Regardless, any of the candidates will hire consultants, so we will still won't get the true opinion of these candidates on science and tech and that is sad and probably futile.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Well, when Mike Huckabee hires Michael Behe as consultant, everyone will pretty much know what mr. Huckabee's true opinion is on the field of science education.

Show me a list of items created as a direct result of the space program, and while you at it guarantee the American people that new technology will be invented as a direct result of the Mars program. You can't.

Any chance you can prove the last "moment" did any actual good as a result? Did wars stop, was peace found? Besides, from what I've learned the world got bored rather quick of moon landings with the exception of Apollo 13 of course.

Which is all well and good, but I don't believe they can't do their job unless we send a manned mission.

So we escape from beyond our mother earth instead of reinforcing it here or reinforcing it was our ingenuity in sending robots like Voyager 1 & 2 who are on their way out of the solar system.

The international participants are happy to keep it going, its NASA that has already made its mind up. After all NASA provides 70 percents of the cost to keep the station going or 2.3 billion a year. What NASA does sinks the station, so much for a international effort.

Since when as a people have we liked the idea of proving ourselves through risky endeavors? As I recall, its always been a select few, not a society or the human race.

I would, but Astronauts aren't cheap, nor the spacecraft they fly. I'm not so concerned for their lives, since they willing take the risk, I'm more concerned what their lives being passed will do to the space program especially with the gains don't outweigh the risks. Just because we haven't been isn't a good enough reason.

I disagree, while human experience may be part of NASA's goals, its biggest goal is space exploration. So as long as human experience doesn't threaten space exploration or surpass it as the goal of a mission I'm for it but this isn't the case with a mission to Mars.

Or the American people will either get bored, or maybe policy makers will kill all manned space travel beyond low earth orbit.

Societies have their ups and downs, and I doubt a "slow rot that is slowly permeating our society" can't be reversed without manned space exploration.

I not only can, I did. I wrote an article for a magazine a few years ago about that very subject, which was also quoted on CNN.
I've been paid for my work. I'm not doing it again. But you can google "NASA spinoffs" if you want.

And in the years since, have the wars stopped, etc.?
And you're right, the public is apathetic about space travel now. But not because there's anything wrong with it, but that what we do now is pretty routine. It's not the same as a Mars mission.Read my post again. I said they BECAME scientists because of the space program. What happens when they retire? If you had your way, what would excite the next generation to go into this kind of work?How is the lack of a manned space program going to "reinforce" anything?So what? By comparison with, say, federal pork? That's a stretch. Of COURSE we don't all do all the risky things, but as a society we truly love WATCHING them. Or do you think nobody pays any attention to mountain climbers, Evel Knievel-types ,car racers, the Blue Angels and a LOT of other events. I don't know where you get the idea that we don't love risk-takers.That's the question, isn't it. I believe the gains DO outweigh the risks and the cost. You don't.And its SECOND goal is to explore space for "human enterprise" (which means HUMANS go into space).
From NASA:

NASA’s MISSION

* To advance and communicate scientific knowledge and understanding of the Earth, the solar system, and the universe and use the environment of space for research;
* To explore, use, and enable the development of space for human enterprise; and
* To research, develop, verify, and transfer advanced aeronautics, space, and related technologies.
I certaionly hope not.But it can't hurt.

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Done, and I'll grant you that there are innovations due to the space program but you can't say that a manned mission over a non-manned mission would create such innovation.

It depends on how much effort is put into a Mars mission, if it drags on like the ISS then public support is sure to waver. Still, I see your point, a mission to Mars is likely to be a one shot mission in which we only go once. If executed correctly, it should be anything but boring.


NASA will always have a need for scientist, and always have a a need for the select few that become astronauts. I have no doubt that there will be plenty to excite the next generation, mission to Mars or not.

You don't believe intelligence is enough to reinforce the idea that our species isn't a worthless mass of meat? Voyager 1 is a great achievement by man, in the same way Hoover Dam or the Eiffel Tower is a great achievement. Also, you don't believe that coming together as a species on the one home we have would reinforce the idea that we're not monkeys?



You missed my point, yes 2.3 billion dollars is a lot of money, but that isn't the case I was making. The point I was trying to make is that its a lot of money for say the European Space Agency to pick up. Russia could do it, but still that's a big chunk out of their budget. So basically the US leaving the ISS leaves several of NASA's partners with no choice even after a considerable amount of money that they've invested.


I didn't say we didn't like watching risk takers, I was speaking of where you said as a whole we love to take risks.

True, and I think we could argue over this key point forever.


That may be so, but I still believe the first goal is the more important of the three. Again, another point we could argue over forever but in a manned mission to Mars the second goal simply trumps the first. I'm in no way saying I'm against manned flight, I'm only against it when the risks/cost are too great vs the gains. Especially when there is a very good chance of somebody if not everybody dying. Remember, 2/3rds of all Mars mission have ended in failure, and your talking about the most isolated human beings in human existence.

Sure, they'll have contact with Houston, but if anything happens in either the return trip or trip there they are totally on their own for 36 months. A few days away from earth is likely to seem like a cake-walk. Hell, we don't even know what such a trip would do to the human psyche. Then there are the risks of space weather. Make no mistake, getting there and back will no doubt be the most dangerous part.

Again, just because we know we can do something, doesn't mean we have to. Still, I'm a realist, and I don't see why American policy makers wouldn't want to kill manned space flight after spending billions of dollars or more on a Mars mission. Even if it is successful. If you don't believe me, just look at the history of the Shuttle. Policy makers design it by committee, policy makers kill replacement programs, policy makers put all blame on NASA following 2003, policy makers now push for replacement.

Maybe not, but that still isn't enough justification for it.

Yes I can. Much of the breakthroughs in space program spinoffs benefit human beings DIRECTLY. The spinoffs I mentioned before are a small portion of the innovations that simply wouldn't be necessary (and therefore would not have been developed) if we just sent machines into space.Agreed, but I see the possibility of a future colony there, with a likely Lunar colony first.Well just have to wait and see then. Might not be in my lifetime, but I think manned space exploration will draw a lot more people into the sciences than without it.Voyagers 1 and 2 were great accomplishments, but they are now space junk with gold records on them. I don't think we are/were the type of people to rest on past successes.If you mean they could afford to continue it without us, I agree. But how do you think it would sit with the people if our government decided to allow us to become mere spectators (for the sake of "saving" money they would piss away on something else) and watch the rest of them do it all? ESPECIALLY since we have always been THE innovators in space science and exploration?I didn't think it was necessary to point out that we ALL don't take risks. I was saying it is part of our culture and the manned space program fits in nicely with our culture.No, I don't plan on arguing the point any further. I've stated my position on this, as have you. I don't think we will change our respective minds on this. I know I sure as hell won't.
You implied the first was the ONLY goal. I merely pointed out there were other, equally important goals. One of them has to be the first in the list is all.
You previously said you weren't so concerned about these risk-takers. You appear to have been consistently focusing on the cost over anything else.
We want to go there. We have people lining up willing to go there. I see no argument here.NASA and Russia are currently working to get a handle on how the crew will fare being cooped-up for all that time. Rest assured whatever crew is selected will be trained and evaluated like nobody else has.
They are aware of the time and where the point of no return would be. They are also factoring in the likelihood that there will be almost surely be fatalities, as well as the possibility of losing the crew and craft altogether. The people volunteering are aware of this as well. So are the people who support the proposal of the mission.
If you look at the history of manned spaceflight, you would think we would have abandoned the whole idea after Apollo. Even the moon landing was a near disaster, not to mention Apollo one, the three dead Cosmonauts from Soyuz 11 in 1971 and the marooned Cosmonaut way back in 1960.
They all knew the risks and, with the exception of Apollo 1 flew anyway. And volunteers keep on coming.

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

True, but than again I was never against manned space exploration.

They are hardly space junk just yet, they should still be able to communicate with earth till at least 2020.

Then how about a current success, the twin Mars Rovers which are still operating after four years more or less. Then there is Messenger, a future success that returns us to Mercury after 33 years. That being said, the point I'm trying to make is that our scientific knowledge of our solar system has been provided by robotic exploration. Not human exploration.


Hey, NASA is the one insisting on pulling out, nobody is forcing them. NASA's partners want to stay. That being said they could afford to continue without us, I'm just not so certain they would. Still, that's not exactly what I was implying, I was implying that as an international effort the abandonment of ISS should be a decision agreed upon by every country involved instead of forced by a decision that NASA makes.

True, but that doesn't mean I'm not concern what dead astronauts could do to the space program. Which is why I would favor an international effort, the cost are shared and so is the blame and responsibility involved.

Agreed, and I wouldn't mind going myself. I want to climb Mt. Olympus! I just don't share the idea that we can support such a grand mission.

YouTube - Huckabee: Amend Constitution to Reflect God's Standards
Mike Huckabee "Amend constitution to Reflect God's Standards" @ Youtube

You know it.

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

Correction, Olympus Mons not Mount Olympus.

Just because the word "science" appears in Politcal Science..... it doesn't mean that politicians know their ass from a hole in a ground when it comes down to knowledge about scientific disciplines.

__________________

Congratulations President-Elect Obama

Point taken, but just because politicians don't know their ass from a hole when it comes to science doesn't mean they don't make policy decisions that effect the sciences. So it couldn't hurt to give 'em a chance to see where they stand.

A political stand? I could agree with that. Get them to commit to a promise to either support funding of different branches of the sciences or not. Outside of that, they wouldn't have a whole lot to do with science.

Of course, getting them to tell the TRUTH about what they would support is a whole 'nuther animal.

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.