| ||
Sat 2024-12-21
Fri 2024-12-20
Thu 2024-12-19
Wed 2024-12-18
hydroxychloroquine fraud withdrawn Tue 2024-12-17
Sun 2024-12-15
Sat 2024-12-14
Fri 2024-12-13
Thu 2024-12-12
Tue 2024-12-10
Search
Archives
2023
12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
One good site
MDN
Nelson Minar
Blog licensed under a Creative Commons License
|
Call me ungrateful, but I'm unimpressed with Bush's
Mars
announcement. It's not really a plan - there's no funding, there's
no technology initiative, no particular insight except "um, go to the
moon first". It's baldly political. And with a first deliverable 16
years in the future, it's free of presidential responsibility.
In the meantime the US is already at Mars via robotic landers. With a less than 50% success rate to Mars it seems prudent to send robots instead of people. Better science too — concentrate on investigation rather than protecting fragile humans. Space telescopes like Hubble or WMAP seem much more valuable (and cheaper) than planting a flag and radioing the president from Mars. I understand the romance of sending people to space. But aren't we past that? And it's not like we can do both: without significant new funding what this Mars program means is that we don't have resources for robotic missions, space telescopes, etc. For the next forty years NASA is all about flinging meat to Mars. PS: this editorial calling for one-way manned trips to Mars is pretty interesting. |
|
