# Off to Mars we go!



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

So, politics aside, this is what W has promised:

- send astronauts back to the Moon as early as 2015, no later than 2020;
- use human and robotic exploration of Moon to prepare for living base and missions to Mars; 
- return the space shuttle to flight but retire it by 2010;
- develop a shuttle replacement by 2008 for manned exploration by 2014; and
- finish US work on the International Space Station (ISS) by 2010

Tall programme that doesn't tally up with the money on the table, but at least the ambition is back!

Somehow space exploration does things to little boys that remain as we grow up. If you haven't seen the remarquable film on the construction of the Beagle 2 by Colin Pillinger, an unknown professor from the Open University (distance learning university from England), go and have a look at the project's site now!

So what are your views? Assuming that the money could not be diverted to something else from world hunger to reducing the deficit, does space exploration send a shiver down your spine? What kind?

Come back Arthur C. Clarke, all is forgiven!


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

I am following the Spirit mission with great interest, and really hope the second rover will touch down safely & do just as well. I was thrilled to learn that Spirit had successfully left its lander this morning - the first photo I saw of the empty lander gave me goosebumps. 

These two missions, like their precedecessor years ago (Sojourner) have captured my imagination like nothing else since the glory moonshot days when I was wee. Yet I greet Dubya's promises with mild cynicism; everything seems couched in the spirit of human exploration and discovery but I feel it's a veneer over political machinations & a drive to hand-plant flags on other worlds before _someone else does_. My opinion.

I still have mixed feelings about the need to send humans into space when our robotic probes can do so much science, capture our imaginations, and win our enthusiasm, with no risk to human life.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> I still have mixed feelings about the need to send humans into space when our robotic probes can do so much science, capture our imaginations, and win our enthusiasm, with no risk to human life.


exactly.
also, human cargo costs 10x as much to transport as do robots on a "pound for pound" basis

robots are perfectly suited for this type of work
far less expensive and far less dangerous
win win as i see it


----------



## Loafer (Jan 7, 2004)

I too have been following the Mars missions with great interest (including the Japanese attempt!). I was saddened indeed by the British "failure" to reach the surface (mind you it could be on there somewhere) being an ex-pat myself. It would have been (is) a great example of British ingenuity on a shoestring budget. While I am all for space exploration, there really has to be a viable motive behind it and as far as I can tell the only motive for Dubya making this announcements is to re-direct his nations attention away from the woresening economic situation (nearly half a TRILLION dollar deficit)in the States and the near on criminal way he (his cronies)duped everyone into believing Hussein was connected to Bin Laden at that was a reason for overthrowing the leader. Is this all a ploy to extend The American Empire further than just the middle east. If there is money to be made from resources on the moon.....the Bush family will be there making a buck or few million I'm sure!
I laughed so hard when I hard Dubya's pathetic closing line to his speech. If we are to explore our nearest neighbour please let us do it as a serious scientific endeavour with needless risk to anybody instead of some national jigoistic flag waving opportunity.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

From the "Earth to the Moon" DVD collection is fabulous. Tom Hanks hosts it. Had me in tears at points. Very very well done.

I frankly doubt the US can shoulder this on it's own.
I'm beginning to see robotic and teloscopic advacnes as the most cost effective at the moment tho I would like to see the Sapce Station continue.

Moon and Mars are a "bridge too far" right now I think.

If you stand beside the Apollo craft you soon know why it took the might of an entire nation to execute it - and not a few Canadian engineers as well.

This craft nudged the earth of it's orbit by 6" every time it lit off.  

I think more needs doing in launch ( Rutan maybe??? ) capacity. More work with the heavy launch vehicles Russia has.
Local development.
More small steps instead of "photo ops".

The replacement for the Hubble is a huge goal to be undertaken and much more on the Space Station but the launch/recovery vehicle really should be front and centre.


----------



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

That's exactly the crux of the matter:

Robots = cheap +semi-boring

Humans, dangerous = irrelevant as long as they volunteer! (see the right stuff)

If you want kids to grow up with dreams, enroll in engineering degrees and develop new technologies, you need to give them something to go after. Only human exploration creates that kind of drive.

The exciting bit about Beagle 2 is not the budget, it's the human side of project management and also the fact that human genius had to be pushed to its limits because they had to find creative ways to shave some weight.

In other words good stories have a human element. Always. Take me to the moon. Anytime. I'm a sucker.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I agree only in part.
I suggest the "glory" drives the funding more than the science.

The Hubble is a world treasure and the fix it trip a terrific human interest story.

The Mars rover engendered huge responses - no humans.

Seeing the results of these explorations on your screen is exciting - following a 4 year Mars mission by humans - only a few TV programs garner that longevity.









Give me 20 Voyager and Rover missions.
The Apollo just showed how difficult beyond orbit is.

The shuttle how expensive even orbital trips are now. That's the part that needs fixing.

This IS real BTW









First Piloted space plane 

I'd also like to see more railgun launching explored.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

This is not exactly Mars, but it does kind of fit here.

Wanna See a Sonic Boom?

Through the viewfinder of his camera, Ensign John Gay could see the fighter plane drop from the sky heading toward the port side of the aircraft carrier Constellation.

At 1,000 feet, the pilot drops the F/A-18C Hornet to increase his speed to 750 mph, vapor flickering off the curved surfaces of the plane.

In the precise moment a cloud in the shape of a farm-fresh egg forms around the Hornet 200 yards from the carrier, its engines rippling the Pacific Ocean just 75 feet below, Gay hears an explosion and snaps his camera shutter once.

"I clicked the same time I heard the boom, and I knew I had it," Gay said.

What he had was a technically meticulous depiction of the sound barrier being broken July 7, 1999, somewhere on the Pacific between Hawaii and Japan. Sports Illustrated, Brills Content, and Life ran the photo.

See it here. 

Interesting, no?

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Fabulous!!!!!!


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Wow... when I clicked on the pic I happened to be reading some info about the Space Shuttle and this pic was on the site:










and this:










Apparently it's an enomaly that isn't totally unique to breaking the sound barrier, however. If I understand the idea behind it, it's a matter of how much moisture is in the air -- so it's not necessarily a sonic boom that causes the effect... or something.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

I think the Honda robot should sent to mars in lieu of humans.


----------



## MacGenius (Nov 13, 2001)

The Honda Asimo robot?

yeah, I can see it now... "Help, I've fallen and I can't get up!"

Sorry, couldn't resist









Seriously, I tought of that but if he does fall over (not unlikely) then its game over.


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

I used to have the "Sonic Boom" picture as my desktop a few years back.

Even now, I still find it to be an awesome photo.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

The budget doesn't add up, but what's new? If the US did set out on this plan, it will suck all of the other money from the robotic projects. It simply screams of distraction (or as poppa said, "The vision thing").

The shuttle too 15 years to develop. How is a replacement going to be found by 2008? What about the ISS? Shouldn't this be a major priority (having to rely on virtually obsolete Russian rocketry as a back-up? Who thinks that the problems encountered in establishing a permanent station in orbit are unrelated to the much harder principle of one on the moon? Where is the evidence of economically useful resources on the moon? (Hey, maybe that's where Iraqs WMD are?) Imagine the FedEx costs for shipping from the moon!

I love the idea of space exploration but I've a feeling this will act as a blackhole for sucking money out of all areas of research, and not just that conducted by NASA. If serious, this is actually irresponsible given the budgetary mess the US is in, the lack of a solid plan based on extrappolatable technology development and the many other priorities.

Perhaps George W. thinks that if our eyes and minds are focussed on the sky, we won't notice the more earthy transgressions....


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Talking about Mars missions, I read an article in the Wednesday Ottawa Citizen that Marc Garneau (head of the Canadian Space Agency) wants to have a Canadian manned mission to Mars in 2011 or 2013 (two years when the Earth is closest to Mars). Of course the rocket or space vehicle that launches this mission would be from the US, Europe, or Russia.

Edit: here's the link http://www.canada.com/search/story.aspx?id=8a5fa5a2-55f1-4b4b-aae6-da3f7af3c0c7


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

The Americans are in a tight spot: either they build a station on the Moon or the Chinese will beat them to it, followed by Mars. Strategically, they need to do this...whether they can afford to do it is another matter entirely.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I'd say that if the Chinese are willing to dump 10s of billions of dollars into such a project, the US should say, "Go for it". At least they won't be spending it on bombs.

The strategic significance of the moon is highly questionable. For all of the technology needed to establish a base there, I'd think you'd need less than 1% of that to develop a means of destroying it.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

So now we're destroying the moon instead of building a base on it. I don't think so, that would cause severe damage to the earth - say bye-bye to any city near the sea.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Ummm.... I was refering to firing something like a titanium needle cluster at a moon base which would likely be all that would be required to cause it to lose functionality. It's not practical to armour-plate a moonbase and it would also be rather difficult to conceal.

As for the explosive power to destroy the moon, by the look of the size of the craters on the surface, that would have to be quite some pea-shooter!


----------



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

Hey a bit of common sense here! Blowing up all life on earth is not the same as blowing up the earth. Same for the moon (1/4 of the mass of the earth?).

What would be interesting from engineers out there is how realistic are the prospects for self sustaining energy once we have a colony on the moon. The grand plan was always:

- get to the moon to explore
- establish colony (using contraptions such as the 'moon elevator')
- use local fuel/lower gravity to launch to other planets

Anything wrong with this? Are we on target?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Moscool, 

Glad you raised the concept of the "moon elevator". How would this work? The earth is rotating with respect to the moon. How would the thing be anchored? It could be in geo-stationary orbit I guess, but then everything would still have to be shipped up to it. Since those first 100 miles (required for minimal geo-stasis) consume 95% of the energy required to get something to the moon, it would defeat the object. I haven't given this much thought, so would genuinely like to hear more on the practicality.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

"space elevator"
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,57536,00.html

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,60449,00.html

http://www.spacekids.com/spacenews/space_elevator_000925.html


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I've heard of Google too macspectrum









But regurgitated crap such as the following isn't useful: "A space elevator is essentially a long cable extending from our planet's surface into space. Vehicles traveling along the cable could serve as a mass transportation system. Four to six "elevator tracks" would extend up the sides of a specially designed tower and cable structure going to platforms at different levels. These tracks would allow vehicles to travel at speeds reaching thousands of miles per hour."

Just cos it sounds good and has a badge on it doesn't mean we shouldn't call the bluff and ask how this might work. It does not address the anchoring problem. Think about it. 

A lot of ideas are fluff. Dare to dig deeper than superficial articles on the web


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> A lot of ideas are fluff. Dare to dig deeper than superficial articles on the web


not knowing what you knew about "space elevators" i provided a primer for yourself and perhaps others

please indicate level of research required
being a sci-fi and space related junkie, i have read about space elevators
just don't know if i need to address a 1st year class or a graduate level audience

you're starting to have that "macnuttian tone"


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Yeah, I apologise macspectrum - put it down to PMS. I was way too macnuttian and I'm sitting on a donut as penance







It's just that providing links isn't that useful to an audience that has to be rather web literate to participate in the forum. I know you were only trying to be helpful.

In looking through the links, however, there is a "disconnect" with the idea of a moon elevator although the concept does deal with the toughest (in terms of energy requirement) part of the journey - out of the earths gravitational field. 

The space elevator would be anchored but it isn't going to connect to the moon. I guess I'm skeptical of the concept of a 60,000 km shaft because it seems to me that principles of centripetal forces, atmospheric friction, collision with debris, gravitational tension and shear forces don't seem to be part of the equation. But, as I said, I haven't looked into this and the links seem to point to a pseudo-scientific society with uncertain credibility.

I will now complete the punishment by eating the donut.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Yeah, I apologise macspectrum - put it down to PMS


no apologies needed
i was kidding, hence the smilie face  

no autopsy, no foul


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Can't wait to see the next batch of pics!

Link

EDIT: Linked to image, as its a tad big and wrecks the formatting something horrible, especially for anyone with 1024x768 or smaller resolutions. And it is certainly a very nice resolution picture. - Chealion

[ January 16, 2004, 12:01 AM: Message edited by: Chealion ]


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Anyone else think that shot looks like the area west of Tikrit?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I can't even describe how excited I am by this new space initiative. We are finally on our way!! And I'm getting goosebumps, just thinking about it!







 

George Sr. tried to get this passed by Congress a decade ago...but the Democrats were running the second house back then, and they shut it down.

Now, we have a real shot at getting the whole thing back on track!! We can actually resume the program that we all abandoned almost thirty years ago!

We have had thirty YEARS of navel gazing while we twiddled our thumbs and looked inward and while some of us went ahead and developed the fantastic technology that was originated in that incredible leap.

And I should remind all of us that the technology that we are now using to read this (and to reply) was all originated by that long ago space program. 

Who knows where we would all be right now, had we not abandoned the quest.  

We cannot proceed on this fast enough! We are WAYYY behind the curve!

All I can say is this:

It's about BLOODY TIME we got back at this!!

We have been asleep for way too long. Time to wake up!

Incredible wonders and magnificent leaps in technology will be our reward! We need to be deeply into this YESTERDAY!

YEEEHAAAWWW!!


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I think its a myth that the Apollo space program provided enough spin-offs that their value greatly outweighed the cost of the actual program (i.e it paid for itself) or that stuff was developed that would not have been invented otherwise. Such estimates are just that. I know because I play that game all the time in justifying research. I think the Apollo program was a wonderful achievement and would not argue against its scientific or feel-good value. It was the crowning scientific achievement of the 20th Century. I received an Airfix model of the Saturn V rocket for my 11th birthday and still remember the thrill of that 4 foot model. I saw the Columbia shuttle launch in person (the one before the tragedy). I believe space offers huge scientific promise and is the final frontier.

But, the idea that the spin-offs bolstered the US (or any other economy) to a significant degree are disproven by the impact of the Russian space program on its society (the Russians had highly advanced technologies), not to mention the other things that were spurring technology development (including such abominations as the Vietnam war). Of course, I'd prefer the US spent research money on space than on military technology[1], but it seems cruel to me that the US is willing to spend $500 billion on a project when the US (nevermind the rest of the world) has so many other problems.

Unfortunately, the idea of spin-offs being a justification of a space program can neither be proven nor disproven but, to me, have the same credibility as the idea as trickle-down economics. 

There is also no doubt in my mind that marshalling efforts to a single, easily understood and communicated goal is critical for guiding accomplishments (and one reason that NASA has struggled over the past 20 years). The question is whether there are other magnificent goals that could benefit from such focus that would have DIRECT application to humanity? I don't think the US has asked that question. 

[1] The dollar value of military research dwarves anything else in the US research sector. This has some peaceful spin-offs too (and has largely driven the semi-conductor industry). I doubt the Mission to Moon/Mars will result in diversion of funds from that pot.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

> I received an Airfix model of the Saturn V rocket for my 11th birthday and still remember the thrill of that 4 foot model.


Same here but mine was by Revell - I'd forgotten about it until reading your post. It was a fantastic kit. Sigh. Check out these links & enjoy your sentimental journey... _sigh_.

http://apollomaniacs.web.infoseek.co.jp/apollo/model/apollo06.jpg

I remember this box...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Well... I grew up on Sci-Fi (when I wasn't acting out Monty Python skits), so I'm as much a romantic about going out into space as anyone. I do think a moonbase would be totally cool, and hopefully also scientifically useful (observatories, fuel-depots for future missions, and low-gravity construction).

However... unilateralism is the *wrong* way to go. There must be more than one nation undertaking the effort, or we'll end up reproducing in space the same problems we have here on earth. China wants to go to the moon? Great! What would have been truly a visionary announcement by dubya is a partnership with China to do it together, with of course the other ISS partners. 

Bush will never be known in history as a "unifying force for peace."

Also, the following tidbit from Thursday's Globe and Mail is not encouraging:


> Washington has always declined to sign the 1979 UN treaty prohibiting land claims and military bases on the moon.


Methinks the one thing dubya did inheirit from his daddy was a love of the Ronnie Ray-Gun mentality....

 
M


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i still don't understand why robots canot be used instead of humans at 1/10th cost
is the romantic idea of human going into space that important that we can ignore the problems here and "blow the wad" on manned space exploration?

the Mars rover is doing a great job and will give us fantastic scientific data and again at 1/10th the cost.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

> EDIT: Linked to image, as its a tad big...


Oops, sorry - I thought I'd linked to the smaller picture to begin with!


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

In my mind, a man can do alot more than a rover can in the same timeframes. Then again, a rover doesn't need sleep and can do things in extreme weather conditions. But still in my mind, you eventually want a human colony on Mars. It would allow us to have another planet to colonize should we finally fill up this one. It would allow us to explore further into the solar system (or even outside the solar system) and set up a security post or early warning system (for asteroids, alien attack, other calamities). It would allow for us to develop technologies to communicate better over longer distances and create a new economy.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Doug,

Wanna  buy  a new kit! Amazing!

You can also buy the Airfix version (its cheaper).


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Don't think I haven't thought of it half a dozen times already today. Hmm... I'd be much less likely to slowly destroy it through play the way I did with my original one - I'm much gentler with my toys nowadays!









Still, I'm with MACSPECTRUM on this. I think robot probes are the way to go. With the current Mars mission, the people at JPL are no less heroes to me than the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo astronauts were, way back when.

The space shuttle program has given me the willies since the first launch 20+ years ago, and I dread the resumption of missions later this year.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

regarding the problem of sending the honda robot and him falling and not being able to get up:

just equip with one of those old lady walker contraptions. if he falls over he can pull himself up using the walker.

i fail to see the value of the moon as a fuel depot. if we need to store fuel in space why not send it up in canisters that stay in orbit. why not send the mars spaceship up in pieces and put it together in orbit ala the space station? what value could the moon possible have?


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

bloodyface - The moon surface doesn't have garbage floating around in orbit. When in orbit, there is a plethora of garbage that also orbits the earth at different speeds, and there is always a minute chance of a fleck of paint from a previous space mission will come zooming it and shatter a view port. Doesn't sound likely here on earth, but up there, the fleck of paint has got a heck of a punch at the velocity it is going. The moon would also have gravity to assist in putting things together.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

it is true that space vehicles could take on radically different designs by being assembled in space (other than earth orbit) due to the garbage floating around as such high speeds

recalling our basic physics
Momentum = mass x velocity
with lots of velocity it doesn't take much mass to make a formidable projectile

items in earth orbit travel in the neighbrouhood of 10,000 km / hour and faster

space and/or moon based assembly would be very very expensive 
this is why robots are so much better at this type of tast
much less expensive (still not cheap)
no potential loss of life
no need to provide massive backup systems to protect life
the more complex a system, the more that can go wrong with it

if more money was poured into AI (artificial intelligence) to allow rovers and robots to run around on their own without the need for human intervention (especially since communication with Mars takes time - 80,000,000 km at 300,000 km / sec = 26 sec. minimum)
note: speed of light i know, but i might be wrong on the distance to Mars as that changes depending position of Earth and Mars)

robotics advances would have incredible applications here on old terra firma
- advanced surgical systems
- medical nano technology
- hazardous jobs
are just 3 that immediately come to mind and would have real world impact on millions over the world


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

It would be rather ironic if a piece of Apollo space junk was to take out a component of the new dash to the moon, don't you think.

Doug, I have a vague recollection of "launching" my Saturn V down a line strung from my bedroom window, while the tail was on fire.

While the moon has only 1/6th the earth's gravitational pull at the surface, it still represents a significant barrier. The lunar module represented less than 1/1000th of the launch mass of a Saturn V and only had to get into lunar orbit. 

Besides, launching from the moon is only advantageous if you can actually source components on the moon. Having to ship them there kinda defeats the object. I don't see any mining equipment manufacturers with depots on the lunar surface.

Why isn't finding a truly reliable and cheap replacement of the shuttle more of a priority? Without that, everything is subject to an uncomfortable roll of the dice. With it, the ISS and other projects will blossom.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I think the heavy lifting and the people lifting are going different routes.
The shuttle will not be replaced in concept.

Smaller space planes plus the Russian reliable heavy lifters = future.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

This disgusts me.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

yep, it does me too.
one has to wonder what the hell BushCo is thinking about re: space programme
arguably one of the most important inventions of the 20-21st century and it's being tossed out away

what ever happened to responsible spending?
why spend a dollar when ten will do?
BushCo., oh yes, never mind


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That is truly dumb - a world treasure and they had plans to make it last until the next one goes up.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i think we now have good proof that the Bush "space initiative" was never about "science"
so very very sad


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

A farsighted wonder killed by nearsighted cretinism.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i think the correct phrase is; "moving target"
"Don't mind that man behind the curtain!!' - Wizard from *Wizard of Oz*


----------



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

Hummm

Probably a tactical leak by NASA to get more money upfront and possibly the international community to chip in on maintenance costs... ?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Probably a tactical leak by NASA to get more money upfront and possibly the international community to chip in on maintenance costs... ?


not a bad read


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

It was reported on CNN that "The Hubble Space Telescope will be allowed to degrade and eventually become useless, as NASA changes focus to President Bush's plans to send humans to the moon, Mars and beyond, officials said Friday." Sad, since the pictures taken by the Hubble have been, in my opinion, quite dramatic.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

The Bush Mars initiative also states that all commitments to the ISS will be fulfilled by 2010. So, I wonder, when the Mars project is hopelessly over budget, whether the ISS will be abondoned to its fate?

I really don't understand this. If they cannot spare a single shuttle flight till the shuttles are intended to retire, how much slack is there in the entire program? Would another shuttle disaster put the entire program on hold?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Jim, imagine if Bush starts to push for the repeal of the 22nd Amendment and he wins in 2004 and then is allowed to run in 2008, at which time he would probably declare the federal presidential election "null and void", thus assuring himself being around for the 2010 space events.


----------



## Mantat (Aug 22, 2003)

Ah ah ah... rocket to send stuff in space. How primitive! Right now scientist are developing a much better way to send material in space which will have a ridiculously low cost: space elevator!

When I first read about it, I couldnt believe how simple it was and it sent shiver down my spine knowing that with some luck, I will be able to see space before I die. Progress on it are made and we WILL see it. IMHO this is the future. 

Take a look:
http://www.isr.us/SEHome.asp


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I think we've been here before (space elevator). ISR is a self-promotional company that snagged some sort of feasibility grant from NASA (how much?). I don't understand how such a device would work. Sounds cool but it also presents huge issues - structural integrity, buckling/twisting, shear forces, revolution-related centripetal forces, lack of internal strength (no internal bracing). No matter how light it is, the total mass will be considerable and will be subject to gravitational pull. This will require active thrust against that pull, at the top end, to prevent collapse. But that doesn't appear in any of the cool animations.

But it does sound cool.....


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> I don't understand how such a device [space elevator] would work.


i saw it on an episode of ST:TNG


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

When President Bush first announced this new Space Initiative, he made a point of saying that it would "Include many other nations as equal partners"

This will be a multi-lateral group effort...much as the Space station has been. Anyone care to debate or dispute this fact?

The return to space exploration is LONG overdue! We have lost about thirty years while navel-gazing. This will be seen to be a VERY stupid move, by future generations.

Too bad, so sad.

Time to move into the future. Time to get on with the job at hand!   

Carter and Clinton and all of their political descendants would NEVER have given us this fantastic opportunity.

It's time we all dropped our ideological pre-conceptions and got behind this. Wholeheartedly!

This is our FUTURE!!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

macnutt mused:


> The return to space exploration is LONG overdue


ummm, the space station, Hubble, Mars rover, Venus probes, Jupiter and Saturn probes, there is one robot that is now on its way out of our solar system - these aren't in space?
macnutt, as a fiscal conservative how can you promote manned space exploration (which is i assume what you are championing) costs 10x more than robotic exploration with the results in info. and technology being similar

i am aghast that you can just spend money willy nilly on manned space exlporation and you tighten your fiscal belt when it comes to health care and/or social programs.

to quote another thread; "is it just me?"


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

trickle down Michael, trickle down.......Reganomics take II
By the time all these "iniatives get paid for the yen and dollar wil have inverted in their ratio.......


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Silly man, that was the Borg step-ladder. Besides, who needs a space elevator when you can 
beam me up, Scottie?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

[Humour] The Hubble space telescope could be repurposed for the noble cause of "Homeland Security" by simply turning it to face earth. Now if that thing can't find the WMDs.... Smile, you're on candid telescope.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Jim, I recall seeing some declassified photographs of an American agent who was positioned in Red Square in Moscow reading a newspaper. He was to be at a specific spot at a specific time, holding a copy of Pravda. He was photographed from space and the photo was clear enough to make out the banner logo of Pravda. That was back in the 80's. Imagine what is possible now???


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yes Dr. G., they can probably read the 6 point classified ads inside that issue today. Isn't technology wonderful?

Cheers


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Sinc....I have it on rather good advice that they can read the small print on that newspaper from space, as well.

And that they can do it even if the guy isn't standing out in the open. 







 

Jwoodget....the Hubble is not particularly well suited for earth observation tasking. It's field of view is incredibly narrow.

Besides...it's nowhere near as good as the stuff the CIA has floating around up there right now.  

Smile, everyone.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Oh no...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

...huh... just as it's beginning its first scientific analysis... boy o boy, the conspiracy theorists are going to have a field day with this one...

M


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Anyone willing to chip in to send George W. up for a look-see?


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Sounds like NASA's rover Spirit is having problems. They don't know if it's software or hardware. Apparently they can still communicate with it.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Hmm.... let's point Hubble towards the red planet to see if we can catch those pesky Martians in the act of dragging Spirit into their lair.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Hmmm... Mars "Spirit" Rover stops communicating, may be dead.

Perhaps they should try a _seance_?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i applaud the rover and it's efforts
i support continuing robotic missions

but tell me again why we should risk human lives and 10x more money for manned exploration?

this isn't a stroll around your backyard


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Seems to me, given the recent turn of events with the malfunction of their equipment, those in this thread who advocated non manned exploration are quite correct.

I have seen the wisdom of their thinking, given the failure of the rover.

Cheers


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> I have seen the wisdom of their thinking, given the failure of the rover.


let's not also forget the failures of the British Beagle mission and the U.S. mission about a year ago that burned up in entry into the Martian atmosphere because someone forgot to convert imperial to metric measurements.

space exploration is a very dangerous and expensive proposition.
all means possible should be made to reduce both
plus the advancements in robotics would have huge benefits here on Terra Firma

and let's not forget telescopic investigation
don't let Hubble die


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

*robots and telescopes are very "wow"
they just haven't been properly marketed to the population
*

Ah but when people hear of space exploration and imagine themselves doing it, they can easier put themselves in the place of an astronaut than they can a remotely-controlled rover.

They are very "wow," yes - but while at this early stage of the game robotics may be intellectually stimulating it's humans that the masses tend to get truly passionate about. 

No matter - we'll keep exploring. Even the stumbles we're having on Mars right now will be a mere footnote in a greater story. The more mysterious screw-ups with Mars-related missions, the more an insatiable curiosity grows. Mankind simply wants to reach out to the stars. There's a staggering list of problems at home, yet the desire to see what's off-planet is still evident in some of our brightest people.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"they can easier put themselves in the place of an astronaut" ....y'know I think a little of the romance is off the "I can do that"

4 years in in a tiny space - I'll go virtual thank you.  

The Space plane concept - near earth tho I think is a very worthwhile endeavour and seeing private involved is terrific.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Not out of the woods, but this is somewhat encouraging.



> ...it's humans that the masses tend to get truly passionate about...


Everyone I know is passionate about the travails of the folks at JPL, following their successes and failures as if we're _there_ with them. Did we get goosebumps and a tear in the eye watching the JPL team cheer when Spirit confirmed its safe touchdown? Do we follow the Mars Rover's progress and root for it as if it's a beloved pet, or perhaps more aptly, _The Little Engine That Could_? You betcha on both counts. 

Earth is hospitable, we belong here. Space, Mars, the other planets of our solar system & beyond, are inhospitable at best, absolutely deadly at worst - the latter being predominant by far. Our explorers should all be robotic. They can be our explorers, and do the science at a mere fraction of the price of sending humans into space. The grand exploration & colonisation plan recently announced by the POTUS (which includes allowing the slow death of the Hubble Space Telescope), typically, is utterly lacking in common sense.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

*but tell me again why we should risk human lives and 10x more money for manned exploration?*

I don't necessarily support it, but here's the attraction regarding the human element. Because it's so dangerous/risky it has the innate ability to seize the public's imagination - in other words it's terribly sexy and romantic. People like to hearken it to earlier exploration ventures throughout history. Space geeks see it as first steps to colonization efforts. Hard applied science types live for the raw data it harvests, data culled from never-before-tapped sources (and some of the keenest scientists are the ones lining up to be astronauts, too). You know, a little something for everyone.

Robots are great - indeed, they are the way to go for the foreseeable future. Cheaper, safer, they provide a reasonable return for the investment. It's already an obscenely expensive propostion without worrying about triple-redundant life support systems, human degenerative bone loss, etc. But that said, robotic missions don't give quite the same jolt that sending warm bodies up there does. 

This argument is feisty enough. It'll be sticking around, I'm sure.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I think the Hubble and the rovers  now contain enough wow factor.
Even the shuttle launches as spectacular as they are drew little attention until one blew up.
Now the time frames get real long - public attention is real short.'
10 missions that do stuff like the rover and Hubble PLUS a bit of near earth romance of the Space Station likely is the best mix and one we the world can afford.....at the moment.



















I mean how much more spectacular - a star dying and a cosmic birthing ground  

Watching a few Marsnauts live in a cramped smelly can for 4 years?????


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

re: manned space flights having more "wow" than robots

not to mention that the boys and girls in that 5 sided building across the Potomac river might have a little interest in sending up military personnel too, eh?

robots and telescopes are very "wow"
they just haven't been properly marketed to the population


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Hey, don't get me wrong. I've been enamoured of space since I was old enough to novel books by Niven, Asimov, Clarke... but I never trained to be an astronaut. The notion of sitting in a tin can for months at a time... no thanks. I am simply neither qualified nor motivated for such a regimen. In that sense, I don't regard myself a romantic at all. (;->))

I just think Bush is trying to tear a page out of Kennedy's book, announcing a grand plan to put men into space. He, or the people behind him, are probably hoping that such a commitment will be a feather in this administration's cap - something they could use right now, especially since they are trying to wind down the Iraq adventure and get out before they lose more people on the ground. I dunno, it also just makes for good copy. Beyond that however, I think they're also highly aware of the accelerating potential for two things: the militarization of space and the commercialization of same (communications ventures, mining rights, etc.). China, Russia and the Europeans are doing their own thing in this regard and in many ways it's a different world than it was in the 50s and 60s. Space is shaping up to be yet another frontier for aggressive international competition.

I agree that space colonization is an impractical venture and will remain so for a very long time. It's already horrendously expensive to field unmanned missions, and look at what a mixed bag they've been, particularly Mars missions.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Bush and Kennedy in the same sentence.
(ok, let's not go down that Freudian path)
Now that is something I thought I would never live to see.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

LOL! Never thought of it that way. Kennedy certainly saw his share of... _ahem_... never mind.

(;->))


----------



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

The reaction against the demise of the Hubble is starting to get organised. It still looks a bit amateurish but hey, you gotta start somewhere!  

The non US petition book opens next week, so let's give them a leg up...

For reference, here is the interview where I picked up this story.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

some good points made about Hubble
if it does need in-space servicing, who will do it?
the shuttle has been effectively mothballed

if NASA can keep Hubble working until it either stops or falls back to Earth, then so be it

resurrecting the shuttle program is not the answer and the next generation of space vehicles may not become functional in time

Maybe Bill Gates would like to take on this project?
M$-Hubble powered by Windows XP Pro
i smell great PR


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Hmm... I can see the headline, Hubble trouble: the universe turns blue after virus infects telescope


----------



## godot (Jan 17, 2004)

There's an interesting article in the 2 Feb _New Yorker_ concerning Bush's recent State of the Union speech.

Apparently polls taken after Bush announced his space proposal showed there wasn't much enthusiasm for it, so he chose to not mention the space initiative at all in the State of the Union address.

The article says the fact that Bush has asked Congress for only 200 million a year means he isn't serious about the proposal. His plan is that another "couple of billion is to be cannibalized out of the existing space budget." This has already led to the cancellation of maintenance of the Hubble Telescope which is quite rightly angering many scientists (and a few ehMac'ers, I notice).

The _New Yorker_ says "it will be surprising if he mentions [the space proposal] again anytime soon." Seems like it was a campaign gimmick that didn't work the way he expected.

It also sounds a bit like his earlier promise to put big bucks into helping eliminate the AIDS crisis in Africa and then didn't deliver. _Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose._ 

Cheers,


----------



## godot (Jan 17, 2004)

And on a lighter note:

If Canada had gotten to Mars first.

This might have been the result.

Cheers


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

If Hubble dies (it is OLD technology, BTW) then it will be replaced by something newer and better. Possibly several "somethings" that are MUCH newer and better.

China and the rest of Asia will be pushing the USA in a brand new space race in the coming decades. There is NO WAY that the American people will be content to sit back and watch other nations go to places that the US has never been..while saying "Gee, isn't that nice".

Just NOT gonna happen. Trust me on this. 

As for Mars exploration....

We are LONG overdue for some truly great leaps in both exploration and the technology that will make it possible. We are currently enjoying the wonderful technical advances of a space program that effectively ended three decades ago. Our present lives would be VERY different if we had not made that great leap way back when.

We would not now be communicating in this way, had there been no space program in the sixties. None of us would even know each other in the way that we currently do.

Personally...I think that this is a very good thing. But we shouldn't have stalled out. 

We need to get the ball rolling once again. Small minds and navel gazers should be ignored for the dysfunctional Luddites that they truly are. They claim that we must solve all of the problems here on planet earth before we look outward into the heavens.

Total horsepuckey!!!

The only way to solve the problems we have here on Earth is to progress outwards...and reap the benefits that this journey will provide.

Onward and upward! Damn the torpedoes and full steam ahead! The Universe awaits!   


Or...we could all sit here safe at home and...like...just kind of _LOOK_ at it all with telescopes...right??

It would be almost the same....right??

Yeah, _RIGHT_























[ January 30, 2004, 02:33 AM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

Dear oh dear, where do we start?....

- Macnutt, I am slightly puzzled that, for someone who urges us to think and verify information (cf. your thoughts on Greenpeace), this latest post is a pretty empty declaration of faith based on: "trust me on this".

- My - fairly unlearned - understanding of the achievements of the Hubble is that is has made our understanding of the universe jump manifold, something that no rocket could hope to achieve, because the telescope can see where no rocket will ever go.

- I also understand that the Hubble's mission is far from complete and that there is nothing to replace it at the moment. Culling the 'scope means cutting off new knowledge about the confines of the universe for at least 10 years.

- Old v. New is an empty argument. In the highly prone to failure space environment, reliable v. unreliable is probably a better bet.

- The empty grand gesture is a killer. As I mentioned in my first post on the subject, the amount proposed by Bush is neither here nor there; the consequences of the announcement however seem highly destabilising for the aerospace 'ecosystem'. I am all in favour of heroism and human exploration (unlike others on this board who see more value in robotised exploration), but I don't think that man on Mars is urgent to the point that it should kill every other current science-worthy project.

- The space shuttle deaths to me are the equivalent of clubbing baby seals: if you had not had a teacher on board with her class witnessing hear death on live television, the fallout (no pun) would have been much smaller. The shuttle technology may be old, but it works. Manned space exploration has always been dangerous and the rate of accidents/number of launches looks pretty respectable. No-one disagrees that the shuttle is costly and needs replacing, but I would let it complete its current round of missions before decommissioning it.

- One last point: I don't think that a new space race would lead to leaps in technology the way it did in the 60s. Most of the technology creating companies have been privatised and the brains are in it for the glory and money, not beating the Soviets. This means that technology makes it to market much faster these days. Granted, the biggest change of the last 10 years (the Net) was a direct result of Arpa reacting to the launch of Sputnik, but it is tenuous, given that the technology lay dormant for about 20 years...

'nough said. I am sure that others, with a better grasp of facts will be able to respond too.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Moscool...

Do a Google search about "GreenPeace"...or take a week and drop by this area, which is the birthplace of GreenPeace.

You will get an EARFULL...believe me!







 

They are totally discredited in the area where they originally began! By the very people who started the movement!

As for Mars and Hubble et al...

Once the Big Space Race starts....any day now...between America, Europe and Asia...

The space thing will be at the very forefront of our collective conciousness. Huge leaps in technology will be SOP and it will all bleed down to us proles rather rapidly. No Cold War to prevent the dispersal of "government secrets" after all.

This is all good. I can hardly wait.

And Hubble will be replaced by something that costs a fraction as much...and does a MUCH better job. It will be put in orbit by a vehicle that costs a fraction as much and does a MUCH better job.

When technology is frozen in time, and not allowed to progress...then we get expensive and flawed solutions. (would you really rather be using a slightly improved Apple computer from a few decades ago...or a MUCH improved one from a few short years ago?)

The Space Shuttle and Hubble are old technology that is frozen in time. We are MUCH better than that right now.

And we will be several orders of magnitude better than that, in a few short years...once the Space Race is back on.

It's about damn time we got rolling on this! Three decades of navel-gazing is QUITE enough!!

Trust me on this.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> We would not now be communicating in this way, had there been no space program in the sixties.


ummmm, the "internet" and packet routing were developed at the request of the U.S. military as a way to keep communication lines open in the event of a nuclear attack since EMPs destroy electronic equipment


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Is this a sign that the vox populi still has some influence? I sure hope so.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

so tell me again why we really need manned space flight to the moon and Mars?
obviously people realise that telescopes like Hubble provide great insight into the universe and can "wow" us with its pictures
very few people are against space exploration
many are against obvious over spending when problems are Earth are so rampant

"bang for buck"

must be a sad day for our resident SSI shrub supporter, eh?


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

> so tell me again why we really need manned space flight to the moon and Mars?


Why did we need to send ships to America? It's part of our core human nature to explore and while today we don't have to even step outside our house to travel, humans want to explore and there's no more enriched way to explore then actually going there yourself. People like the thrill and risk.

Will a new space race bring new jumps in technology? I wouldn't doubt it. There are always new problems to overcome and as well, unless you set some hard deadlines companies will delay and delay developing a new technology. An example of this is the replacement for the shuttle... replacement designs have been on the drawing boards for years, but have never come fruition. The shuttles needed replacing just like the Concordes did.

A colony on the moon or Mars will also create a new economy and business. There will be a demand for trade between the moon and Earth, and businesses will be created to do this. Travel between the moon and Earth (or Mars and the Earth) will create demand for faster and newer technology). 

How about a hubble telescope around Mars or at the edge of our solar system? 

We've sat around Earth for too long. We've gotten lazy and complacent.

Yeah there's problems on this Earth like floods, typhoons, starvation, people on the streets, etc. Those are going to always be around and no amount of money thrown at them are goingto fix them.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Bravo Kosh! Couldn't have said it better myself.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> There will be a demand for trade between the moon and Earth,


 
you can't be serious
moon dwellers want to pay $1,000 for a Big Mac?

robots and telescopes (eartbound and orbital) have proven to be extremely cost effective in producing good science

it is foolhardy to think that manned space exporation and trips to the moon and Mars will generate more than they take


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Spoken like a true member of the "Flat Earth" society.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i don't think "flat earthers" support the use of robots for space exploration
then again, maybe flat SSIers...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Seems like a waste to send human to Mars just to see:








"Oooh, I hate earthlings"

Cheers



[ February 02, 2004, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: SINC ]


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

There's a significant difference between surface exploration of our sphere and anything extra-planetary. Science can be served largely through earth-based or robotic probe research, and certainly at a more cost-effective level. Humanity's need to go into the unknown is tempered by its need to seek answers within itself.

Bush has bushwacked the astrophysicists by promising funds he doesn't have for a project that has negligible meaning in scientific terms. Putting that funding into a renewable energy program would create far more potential for humanity than propelling 5 humans on a very risky mission to Mars. George W. clearly believes Hollywood hype. It's sad that other people, who should know a lot better, are holding their noses and going along for the ride.

If we don't destroy ourselves first, we likely will visit Mars and other planets in the future. To attempt to do so now based on abject political expediency is both premature and irresponsible - just like the many doomed expeditions that rarely get mention in the annals of history.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

SINC, you forgot to put the caption "Oooh, I hate earthlings" under that photo.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

> If we don't destroy ourselves first, we likely will visit Mars and other planets in the future. To attempt to do so now based on abject political expediency is both premature and irresponsible - just like the many doomed expeditions that rarely get mention in the annals of history.


Politicians are always going to have political reasons for doing it! Their politicians after all! That will never change. In fact it's a politician's responsibility to charge the troops; get them all fired up; show them a goal. It's up to the scientific community to try and piggy-back this and get something scientific out of it and I'm sure they will.

I don't see any reasons for not having a plan now to go to Mars in 10 or 20 years. Hey, the Canadian Space Agency is planning to be there in 10 or 12 years. I think the Canadian plan is far more unrealistic than the US plan. At least the Americans have enough money to put behind a plan.

Besides, we need something to keep the Americans busy. They get bored or their economy turns down and they'll be invading another country. Better to build spaceships then bombs!!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> SINC, you forgot to put the caption "Oooh, I hate earthlings" under that photo.


Right you are Kosh, but it is done now, take a peek!

Cheers


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Now that's PERFECT Sinc.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i wonder why our resident "doom and gloomer" and well known SSIer sees fit to spend 10x more money for manned space trips to the moon and mars, when robots can do almost the same job, while he insists that 10x is too much to spend on our health care - see Shriners vs. BC hospitals

is it just me or...?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Okay macspectrum...let's "kill the messenger" shall we?  

That aside...I should like to point out to you that all sorts of new medical technologies were born out of the old Space program. MRI is the first one that comes to mind. There are hundreds of others.

And that was just for a moon shot. 

Imagine all the cool new gear that will be needed to keep several human beings alive for a year and a half away from mother earth? You don't suppose any of that new technology might just bleed down to us, do you?

Think about it.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i am much more concerned by the "bleeding" that is in our streets
10x the price of robots for manned mars missions is just too much

orbital telescopes, robot missions to moon and mars, even some more money into earth based telescopes - all would have great benefits for science and applications

also, we need to address the threat of a comet impact (i.e. quick recognition with formal sky mapping) much more than trying to mine the moon

now that is something the whole world could and should get behind


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I suspect that the US would be sharing off portions of the costs among rather a large number of countries. Each would be given some part of the technical problem and invited to spend a portion of their own Federal budget to solve the problem and come up with some brand new technology in the process. (They would now each have some brand new homegrown industry as a result. I see the former Soviet satellite states jumping all over this.)

I also suspect that ALL of the things you mentioned that are "more important than a Mars Mission" would be positively impacted by this technological renaissance.

Plus..there is not much hope that robots or telescopes will have much trickle-down technology that deals directly with the human condition.

That would require actual humans...staying healthy on a long trip away from earth. The technology to do this does not exist right now. The mind boggles at what we might learn about ourselves..and how to keep ourselves alive...by sending humans to Mars.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Macspectrum, you keep talking about "our" streets and "our" health care. Well, as far as I know you and I are not Americans so this has nothing to do with our streets and health care. It is the Americans pushing this trip to Mars and spending for it, with the help of a few countries (Canada will probably put some of it's existing 150 million $'s of the space agencies budget towards it). We're talking about the Americans here, not Canadians. (Well, except for me with my Canadian Space Agency plan to Mars, but I honestly don't think that's going anywhere). If anything, like MacNutt says Canadian companies will receive business from the US to help in the US project.

As for our health care, last I heard it was going to get a $2 Billion infusion of cash. As for our streets,maybe it'll get some of that half a billion dollars the feds are promising to the municipalities (cities).


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Good thoughts Kosh...

Too bad that the 2 Billion "infusion of cash" only amounts to about ten days of extra care per Province.

Each Province needs about four BILLION dollars apiece! Every year! Just to shorten a few of the long lineups and restore some of the care that had to be cut when Jean Chretien "balanced the budget" buy cutting health care funding to the Provinces.

If the Federal Government does not restore full funding...then the Provinces will have to cut deeply into major programs.

Or borrow huge amounts of money. Which we will all be paying the interest on for the rest of our lives.

If the Federal Government DOES restore full health care funding...then they will have to borrow massive amounts of money to cover it.

And we will all end up paying the interest on this debt for the rest of our lives.

Anybody got any brand new ideas?

The old ones don't seem to be working anymore.


----------

