Are you willing to pay to send humans to Mars?

[L. Coyote]

Or, is this a stupid idea?

Would you contribute thousands of dollars per person voluntarily?

===============
60 Minutes is discussing "manned" missions to the Moon and to Mars.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/04/60minutes/main3994925.shtml

(CBS) NASA is serious, very serious, about launching the most difficult mission ever attempted by the human race - putting an astronaut on Mars. The voyage will cover hundreds of millions of miles and take two-and-a-half years roundtrip. It sounds like science fiction.

To make it scientific fact, the United States needs to first flex its deep space muscles again on familiar terrain - the moon.

It’s been nearly 40 years since Neil Armstrong took one giant leap for mankind and almost as long since the American public was truly captivated by the space program. You may not know it, but as 60 Minutes correspondent Bob Simon reports, the journey to send humans back to the moon and beyond has already begun.

From the mountains of Utah to the factory floors of Cleveland

[still_one]

1. only if bush and cheney are the ones being sent to Mars /nt

[MichiganVote]

3. Don't forget Rove....combined with that skinny crazy blonde female Coulter

[Barack_America]

5. Lol. Looks like a lot of us were on the same wavelength...

:rofl:

[still_one]

10. You are sooooo right, and it would be worth every penny /nt

[MichiganVote]

14. ...and mandatory space walks....oops!

[WorseBeforeBetter]

18. They'd still manage to wreak havoc. (n/t)

[havocmom]

2. Nobody leaves this planet until the mess gets cleaned up

x(

[Better Believe It]

12. No Problem : Just Take It Out Of The War Department

I think most of us have paid about $16,000 to the War Department since the invasion of Iraq.

Hell, we could go to Mars for just a small fraction of what is spent for the Department of War (usually called the Department of Defense).

[havocmom]

23. I'd be happy with just a trip to the beach!

Welcome to DU, Better Believe It :hi:

[FogerRox]

27. Fair enough, lets fix this shit, then get on with the real things that need to be done.

[Barack_America]

4. Certainly. For Bush, Cheney and Rove, among others...

;)

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. I can think of a number of people I'd like to have sent to Mars.

Permanently.

[grannylib]

7. Only if I get to pick who goes. And whether or not they'll get spacesuits.

[brokensymmetry]

8. Yes!

That said...this is a mission that will never happen. It is a fantasy.

We have a 9 trillion dollar debt. We have a sick economy. And - we have peak oil.

The end of the 21st century will look a lot like the 18th century. If we're
very, very lucky.

[Cleita]

9. Considering it's conservatives who are pushing for this, I

smell a new business deal to raid taxpayer's pockets with. Other than that, I have always favored government spending on space exploration as a way to advance science and create jobs as contrary to waging war that supposedly does the same thing.

[av8rdave]

11. Which humans?

[snot]

13. yes.

[BlooInBloo]

15. Sure. The advance of science is good, even if its benefits cannot be accounted for ahead of time...

... of course my HPS background makes me a bit biased.

[Warpy]

16. Not until they fix things HERE

and I'm talking about decent wages for anyone who does a day's work, universal single payer health insurance, reining in a bloated military, and making sure the concentration of wealth at the top and debt at the bottom never, ever happens again.

When that is accomplished, we'll start talking about a Mars voyage. Until then, they can kiss my flabby ass.

(We are nowhere near being able to keep human beings alive for a voyage that long. It will take decades of experience with the USS before we get that far. Until we are, unmanned probes, especially probes that can return with samples, are the way to go)

[madrchsod]

17. yes i am

[HeresyLives]

19. Yes, absolutely

Without question. Unequivocally. Whatever it takes. Anytime.

[Subdivisions]

20. Yes, I am willing to pay for it. It's a hell of a lot better investment

than war. Besides, as reported earlier this evening on 60 Minutes, NASA's budget is only 1/6 of 1% of the entire national budget.

I bet if we had proof that there is oil, gas, or gold (plutonium, uranium, diamonds) there, we wouldn't need NASA to get us there because capitalism would accomplish the job much quicker.

[walldude]

21. Hell yeah..

If we spent half the time researching space exploration that we do researching bigger better faster ways to kill each other, we'd be in space in no time. We could also probably cure, poverty, hunger, disease, get everybody clothed and housed and generally make life better for everyone. But, that's just crazy talk..

[sellitman]

22. Normally I would

These are not normal times though.

[question everything]

24. I'd rather have my tax money support expansion in science knowledge

that dwarfing it by teaching creation "side by side" with evolution, or abstinence, or other "faith based" teaching.

[postulater]

25. I'm willing to give money to send some soldiers from Iraq

to the United States one-way trip.

That is maybe a more important use of our money right now.

Nothing against the Martians.

[FogerRox]

26. Of course I would, but it will take 35 days one way.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/12/171119/055/665/333938

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. Yet but not until this idiots are out

space exploration is not only a good idea, but basic for species survival

And the technology does trickle down to the civilian sector

[SidDithers]

29. Unequivocally yes...

the pure science that will be done in materials, electronics, power and nutrition will be a tremendous boon to mankind.

It might even get kids interested in science again.

Sid

[RedCappedBandit]

30. No, i'd rather spend money on weapons and the waron drugs.

:eyes:

Seriously though, yes. Science is good, in a nutshell

[Posteritatis]

31. Yep. (nt)

[tkmorris]

32. Yes I am

[Warren DeMontague]

33. Yes, Abso-fucking-lutely. Take the money from the military/industrial complex and the drug war.

Legalize and tax pot, stop spending billions of dollars trying to police the behaviors and bodies of consenting adults...

absolutely humanity needs to explore and move out into the cosmos. We stop growing and we die.

[mike_c]

34. yes, without hesitation....

Humankind has no long term future on Earth. OK, maybe that's a bit premature, but I suspect it's true. Expansion off the planet is the only way to assure a future for the human race. Mars isn't necessarily a reasonable destination, but it's a stepping stone, just like the moon is a stepping stone. We need access to the resources of the asteroid belt, the Oort cloud, and maybe-- if we can retrieve them from such daunting gravity wells-- the solar system's gas giants. Absent that expansion, we will poison ourselves in an increasingly claustrophobic Earth's biosphere.

[Telly Savalas]

35. It's cheaper than what it's costing us to send folks to Iraq.

[Firespirit]

36. How much would this cost?

I'm sure it's chump change compared to the mass redistribution of wealth that's Iraq, but until we get out of that hellhole, fix our ruined economy, and make some effort to combat climate change, I'm against this.

NASA can plan for it while the rest of the government is fixing this god-awful mess we're in. It's going to take many years to even be ready to launch, assuming anyone even trusts NASA's safety record enough to volunteer for such a mission. But no manned Mars exploration until we get our own mess cleaned up.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

37. We should have been on Mars 30 years ago.

But we turned our backs to the stars and now we're stuck with our little ball of mud for the foreseeable future.

Although I've dreamed of the colonization of the other planets since childhood and at one time actually believed I would live to see it, now I know it's not going to happen. What's being proposed now is simply another distraction- it began as a brain fart from *bush and now they think they actually have the resources to do it here and now.

I used to think they would one day rename NASA as Star Fleet. Now I know that was just sci-fi whimsy and will never happen.

They're fooling themselves, and they're attempting to fool the rest of us.

:cry:

[LeftishBrit]

38. Depends which humans...

I wouldn't mind sending the British National Party there, to see how they like being treated as unwanted immigrants by the Martians. ("Keep Martians Green!")

[GoesTo11]

39. How about some follow through first

Last week NASA announced that budget cuts would force them to turn off one of the two Mars rovers, to save a mere $4 million. The budget has since been restored following public outcry.

Just heard about how after the space shuttles retire in 2 years, the US will have no way to even get to the space station other than "hitching a ride" with Russia.

The Hubble telescope has needed one stay of execution after another.


Isn't it premature to talk about spending hundreds of billions of $ going to Mars when we're too cheap to spend millions on what's already working well?

[bowens43]

40. yes. absolutely.