get any kind of job, when you have to worry about starving, or losing your life's savings, when are you going to realize a manned space program is too expensive? If you want to support a manned mission to Mars, TAKE CARE OF YOUR ACT ON EARTH FIRST!
        • farfegnugen, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2As an Obama supporter, this pains me, because when I get out of college in a few years, I want to work in the Aerospace industry. Budget cuts do not sound like they will help that goal of mine =
    • Terh, on 04/07/2008, -0/+0http://www.toothpastefordinner.com/040708/shoulda- ...
    • BlazinEurasian, on 04/07/2008, -0/+5You can't count on the government for space exploration. When it becomes cheap enough, and when resources are found off earth, corporate business will git-r-done.
      • maybeishould, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Resources have been found off-Earth. The average half-mile wide asteroid is worth nearly $20 trillion in metals and minerals.
        • thepatster, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1That's pretty big. How much would it cost to extract those minerals though?
        • maybeishould, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Probably a few hundred million to set up a mining station on or around an asteroid.
          • BlazinEurasian, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1Try a couple hundred billion. Why hasn't this been done then?
    • maybeishould, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3Barack Obama wants to cut NASA's Project Constellation for at least 5 years and use the money to fund an education program. Not cool.
  • coachmcguirk, on 04/07/2008, -4/+167They could make the astronauts play Doom to get them prepped for the trip.
    Brass knuckles are standard issue for Mars..
    • DrDragun, on 04/07/2008, -1/+45Yeah NASA really needs to consult John Romero before going on this trip. Drums of toxic waste that explode in 1 pistol shot should be stacked near any spots on Mars where a demon portal might form. Make sure everyone has a chainsaw.
    • nominalgeek, on 04/07/2008, -4/+4Don't forget the duct tape mod!
    • abuelos84, on 04/07/2008, -0/+4And never forget to bring a damn BFG!
    • 4d669, on 04/07/2008, -0/+22It's ok. According to Doom there's a ***** of health every 20 feet you travel in Mars. Lots of high tech ammo and guns too.
    • pk7677, on 04/07/2008, -0/+1Don't forget them flash lights.
    • Wacer, on 04/07/2008, -0/+5iddqd
  • p51d007, on 04/07/2008, -30/+11If there is MONEY in it, let private companies do it. I was a HUGE fan of NASA from its beginning, but, today they are nothing more than another government bureaucracy that can't add 1+1 and get two, without endless meetings, and wasting TONS of money.
    • stellarceltic, on 04/07/2008, -2/+18Ah yes... because SPACE EXPLORATION is as simple as adding 1 and 1....
      • theragu40, on 04/07/2008, -1/+11Psssh. It's not like you have to be a rocket scie....wait, yeah you do.
      • freewheeling, on 04/07/2008, -1/+2Who implied space exploration is as simple as adding one plus one? The poster merely stated the government incompetence involved in solving simple problems, much less something comlex as space travel.
        • erkokite, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1They got us to the moon, didn't they?
    • atbnet, on 04/07/2008, -0/+10Private enterprise just got into space. Unless there is huge profit involved, it isn't going to be easy to raise the funds to get to Mars.
    • roodammy44, on 04/07/2008, -0/+6Capitalism doesn't often provide the vision or money for epic projects.
      When you want to plan something so big that it requires national planning and maybe even a couple of laws passed to do it, only governmental action would work.
      The cash benefits of going to the moon were small, but in hindsight a lot of the technologies invented for it have created a lot of wealth.
      Besides, the money is better spent going to different planets on a voyage of discovery than blowing other countries up.
    • smartass007, on 04/07/2008, -6/+1i don't know why everyone is digging you down. government is corrupt and wasteful. how many truckloads of pork must be doled out to constituencies where the space industries are based before two metal plates will be allowed to be welded together?

      private enterprise is the way to go...with minimal government oversight.
    • Spartyon, on 04/07/2008, -0/+4im sure you know all about the ***** endless meetings, idiot.
  • 360news, on 04/07/2008, -3/+77Get on with it then!
    Im not getting any younger...
    • wertach, on 04/07/2008, -0/+5I hope to see it in my lifetime. They need to hurry up, I'm getting old!
    • biotch, on 04/07/2008, -0/+2"they won’t be ready until 2015."

      "The decision to dismantle Apollo and to cancel possible future trips to places like Mars was made during the Nixon era."

      "During the 1960s, 4 percent of the entire national budget was spent on space. Today one-sixth of 1 percent goes to NASA. "

      Just so you know who to thank for the long wait.
  • sdm011, on 04/07/2008, -10/+64It would be a lot quicker and easier if we axed the return trip.
    • nekochan, on 04/07/2008, -0/+37then i nominate you to go. congratulations!
      • grimward, on 04/07/2008, -1/+21Hey, if the opportunity presented itself, I'd go with those circumstances.
        • SpectralSounds, on 04/07/2008, -0/+18Oddly enough, I think maybe a lot of people would go without the return trip. I would have said I'd go without hesitation before my daughter was born. Now, I wouldn't be so sure about that.
          • netant, on 04/08/2008, -2/+1Wow, I feel sorry your daughter has you for a dad. Someone actually stupid enough to consider a guaranteed 1 way trip.
        • slightlygifted, on 04/07/2008, -0/+9i'd go. you'd be immortalized in the history books and known as a hero for as long as humans exist.
    • Gustomucho, on 04/07/2008, -4/+24I know, but the American people isn't ready for sacrifice of intellectual for science. Sending thousands of military fight a war, for no reason OK, sending 2 astronauts on Mars with little hope of ever seeing em back : not ok.
      • erasedgod, on 04/07/2008, -1/+13Hell, I'm a Marine. I'll volunteer. It's the best of both worlds (so to speak).
        • tyywebb, on 04/07/2008, -1/+16A Marine would be the perfect candidate for a Mars mission. Just don't forget your shotgun.
        • stroszek, on 04/07/2008, -5/+7Also don't forget a puppy.
          • plaidcar, on 04/07/2008, -0/+15Also, don't forget to bring a towel.
          • MrSlumberjack, on 04/07/2008, -2/+4There IS a five mile deep canyon on Mars...
        • wonderworm, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1No Volunteers?...............Easy. Just catch a suicide bomber and then convince him that the 72 virgins are on Mars waiting for him.
    • TypeEE, on 04/07/2008, -14/+5Send muslim astronauts over and tell them Allah is waiting for them in Mars.
      • theycallmebubba, on 04/08/2008, -1/+2No, you have to tell them there are INFIDELS on mars.
      • EwMo, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2How about using "Jihadists" instead of "Muslims?" Real Muslims are peaceful people.
    • jezsik, on 04/07/2008, -1/+4Right you are! I'm all for exploring Mars, but opposed wasting untold millions on a life-support system. Robots do a pretty good job of exploring. Instead of a few humans, let's send a few score robots who can work 24 hours a day. While we're at it, let's have some missions to the asteroid belt. If there's money to be made in space, THAT's the place!
      • hexydes, on 04/07/2008, -0/+6Did you watch the part of the video where they explained how a human can do a job in minutes that it takes all day for a robot to do? If not, you should, and if so...then I don't know. Watch it again.

        It's nice to think and pretend that we have these walking and thinking automatons that can run ten miles, pick up a rock, saw it in half, lick it, and tell us all about it. In reality, our robot is a glorified bomb defuser that can travel 2mph tops and can't do much more than poke and prod at a rock and tell us about its basic chemical makeup.

        People like to argue all the time whether it is better to pursue a manned or un-manned approach to space exploration, but the reality of the situation is that they go hand-in-hand. We sent robots (in the form of satellites) first, simply to see if we could put something up in space. Then we sent humans, to see if we could successfully put a human into space. Then we sent more robotics to the moon. Then humans. We've now sent robots to Mars, and found that there are a lot of interesting things to learn there. Now it's time to send the humans.

        When thinking about space, the end-goal is to someday conquer it in no less a way than we did the land, then the sea, and finally the air. People that only want to send un-manned exploration robots to space would be equivalent to someone who simply wanted to use telescopes to look out over the ocean, learn what you can, and then call it "explored".

        The Earth will not last forever. Whether you want to predict its downfall in ten years, a thousand years, a million years, or multiple billion years, it is inevitable. Someday, we will need to move on. The popular argument there is that technology will be better in the future, so lets wait, but you forget that the most important part in that equation is the initially groundwork done so that space travel for humans does become "easy". And you don't do that by having an unmanned-only presence in space.
      • SpectralSounds, on 04/07/2008, -0/+2Great idea! While we're at it.. Why don't we make a robot who can do my job? I'll buy it and sit it here at my desk. Then I can just sit on my ass playing XBox Live all day while the direct deposits roll in.

        Robots can't do everything humans can do... Maybe someday, but that day isn't today or even a decade from today.
        • slightlygifted, on 04/07/2008, -0/+1i wonder if they could play xbox live in space...........at least you wouldnt be bored. unless you got the rrod i guess.
      • rderveloy, on 04/07/2008, -1/+2"Robots do a pretty good job of exploring."

        FTA: "But what rovers can do in a day, humans could do in a minute.” Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/04/60minute ...

        There are roughly 546 days in 18 months. (52weeks/12months) * (18months) * (7days/week) = 546 days)

        There are 1440 minutes in 1 day, so, theoretically, an astronaut would be 1,440 times more effective than a robot in a single day alone. Obviously, the human and the robot can't operate for 24 continuous hours. So, for the sake of argument, lets say 8 hours max each.

        So...
        Astronaut: 1day/1440units vs. Robot: 1 day /1unit

        8 hours is 1/3 of a day, so 1440units * 1/3days vs. 1 unit * 1/3days =
        480 units vs. 1/3 units per day

        So, in total productivity for 18 months of 8 hour days:
        546 days * 480 units/day vs. 546 days * (1/3)units/day =
        262,080 units vs. 182 units

        The astronaut is (262,080)/(182) = 1,440 times more effective than a robot.

        “I'm all for exploring Mars, but opposed wasting untold millions on a life-support system.”

        So lets talk budget:
        Cost of spirit and opportunity program: $820 million Source: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2008-03 ...
        Projected cost of mars program: $40 to $80 billion. Source: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4551.html

        Price per unit of productivity:
        Astronaut $40,000,000,000 / 262,080 units ≈ $152,625.15 per unit
        Astronaut $80,000,000,000 / 262,080 units ≈ $305,250.30 per unit
        Robot program: $820 million / 182 units ≈ $4,505,494 per unit

        Even at 80 billion dollars, the cost per unit of productivity for an Astronaut is $4,505,494 / $152,625.15 ≈ 14.75 times CHEAPER than a robot.

        So, even though the total cost is higher, the amount of money your spending is being wasted on robots. Humans, it turns out, are a much more efficient use of time AND money.

        Given, there are a lot of assumptions here, like assuming the robots will be turned off or will wear out by the end of 18 months. However, you also have to look at the intangibles of a manned spaceflight…

        A manned spaceflight will…
        1) inspire innovation and bring people together.
        2) lead to technological advances that will make life better here on earth.
        3) encourage children to study math, science, and engineering.
        4) be friggin’ cool!
        5) be done at less than 1/11th the cost of the Iraq war.

        I don’t think the question is weather or not we can afford to send a manned mission to mars, I think it’s weather or not we can afford not to.
        • Dantetheinferno, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1tl;dr

          robots aren't as good as humans.
      • psevium, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1*blinks*
    • bwmack, on 04/07/2008, -1/+14Tell Bush and Cheney there's oil on Mars and I bet and we'll get there and back before the end of June.
    • Ragarnok, on 04/07/2008, -1/+1And how the hell are they supposed to bring back mutant alien-like lifeforms if they don't come back??geez don't you watch sci-fi movies????
    • hollyminkowski, on 04/07/2008, -0/+1I bet Robert Zubrin would go.
      I suppose we could do low-budget launches to deliver packages of supplies to a Mars landing spot.
      Then after the supplies are there to support a single astronaut we send him on a one-way trip.
      He could set up a small habitat that recycled its own air and water using plant respiration.
      If they 'bounced' the astronaut in like they did the rovers then the landing craft could be very minimal and cheap.
      But if he landed too far away from the supplies to walk to them he would be toast.

      If the ISS wasn't so flimsy maybe we could attach boosters to it and send it to mars and place it in orbit there as a sort of orbiting oasis to support Mars operations.
      • netant, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Holly, please tell me you're a 12 year old girl, who has no clue about the space program.

        The difficulty is not merely getting there and back. (Which will take roughly 1 year each way at an advantageous time of year.) The difficulty is surviving the sun's solar flares that will hit your craft (and other unforseen disasters). Also, for some "silly" reason, we care that the astronaut will be physically functional at the end of the return trip. We've never kept a person in space for the length of time needed to complete a Mars trip (minimum 3 years).

        I don't care what you lying stupid jerks out there claim. Going to Mars will be an expensive stunt with VERY minimal scientific value. Its a jobs program for the space-related academia. I'd be all for investing in it, WHEN THE US GETS ITS HOUSE IN ORDER. You clueless jerks don't realize the country is too BROKE to do it. When we're out of Iraq, done something about the banks' and wall street's financial stability, paid off the debt, jettison Social Security, tell the soccer moms to go f**k themselves, they can't drive an SUV and have the gov't subsidize poor people, tell the rich and the corporations to go f**k themselves, they're paying off debt, abandon being the World's Policeman, and let it be run by China, THEN we can talk about a manned mission to Mars program.

        And btw, the only way to "credibly" do this stunt? Have 10 people lined up to go it alone for three years, like Robinson Crusoe. Each person will have been selected from a pool of 100 to 1000 testees, who will have lived in an isolation room for three years, never leaving it, and never communicating to anyone, except by intercom, eat only baby food, and access to a game console, video library, and the Library of Congress on DVDs. If they can do that, without going nuts, and are willing to do that again, for another 3 years, and come back crippled, then yes, they can go to Mars. Pick the first 3, shoot them out once a year. At some point, statistically, someone will survive the trip. (BTW, I KNOW I could do that. I can barely stand other people)
        • Noein, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1Well it takes a year to get to Mars, but once you are there, there will be some gravity, so it won't be as bad right?
  • cliffshoals, on 04/07/2008, -32/+7Gee wiz...mortgage crisis and the economy in the toilet. Priorities? Come on guys, lets keep our eyes on the ball.
    • Velnich, on 04/07/2008, -4/+23What larger priority could there be than expanding the human race's existence beyond this planet? The economy is a triviality compared to that aside from where it might interfere with that goal.
      • mdcraig62, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1have we done such a great job with this one that we need to move out? It's not necessary while we have kids that can't read, people who are hungry...etc.
        • Velnich, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Humanity is toast if this planet becomes unlivable (from our own doing or external influence). As a species, it should be our goal to ensure our survival when that happens. Seeing as we don't know when that day will come, any time now would be a good time to be ready.

          If you have some moral hang up over whether or not we "deserve" to survive, that's another matter.
    • fracktica, on 04/07/2008, -1/+2415 cents per day is all the space program costs US tax payers. Compare that to the war - whether you agree with it or not - and NASA looks like the homeless guy in line at the soup kitchen.
      • surKaz, on 04/07/2008, -0/+2You mean THAT GUY?.. Always asking me for change..
      • altinnovation, on 04/07/2008, -1/+4Imagine each taxpayer pays 2 dollars a day for NASA.... Maybe... we could be on mars by 2017
        • supras, on 04/07/2008, -0/+3Since when did long term goals matter to humanity?
        • Indierocka, on 04/07/2008, -4/+2I really don't care about going to mars enough to give NASA $730 a year.
    • Indierocka, on 04/07/2008, -7/+3I agree. I would much rather see improvements to this planet first. What are we going to do there? Put a flag down kick some dust and come back, like we did on the moon? No Thanks.
    • Osiriscky3, on 04/07/2008, -0/+2everyone hitch a ride on the trolls back so we can go get tasty ice cream cones
    • metalmilitia430, on 04/07/2008, -0/+1Prevort
  • shadow66142000, on 04/07/2008, -14/+2Seriously...in what science fiction movie has it taken 2 and half years to get mars?
  • Kristijan12, on 04/07/2008, -14/+0This is absolutely GREAT news!
    I, nobody expected it any time soon excellent
  • insomniacal, on 04/07/2008, -46/+8Bush is evil. Mars is a waste. Get back to issues that matter.
    • SpykerSpeed, on 04/07/2008, -12/+1LEAVE MARS ALONE! LEAVE HER ALONE! *sob* ~NASA fanboys on Digg.
    • RevJonathan, on 04/07/2008, -2/+14Don't expect to get diggs just because you led that off with "Bush is evil"
      • insomniacal, on 04/07/2008, -2/+1Actually, I was attempting to get people to recognize that not _everything_ Bush does is evil. The -16 diggs that comment earned makes me suspect I succeeded. Mars was Bush's goal, after all -- and he received ample criticism for it at the time. So any pro-Mars sentiments now should be rightly attributed to him.
        Not to support Bush. We're all complex beings, is all. Not one of us is totally wrong.
        • fakekevinrose, on 04/07/2008, -2/+1KILL YOURSELF
          • insomniacal, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Wow, do you have issues. I'm truly sorry to hear that. Many forms of help are available -- start with your doctor and see what s/he recommends.
        • insomniacal, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1-31 diggs and counting -- one of my more successful reverse-psychology comments. Thank you, all.

          (And for the record, I _do_ support Mars exploration.)
  • Kristijan12, on 04/07/2008, -10/+1Absolutely great news!
    I didn't expect that anytime soon!
  • killdashnine, on 04/07/2008, -9/+53I hate to say that but for NASA, going back and setting up permanent shop on the Moon is probably the much wiser idea right now. Building an autonomous and sustainable facility on the Moon, near resources that could be used to build further launch platforms and fuel them, would be better than blowing a ton on Mars quite yet. If you think about it, launching from the Moon would probably get costs down tremendously.

    That may be part of the plan, but who knows ...

    As for private industry, they'll be mining Near-Earth asteroids for gold!
    • theragu40, on 04/07/2008, -0/+21It *is* part of the plan. Did you read any of the article or watch the video?
    • nominalgeek, on 04/07/2008, -1/+9It's called RTFA
    • Gustomucho, on 04/07/2008, -2/+4Mining gold in space is a waste, Helium 3 is what you want. Guess where there are lots of it?
      • AsgardsAvenger, on 04/07/2008, -0/+14Balloons?
        • bphicke, on 04/07/2008, -1/+1The moon
        • SatansSpatula, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1@bphicke - why, that's ridiculous! The moon is only about the size of a quarter, by my estimates!
      • B1663r, on 04/07/2008, -0/+7Yes because we are running out of Helium 3 for our fusion reactors...
        • designerutah, on 04/07/2008, -1/+1No, because establishing a cheap Helium 3 source could be very helpful.
      • plaidcar, on 04/07/2008, -0/+1Space?
      • hexydes, on 04/07/2008, -1/+3That tank in the party store down the street about two blocks? It's on the left, just past the light, where...you know? I'll just walk you there.
    • roodammy44, on 04/07/2008, -0/+7thar's gold in them thar asteroids
    • Dmanaway, on 04/07/2008, -0/+0Yeah sure, they do it in Mass Effect.
  • DCGaymer, on 04/07/2008, -4/+30Mars Direct here we come. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct . The discovery channel has been running a piece about the mission for a while now. At only 55 billion spread over 10 year's it sounds pretty feasible. Considering how much we spend on foreign wars...it seems like a tiny amount to me.
    • B1663r, on 04/07/2008, -20/+3Sounds like a huge amount of money for a very marginal benefit to me.
      • TekTrixter, on 04/07/2008, -2/+14"Since, in the long run, every planetary civilization will be endangered by impacts from space, every surviving civilization is obliged to become spacefaring--not because of exploratory or romantic zeal, but for the most practical reason imaginable: staying alive... If our long-term survival is at stake, we have a basic responsibility to our species to venture to other worlds."
        Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot, 1994
        • B1663r, on 04/07/2008, -8/+2So four guys living in a aluminum can on mars for 2.5 years, 30 year from now, is gonna be the saviour of humanity?

          Look Im not against it, I just want some marginal benefit, and the salvation of human kind is not what nasa is doing. They are putting monkeys in a can and shooting them into space. That is neither science nor exploration.
        • InfamousAtheist, on 04/07/2008, -2/+2Yes, it is science and it is also exploration. What the ***** do you want them to do, box the whole planet up and bring it back?
      • Gustomucho, on 04/07/2008, -1/+23War in Iraq : 519 billion
        Sounds like a huge amount of money for a very marginal benefit to me
      • roodammy44, on 04/07/2008, -1/+4You must have a very limited world view then.
      • nominalgeek, on 04/07/2008, -1/+1In the book Case for Mars, Robert Zubrin makes the economic argument for Mars as well. Such manufacture and shipping of at first raw materials then later processed goods.

        I also believe he makes and proves the point that it's actually cheaper to ship to the earth from mars then the moon.
      • abuelos84, on 04/07/2008, -3/+3O! The Stupid people, driven only by stupid economic benefits! O! My Heart Aches!
  • Beanstudd2, on 04/07/2008, -20/+2good luck finding an astronaut crazy enough to do this
    • TekTrixter, on 04/07/2008, -0/+22I'll be in a long line of people volunteering if they ever need astronauts for Mars
      • surKaz, on 04/07/2008, -0/+7I'll be the guy at start of the line.
      • altinnovation, on 04/07/2008, -0/+10When you have people camping in line for 5 days for a video game console, I'm sure there will be volunteers to go to Mars.
    • Sinnic, on 04/07/2008, -0/+15There are going to be a hundred times more signing up than they'll be able to send. Just because you don't want your name in the history books doesn't mean others aren't full of ambition.
      • SpectralSounds, on 04/07/2008, -0/+5***** the history books. I wouldn't go for fame or recognition. I'd go because it is something I really want to experience.
    • roodammy44, on 04/07/2008, -0/+9I'll do it.
    • zzyul, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1"That’s why no-one will remember your name." Brad Pitt as Achilles in Troy
  • shujin, on 04/07/2008, -14/+13Colonize the moon now, worry about mars later.
    • tont0r, on 04/07/2008, -0/+14Congrats. You didnt read the article.

      "To make it scientific fact, the United States needs to first flex its deep space muscles again on familiar terrain - the moon. "
      "The United States is once again aiming to launch astronauts to the moon and yes, even, to Mars. "
    • TVarmy, on 04/07/2008, -1/+2I dunno. I could see starting a base there for research and collecting valuable minerals from the moon's soil, but not a full blown colony. Wouldn't it be cheaper and more profitable to start one in say, the Sahara Desert?
  • Angostura, on 04/07/2008, -17/+8"the most difficult mission ever attempted by the human race".

    Err, no... that would be turning around our use of Earth's resources to avoid destruction of the eco-system.
  • Chaoticfist, on 04/07/2008, -6/+226I dont know about you guys but i would rather see trillions of dollars going to pushing humans to mars and other solar systems than here on earth blowing up brown people in the middle east.
    • altinnovation, on 04/07/2008, -1/+29I agree. If we chose to spend all of our war money on space exploration, we would have had permanent bases on Pluto by now.
      • supras, on 04/07/2008, -0/+1Your making me salivate. If we could cut defense expenditures by half, we could be shipping bus loads to the Moon right now!
      • TVarmy, on 04/07/2008, -1/+3But wouldn't they sink into the semi-solid nitrogen swamp that composes Pluto?
      • mitchlourens, on 04/07/2008, -3/+2I miss the days when Pluto was a planet.
        • AmICoolNow, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3My Very Excellent Mother Just Said, "Uh-oh No Pluto."
    • TheDHC, on 04/07/2008, -4/+13But who will blow up the brown people when we're gone!?
      • surKaz, on 04/07/2008, -0/+10We'll take care of that ourselves, thank you..
      • liquidex, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Then again, the brown people can blow themselves up, no worries
      • AmICoolNow, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Martians.
        We'll trade.
    • diggrnumber1, on 04/07/2008, -2/+2correction: slightly more than $500 billion

      yeah, i know, that was a lame correction. it's still a huge amount of money either way.
    • Cideu, on 04/07/2008, -0/+2We'll probably just be blowing up the green people in the end.
    • hode, on 04/07/2008, -0/+1Could I just have my money back? kthnx
    • slightlygifted, on 04/07/2008, -0/+1we could just use a nuke or 2.
    • Dantetheinferno, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Saying we could have gone to space without warfare is not exactly true.

      Much of the demand for rocketry during WW2 improved the technology significantly, sparking the space race. Computers were invented to handle wartime calculations of mundane things (Artillery projections mainly). Alot of good has been done by warfare for the advancement of technology. We do what we must, because we can.
  • longbow486, on 04/07/2008, -8/+3all i can see is the robot going crazy and killing everyone on....dun dun dun The red planet
  • evillawngnome, on 04/07/2008, -2/+73For all of you talking ***** on the space program and how it "doesn't do anything for me":
    http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html
    Pardon the web 1.0. This is a fairly comprehensive list of stuff we use TODAY as a result of the space program. Everyone always cites velcro, but if you take a look at this list, you'll see it goes a lot deeper than that.

    Now, when it comes to the budget issue, i seem to recall there being quite a bit of money spent on some kind of war somewhere. If we knocked that off, we might have a little bit more money for other things. I'm not suggesting that ALL of the war budget go towards the mission to mars; i'm just suggesting that if we have enough money to war it up, we probably have enough money to visit mars, AND every other honey-do you've got for the government.
    • dhughes, on 04/07/2008, -6/+1 Even better than that are World Wars, lots of inventions came out of those!
      • supras, on 04/07/2008, -0/+3Not quite the same blood and gore to benefit ratio.
        • mikebaldwin67, on 04/07/2008, -2/+1you're right war is much more beneficial
    • elliottucker, on 04/07/2008, -1/+0Wow! Web 1.0 is really fast! When is the rest of the Internet getting the upgrade?
    • thepatster, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3See and this is the best part for us. We spend a lot of money, but we end up coming up with these marvels of technology. Plus, this would help to guarantee we are on the forefront of new technology, which we are really starting to lose ground in. It also may make people want to major in physics or any of the sciences, which we are sorely lacking right now
    • farfegnugen, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1My friends keep teasing me, saying that the most NASA has done for us in recent years is Tempurpedic. Thank you for this, maybe they'll finally stfu after I show them this list.
  • Marnok, on 04/07/2008, -3/+5Don't anyone hold your breath for this... Read here:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23955590/

    All talk, no action.... politics as usual
  • WoollyMittens, on 04/07/2008, -8/+6They'll never get funding.
    • DCGaymer, on 04/07/2008, -3/+4Actually they can do out out of existing NASA funding. It's only going to cost 55 billion spread over 10 years.
      • hode, on 04/07/2008, -0/+2And the oil revenues will pay for the reconstruction?
  • trp5023, on 04/07/2008, -4/+64I understand the reservations of people like Congressman Frank, space is expensive. In fact, it can only get MORE expensive, the longer we wait. I'd like to point out that we are currently facing a sub-prime mortgage crisis and 47 million Americans lack health care. Yes, NASA money could probably help there. But then again, so could the ~2 trillion we'll have spent in Iraq by 2010. So could the 324.8 billion we spend on the Pentagon EVERY YEAR! So could the 68.6 Billion we spend on education.
    The point is, folks, good things cost money. Money means higher taxes. For too long (i.e. our entire 232 year history) Americans have always hated taxes. I understand, it's your money, you earned it. But the fact of the matter is government can not survive without tax dollars. And no tax money would mean shoddy roads, a weak military, increased pollution due to a lack of regulation, seniors in poverty, and general chaos.
    At a certain point, people need to realize that there are a lot of things in this world that are worth paying for. To me at least, Space is one of them. Space has the power to inspire us, the power to make us believe in something greater. Admittedly, more mundane pursuits are essential to life (see: healthcare, education, defense), but Space is what makes that worth living. When we turned our back on the long term goal of exploration we gave up a little bit of our dreams. Now we are rapidly approaching the time when all of our earth-centric thinking will catch up to us.

    Man's last hope and refuge is the stars.
    • supras, on 04/07/2008, -1/+13I was cheering your opportunity cost calculation. By the end of the comment, I had chills down my spine. No joke. We need more people like you on Digg.
    • mahdaeng, on 04/07/2008, -3/+7I agree wholeheartedly with your desire to continue exploring the heavens, however the answer is not to raise taxes, but rather to better manage spending. You yourself lament the amount of money spent on the Iraq adventure. Let's pull the plug on unnecessary welfare costs, foolhardy wars, and politicians' pet programs, and buy some rocket fuel instead.
      • trp5023, on 04/08/2008, -1/+2I agree, that was partly my point, if we're spending 10 billion a month in Iraq, that's a heck of a lot of rocket fuel (and coincidently, 20% of the Mars Direct cost projection). The point about taxes was in response to Congressman Frank, FTA "I don’t have anything against a lot of things I don’t wanna spend hundreds of billions of dollars on," says Rep. Frank. "Sending human beings there for the sole purpose of proving that we can do it and bringing them back requires an enormous amount of money at a time when we have a serious deficit, when we are not adequately funding a lot of very important needs right here at home." My point is, we need to stop spending stupidly, but at the same time be willing to spend money when we need to.

        Rep. Frank reminds me of the man who sold his Porche to save money, but refused to spend any of that money for bus fare. In the end, yes he saved money, but he still had to walk everywhere!
        • mahdaeng, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1I get what you're saying - and even agree for the most part. My gripe is with: 1) the tax system and 2) how our money is spent.

          1) Without raising taxes, the current system can (and should) be reformed to increase the amount that the government actually receives. This topic is long and controversial, so I'll save my explanation for another day.

          2) I think we both can agree that the government money bucket leaks like a collander. I worked for a government department for about five years and was appalled at how quickly and frivolously they burned through tax payers' money.

          In short, don't raise taxes. Instead, collect them more wisely and fairly, and then use the funds more responsibly.
    • LaughingDjinn, on 04/07/2008, -0/+6Very well said, its true that many people want to see money spent in different places. I'd love to see "voting with your $$" take on a new meaning, on your federal taxes each year they should have a set of check boxes where you can send a % of your tax dollars towards different programs. Let the people each choose where they want their money going, say 1-3% of whatever total taxes you are paying you can check to go to education, technology, pure science funding, NASA, etc. That way it takes at least part of the responsibility (chance to appropriate it away for their own idiotic ends) out of the hands of the politicians.
      • posture, on 04/07/2008, -0/+2Amen, I've had this thought for a few years now. Glad to know I'm not the only one.
    • maybeishould, on 04/08/2008, -1/+3Sadly, if Obama is elected, he will cut NASA's return to the Moon, and eventual voyages to Mars. He wants to use the money to fund an education program.
      • posture, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1Sad thought, really sad thought.
      • wonderworm, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1Not True. But you are also forgetting that the good part about Obama is that he is sensible and will listen to outside viewpoints to forge and shape his opinions. 2nd, Congress sets the money for NASA so if you want to go to Mars, then write your congress men and women and demand it.
  • Sinnic, on 04/07/2008, -4/+22"Will the American public even support traveling to places humans can barely imagine? "

    Humans can 'barely imagine'? What kind of schlock is this?

    Sounds like the author can't imagine for *****, or has trouble reading wikipedia.
    • Crosshare, on 04/07/2008, -1/+5I thought the same thing. Like we've only seen Mars through a telescope at this point.
    • aelias, on 04/07/2008, -1/+3We really don't need to imagine. We've had high resolution photos from the surface for years now.
    • ma