Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Buzz Aldrin on Why We Should Go to Mars

Options

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    ThatDrGuy
    Registered Users Posts: 325 ✭✭ThatDrGuy


    Prof Nincom Poop Ph.D wrote: »
    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Buzz-Aldrin-on-Why-We-Should-Go-to-Mars-208127601.html

    Maybe if Apple could be persuaded to pay some tax they could finance it :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #3
    Prof Nincom Poop Ph.D
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 146 ✭✭Prof Nincom Poop Ph.D


    ThatDrGuy wrote: »
    Maybe if Apple could be persuaded to pay some tax they could finance it :rolleyes:
    The auld double irish, can't beat it.

    I think they've agreed (madness to ask) to pay a small percentage in the UK but a document leak has shown that they'll get in back in grants & subsidies. It's a disgust really when the average joe is hit for everything.


  • Options
    #4
    locum-motion
    Registered Users Posts: 5,143 ✭✭✭locum-motion


    ThatDrGuy wrote: »
    Maybe if Apple could be persuaded to pay some tax they could finance it :rolleyes:

    Surely if they were paying more tax, they'd be less likely to be able to afford it, wouldn't they?
    Curious logic.


  • Options
    #5
    shedweller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,029 ✭✭✭shedweller


    And yet if lots of people were employed making the gear to get to mars, more employed to supply those with what they need etc etc. there would be jobs for everyone!
    And they would pay loads and loads of tax!

    Remember the Hoover Dam? Paid for by the US govt to create jobs in tough financial times. I fail to see how this could be any different.

    People complain about how much space exploration costs but completely forget to mention that those costs go towards wages among other things. Should those wage earners simply go on the dole? Or just not aspire to do anything great?

    I think this is where private space exploration will soar far beyond anything we've seen so far. Nobody will be able to complain about how much it costs because their (very small slice of) tax won't be going towards it in any meaningful sense. And they won't notice any improvement in their lives because the amount of tax going on space exploration is tiny. The benefit to the economy is huge.


  • Options
    #6
    nokia69
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,050 ✭✭✭nokia69


    the first manned mission to Mars will cost less than 20 billion

    I expect to it to happen in 10 or 15 years


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    shedweller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,029 ✭✭✭shedweller


    nokia69 wrote: »
    the first manned mission to Mars will cost less than 20 billion

    I expect to it to happen in 10 or 15 years
    I'll hold you to that!!


  • Options
    #8
    ThatDrGuy
    Registered Users Posts: 325 ✭✭ThatDrGuy


    shedweller wrote: »
    And yet if lots of people were employed making the gear to get to mars, more employed to supply those with what they need etc etc. there would be jobs for everyone!
    And they would pay loads and loads of tax!

    Remember the Hoover Dam? Paid for by the US govt to create jobs in tough financial times. I fail to see how this could be any different.

    People complain about how much space exploration costs but completely forget to mention that those costs go towards wages among other things. Should those wage earners simply go on the dole? Or just not aspire to do anything great?

    I think this is where private space exploration will soar far beyond anything we've seen so far. Nobody will be able to complain about how much it costs because their (very small slice of) tax won't be going towards it in any meaningful sense. And they won't notice any improvement in their lives because the amount of tax going on space exploration is tiny. The benefit to the economy is huge.


    Reminds me of Milton Friedman watching a canal being built in China:

    He was shocked to see that, instead of modern tractors and earth movers, the workers had shovels. He asked why there were so few machines. The government bureaucrat explained: “You don’t understand. This is a jobs program.” To which Milton replied: “Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If it’s jobs you want, then you should give these workers spoons, not shovels.”


    Any muppet can create employment : hire half the population to dig holes and the other half to fill them in. Saying X is worthwhile because it hires people is not really an argument. The Hoover dam was infrastructural, it provided massive economic returns from its construction. Deep Space missions honestly provide very little returns, economically at any rate. Private space companies are an interesting twist, I wish them luck but beyond done-to-death earth orbit missions I can't see any returns for them. There is also the inevitable launch accident, industry clamp-down, legislation issues etc ahead for it which might scupper the lot. Best hope for the next 30 years I think is a reduction in LEO prices and longer mission robotic rovers to reduce costs. Chinese might try a moon landing, NASA an asteroid fly-by/touch down. Probably first lander on Europa but will be surface only with deep penetrating radar.


  • Options
    #9
    Spurtacus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 27 ✭Spurtacus


    nokia69 wrote: »
    the first manned mission to Mars will cost less than 20 billion

    I expect to it to happen in 10 or 15 years


    Perhaps, if it's the Chinese & it's a one way trip.


  • Options
    #10
    nokia69
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,050 ✭✭✭nokia69


    Spurtacus wrote: »
    Perhaps, if it's the Chinese & it's a one way trip.

    nope, the US will be the first to reach Mars, the Chinese are way behind


  • Options
    #11
    Synaps3
    Registered Users Posts: 2 ✭Synaps3


    Have you read the Case for Mars by Robert Zubrin? A workable mars and back plan using existing tech that could be done with a couple hundred million. Problem is even that is too high for NASA right now. I'm pretty sure their budget is dropping even further with the sequester.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    nokia69
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,050 ✭✭✭nokia69


    Synaps3 wrote: »
    Have you read the Case for Mars by Robert Zubrin? A workable mars and back plan using existing tech that could be done with a couple hundred million. Problem is even that is too high for NASA right now. I'm pretty sure their budget is dropping even further with the sequester.

    not read the book yet, but will soon, but I know the details of Zubrins plan well enough

    NASA came up with a plan that they said would cost over 450 billion and 30 years to reach Mars, because that plan was crazy Zubrin developed his plan

    the first thing we need is a heavy lift rocket, after that its easy, NASA should have the SLS in a few years and spaceX have started work on the engines for their BFR, once spaceX have thier heavy lift rocket, Zubrins plan or one like it could be possible for about 10 billion


  • Options
    #13
    Synaps3
    Registered Users Posts: 2 ✭Synaps3


    Agreed, SpaceX and their Falcon Heavy have the potential to fill the heavy lift part of that plan in an exciting and relatively cheap way.


  • Options
    #14
    nokia69
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,050 ✭✭✭nokia69


    Synaps3 wrote: »
    Agreed, SpaceX and their Falcon Heavy have the potential to fill the heavy lift part of that plan in an exciting and relatively cheap way.

    no thats not what I mean, you could do a Mars mission with the falcon heavy, but its better to use a bigger rocket, they have started work on the engines for a rocket that would lift more that 200 tons to LEO, that will be the Mars rocket


Advertisement