Can you believe it's a year next month (1st Feb) since the NASA spaceship crashed killing all it's crew?

Bilbo---I agree with you!! Irish
P.S.I have never been to Iraq,but I have seen people that were
tortured & raped in VN.It's an image,that stays burned in your mind,forever.Everyone has "Bitched" about the cost of the war,
but I,personally,think it is better spent,then the cost of space travel!Thats just my $.02.I'm sure eveyone else has different
opinions!That means that NO-ONE is wrong,thier opinions are just
differing!

Ah, and the pics are lovely.

This is wonderful, two major successes in a row.

Go NASA!

Catch22,

Quite true. Irish, in a different thread, said much the same thing.

There are, I have read, areas on the sea bottom liberally covered with mineral nodules. I wonder what caused that. An ecosystem NOT based on photosynthesis was recently discovered near volcanic submarine vents. If not an alien ecosystem, it does, at the very least, warrant reexamination.

I’ll admit that my preferences are towards exploring outer, rather than inner space, but I wonder if there is a balance point in these various expenditures, and if there is one, what it might be.

ukG²,

I believe that the Columbia crew was lost when it disintegrated during reentry, rather than crashed, but it was indeed, a sad day for NASA.

They were not the first, nor will they be the last explorers to die on humanity's borders.

If the idea is to find places for humans to live then it is worth it. If it is just to show off that one nation is better at it then perhaps not. I think China is going to try and land on Mars soon. They have the worst worker safty record in the world. Yet they can send craft into space. Very up side down thinking.

Catch22,

Many people think that during the Cold War, the Space Race was driven by chauvinistic pride. This is not to say that valuable research wasn’t done, but it certainly wasn’t driven by altruistic ideals. The Soviet Union could, and did, point to its scientific successes (of which their substantial space successes were an example) and assert that it showed the equivalency of the results of the Communist vs. the Capitalistic system.

I think that these “we have arrived” demonstrations remain attractive to countries which need to prove that they are real players on the field of technology. There remains a certain flash and glamour about outer space successes which are difficult to match with revelations from the seafloor or breakthroughs in understanding why we are as we are.

While the discovery by the submersible ALVIN of the Black Smokers,
http://www.amnh.org/nationalcenter/...ck_smokers.html , http://www.oceansonline.com/smokers.htm , and the associated ecosystems that are not dependant on photo synthesis is an extraordinary event, it is hard to counter such glorious visuals as the “The Pillars of Creation” http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/ne.../1995/44/image/ pictures returned from the HST. The irony is that many scientists believe that life on earth first arose in environments similar to those surrounding submarine geothermal vents! http://www.well.com/~ajmilne/black_...ack_smoker.html

On the subject of human habitation, it is difficult to see much justification for either deep sea or space exploration, for both environments are inhospitable in the extreme. It is less expensive to get the humans to the bottom of the sea than into space, as the cost of lifting each pound to orbit is, if I may be permitted to say so, astronomical. The pressures at the bottom of the ocean are as difficult to manage as the airlessness of outer space. The cost of building and operating cities under the sea will keep such proposals in the realm of fantasy for some considerable time.

http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/m2k4/index1.html

You won't find any triumphal nationalism on the NASA wbsite, I'm glad to say - just a global view of humanity's desire to explore.

They have been showing some very nice pictures. All the place needs is a pub.

That is a nice site, Vigil. Thanks.

Catch22,

I'd love to drop in at "The Pub at the Mars Hotel", but it would be such a long way out of my way!

Bush unveils space plans


AP - President George W Bush is planning a permanent science base for astronauts on the moon and, in what would be an even greater leap for mankind, human voyages to Mars, according to senior administration officials.

The president wants to aggressively reinvigorate the space program, still reeling from the Columbia tragedy nearly one year ago, said the officials, speaking on condition of anonymity.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan confirmed that Bush would deliver a speech on Wednesday describing his vision of the long-term direction of the space program, but he did not reveal what Bush would say.

"The president is strongly committed to the exploration of space," McClellan said.

A major question is how to pay for an expensive space initiative while the country is struggling with record budget deficits and the high costs of the war against terrorism.




McClellan said that the White House budget office was involved in the administration's space review, and that Bush will "put forth a responsible budget that meets our highest priorities while working to hold the line of spending elsewhere in the budget".

A Nobel-winning physicist who investigated last year's crash of the Columbia space shuttle is among those who would rather see more affordable robots - rather than astronauts - exploring the lunar and Martian surfaces. He points to NASA's Spirit rover newly arrived at Mars.

"The cost of a manned enclave on the moon, I think, is going to make the space station look cheap. That's the only good thing about it," said Stanford University's Douglas Osheroff.

In any event, "I think we're still 30 years from going to Mars and if there's any reason to do that, I don't know," Osheroff said.

Bush does not intend to propose sending Americans to Mars anytime soon, but instead envisions preparing for a Mars expedition more than a decade from now, one administration official said.

NASA's chief spokesman, Glenn Mahone, would not divulge any details.

"We're not going to pre-empt the president," he said. "But we're excited about the news of the announcement next week and what it means for the future direction of NASA." He said the announcement will be made in Washington.

The White House has been looking for a new revitalising role for NASA for months, with Vice President Dick Cheney leading the interagency task force since summer. The speculation over a major space initiative began heating up early last month.

Representative Ralph Hall, a member of the House Science Committee, welcomed the news that Bush would be making an announcement about space.

Hall said he has long been trying to get the president more interested in space exploration. The president never went to Johnson Space Centre in Houston while serving as Texas governor; in fact, last February's memorial service for the seven Columbia astronauts was his first visit.

Bush's fresh interest in space coincides with an election year. A new bold space initiative, it is thought, could excite Americans.

"I had the feeling the last 2-1/2 years people would rather make a trip to the grocery store than a trip to the moon because of the economy," Hall said. "As things are turning around, we need to stay in touch with space" and the science spinoffs it provides.

It was the Columbia accident that helped force a discussion of where NASA should venture beyond the three remaining space shuttles and the international space station. The panel that investigated the disaster called for a clearly defined long-term mission - a national vision for space that has been missing for three decades.

Astronauts last walked on the moon in 1972; in all, 12 men trod the lunar surface over a 3-1/2-year period. This time, the president favours a permanent station, administration officials said.

Bush's father, on the 20th anniversary of the first manned moon landing, made a similar call for lunar colonies and a Mars expedition. But the plan was prohibitively expensive - an estimated $US400 billion to $US500 billion - and went nowhere.

No one knows what the new venture might cost or how NASA would pay for it.

House Science Committee spokeswoman Heidi Tringe said lawmakers on the panel had yet to be briefed on the specifics.

Earlier this week, Bush put in a congratulatory call to officials in charge of NASA's latest Mars rover. He called the Spirit rover's successful landing a "reconfirmation of the American spirit of exploration." Another rover is due to arrive at the red planet in two weeks.

Many space buffs see the moon as a necessary place to test the equipment and techniques that would be needed by astronauts on Mars. It's closer, just three days away versus six months away for the red planet.

Visionaries say observatories could be built on the moon and mining camps could gather helium-3 for conversion into fuel for use back on Earth.

Others, however, contend that astronauts should make a beeline to Mars.

Still others, including John Glenn, the first American to orbit the Earth, believes the United States should complete and fully maximise the international space station before dashing anywhere else.

Catch22,

We must wait and see how much of these high minded proposals come to fruition.

Yes. When his father said he wanted to have a program to go to mars it was shelved once they heard how much it was going to cost.

I will wait until after Wednesday to see if there is more interest in research than political incentive involved here. It would seem we have tripped the trigger before the breech was filled.............. again.