Posted on Aug 1, 2016
Should the United States fund spaceflight to Mars? Why? Or Why not?
6.11K
57
49
7
7
0
Astronaut Scott Kelly on the psychological challenges of going to Mars
A mission to Mars will last two to three years. What psychological challenges will astronauts face when spending so long in space? We talked to former NASA a...
https://youtu.be/OL9cpxuN7NY
Scott Kelly is interviewed about the psychological effects of living on the International Space Station for one year (340 days). What are you thoughts on an endeavor of this magnitude?
Scott Kelly is interviewed about the psychological effects of living on the International Space Station for one year (340 days). What are you thoughts on an endeavor of this magnitude?
Space
Science
NASA
Military service
People
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 20
5
5
0
Totally, especially if we get some say on who we send. I can think of two people running for office right now that would make good candidates for a manned mission to Mars.
(5)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
SGT David T. - I think the two years away - especially if they are together - would solve the problem without being too overt about it.
(1)
(0)
(1)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
SN Greg Wright - Plenty. God of War.
Besides, somebody has to stop the "spontaneous demonstration" those demons are doing outside that Doom gate on Phobos.
Besides, somebody has to stop the "spontaneous demonstration" those demons are doing outside that Doom gate on Phobos.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I'm kind of torn on this. On the one hand NASA does great science and as an aspiring Planetary Geologist I am excited by the prospect of manned exploration of another planet. On the other hand, I know that a private firm would do it more cost effectively. I think that contracting a private company might be an option where we can get legitimate science done at a fraction of the cost.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Interesting comment. I'm not sure that in this particular situation a private company is the best option. An argument could be made for what economists might call a free rider problem because the country and potentially others throughout the world will benefit at the expense of a government's mission to go to Mars. As such, it is less likely that private companies will foot the bill because they are too focused on maximizing profits and reducing costs. Their profit motive might not be sustainable for earth's population in its entirety.
(0)
(0)
SGT Tony Clifford
I was actually thinking that the government could contact a private firm to do the exploration. We would give the aerospace industry provisions that they would either have to follow our research objectives or the could fly scientists from NASA there. We could have firms submit bids and pick the best option. We wouldn't be waiting for private industry to explore. We would be commissioning private businesses to do it. I would predict that it would be hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars cheaper than having NASA do it.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
No. There were good and valid reasons for establishing dominance in near space. Anyplace from near orbit to the Moon is a platform for offensive and defensive military action. However, beyond the Moon there are economic opportunities. Mining asteroids. Colonization. These are the purview of private industry. If they can figure out how to make a profit from it, let them. But look at NASA's budget today. They cost even more than they did when we went to the Moon. When we had a fleet of shuttles in service. And what are we getting for our money? Nothing even close to providing a return on investment.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
That is a thought provoking comment. If I understand you correctly, a platform to colonize the moon could be used to dominate the earth in offensive or defensive military action.
(0)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
CPT (Join to see) - I remember several documents being published to support President Kennedy's call for going to the Moon, claiming that it could serve as a platform for launching weapons at targets on Earth and that detection and defense would be far more difficult than with weapons launched from Earth. Can't put my finger on them, but I'm sure they're still around. Interestingly, I found this more recent document on a Google search (there were many more) Even more interesting is the fact that it speculates on using asteroids for this purpose. http://www.wired.com/2015/02/strategic-defense-military-uses-moon-asteroid-resources-1983/
Strategic Defense: Military Uses of the Moon & Asteroids (1983)
On the evening of 23 March 1983, President Ronald Reagan addressed the people of the United States from the Oval Office. Citing aggressive moves on the part of the Soviet Union, he defended proposed increases in U.S. military spending and the introduction of new missiles and bombers. He then called for a revolution in U.S.…
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
CPT Jack Durish - This is great information and fills many gaps in my knowledge with Kennedy and Reagan Administrations. Thanks
(0)
(0)
SGT Tony Clifford
We might be able to save money by contracting a private company to conduct missions and obtain scientific data.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google