Since becoming the ranking member of the Commerce, Justice, and Science subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee at the beginning of this Congress, Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA) has issued a number of press releases congratulating NASA, and administrator Charles Bolden in particular, on various space agency milestones. An example is one release linked to the launch of the final shuttle mission, where Fattah notes he congratulated Bolden in a phone call “shortly after Atlantis soared from the launch pad”. Fattah’s Philadelphia-area district doesn’t have much in the way of NASA ties; in the release above Fattah did note that the mission’s commander was a Philadelphia native and a Drexel alum, but previous releases, like one linked to the STS-134 launch in May, have no such local connection. Fattah’s series of releases, then, may be an effort to publicize his position on that appropriations subcommittee, or simply an expression of personal interest in the subject.
Rep. Fattah’s may have taken his apparent enthusiasm for NASA a step too far, though. Late last week he issued another press release, this one congratulating NASA for the successful launch of the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL). He again noted having a conversation with Bolden, with the NASA administrator inviting Fattah to come to JPL in August “for a bird’s eye view” when MSL lands on Mars. “The men and women who work at NASA inspire us that we should not limit our imaginations to what is or what was but what can be,” Fattah said in the statement. “I am encouraged that by 2030 we will have a manned landing on Mars.”
NASA, of course, isn’t planning a human landing on Mars by 2030. Instead, the agency’s goals, as outlined by President Obama in his April 2010 speech at KSC, include a human mission to orbit—not land on—Mars by the mid-2030s, with a landing to follow soon enough for Obama (who turned 50 in August) to “expect to be around to see it”. It’s not clear whether Fattah misinterpreted previous statements from NASA and the administration, or if Bolden misspoke in that or other conversations. Of course, if he really wants to see a human landing on Mars in less than two decades, he’s in a position to help make it possible…
I’m hoping that, maybe, in his desire to be associated with big, flashy things, the good Congressman will do just as Jeff proposes and helps make it happen!
How are we accomplishing this? We have to bum a ride to the ISS!
If you go to all the time, troulbe and expense to go all the way out to Mars, you go to land on Mars. End of story. President O is oh-so-irrelevant in the planning for this inevitable voyage.
We have to bum a ride to the ISS!
Anyone who thinks that paying $63M for a ride is “bumming” it is having trouble with the concept.
Well, it’s nice that apparently we have a member of Congress whose support of human spaceflight isn’t motivated by pork for his district.
Well I for one think this is a good thing to see in members of Congress. As someone who is disgusted by the pork rocket to nowhere formerly known as Constellation, anyone interested by the NASA’s accomplishments but not obligated by a consituency dependent on aforementioned rocket is still a step up from not paying attention at all. And I don’t think he’s going too far. In fact, I don’t think he’s going too far enough!
@ DCSCA wrote @ December 4th, 2011 at 5:05 pm
“If you go to all the time, troulbe and expense to go all the way out to Mars, you go to land on Mars. End of story.”
Did you ever, I mean EVER, read what it takes to actually land on Mars? To land a crew on Mars? As opposed to orbit Mars?
I mean can you try once only once to make a coherent statement?
Nah, I did not think so.
Oh well.
Congressman Fattah offered an amendment during the budget hearing to increase commercial crew funding by $88 million. It unfortunately fell in the hearing on a party-line vote. If it had passed, The Commercial Crew budget for this year would have been increased by $88 million. This is a congressman who for once is demonstrating leadership and acting like a steward for the nation’s finances and space program, instead of a mouth piece for pork into his/her district.
Bravo!
Rep Fattah has an agenda. Satisfying that agenda involves his press release frenzy of kind words to NASA.
Regarding humans on Mars by 2030: Elon yes, NASA no.
From twitter:
@chakafattah Chaka Fattah
(Space Politics) A little too enthusiastic? bit.ly/s8eWfc via @addthis Color me too enthusiastic I’m confident in the USA & NASA
My take: Astronauts on the surface of Mars may or may not be achievable by 2030 with intelligent space policy strong on commercial services, robotic precursor missions, and technology development, but there is quite a lot of lower-hanging fruit than Mars surface missions that is even more useful, interesting, inspiring, and productive than such missions that we could easily get by 2030 with such a policy.
Here is a congressman who appears to have little in his district that is fed directly by NASA, expressing enthusiasm about human space flight and space science … largely done elsewhere. He seems to be taking the position that doing these things is good for the country as a whole. He’s not just taking that position, he’s issuing press releases! He did another congratulatory one for NASA and NOAA on the launch of NPP a few weeks ago. I think we’ve all become jaded enough to believe that these things don’t happen. He’s got to have major donors or constituents who are up to their ears in NASA dollars, no? In fact, I find my self skeptical about what appears to be, in Mr. Fattah, the kind of honest congressional enthusiasm for space we’ve been so desperately missing.
He being “encouraged” that we could have a human landing on Mars in 2030 need hardly be a mis-read of federal policy. He’s apparently just saying that he, as a congressman, is inspired enough by our technological accomplishments to think it possible. So let’s not get distracted by that inconsistency.
What does Mr. Fattah sees that others can’t seem to see? He’s doing this because it’s good for him, no? Sure, he’s advertising his role as ranking member of the relevant appropriations subcommittee, but there is a whole lot of other stuff that subcommittee does that he could be touting more loudly.
@common sense wrote @ December 4th, 2011 at 7:39 pm
=yawn= Your pitch to the American people is to spend billions, go 99 yards and not go in for the touchdown. Did you ever, EVER try to coherently think through what, why and who you’re trying to sell a project to in the first place– of course not. Landing is the whole point of going there. There in lay the challenge and you have just telegraphed to the space community you’re not up to meeting it. Congratulations. So we won’t expect you to be working on this project. No doubt if this was 1961, you’d balk at a lunar landing as well, with the whine, “Did you ever, I mean EVER, read what it takes to actually land on the Moon? To land a crew on the Moon? As opposed to orbit the Moon?”
For reference, Rep. Fattah’s web site is:
http://fattah.house.gov/
DCSCA wrote @ December 5th, 2011 at 5:51 am
“=yawn= Your pitch to the American people is to spend billions, go 99 yards and not go in for the touchdown.” “Landing is the whole point of going there.”
A classic example of the way that an archaic view of exploration can handicap our progress. That archaic view was at least somewhat defensible in a technologically less sophisticated era when space exploration was viewed as a chest-thumping, muscle-flexing, exercise in national power. When “beating” another nation was mainly about leaving the first footprints. We now have capabilities (that our youth understand extremely well) of putting ourselves in other places electronically, that our exploration forefathers never had. Our telerobots don’t do it with very high quality when they’re controlled from the Earth, but they will as we get our people closer. As our youth grows up, our whole picture of space exploration will mature. We can live in the exploration world of our forefathers, or in our own world. Those people who first go to Mars will have their consciousness and dexterity down on the surface beneath them telerobotically, even if they don’t happen to have their boots there.
No, that may not be what we eventually want to have, if colonization of the solar system is what we’re after. But colonization of the solar system isn’t yet understood to be what we’re after, at least for any national space program that I’m aware of. Falling back on the football analogy, let’s just say we’re going for an affordable field goal, in the near term. Right through them uprights. Three points. We can’t afford the other three or four right now.
You’re not saying that landing is the whole point of going there. You’re saying that landing human flesh is the whole point in going there. There are rather few destinations in our solar system for which landing human flesh is even possible, so using the landing of human flesh as as metric for “conquest” of space is really pretty limited. Footprints on Venus, maybe? Or how about Jupiter? Yawn.
@ DCSCA wrote @ December 5th, 2011 at 5:51 am
“Your pitch to the American people is to spend billions, go 99 yards and not go in for the touchdown.”
You always demonstrate as little you know about the technological challenges. The landing of a crew on Mars and departure of course, unless you are one of those 1-way mission idiotic proponents will most likely be the most expensive part of the mission. But of course you have to think to realize that. And this with current technologies of course. I am not talking about cold fusion propulsion… Whatever.
“Did you ever, EVER try to coherently think through what, why and who you’re trying to sell a project to in the first place– of course not.”
Where did I ever and I mean EVER try to sell anything? Please references.
“Landing is the whole point of going there.”
Landing it may be but not necessarily of a crew. Telerobotics rings something to you? Or do you plan to land an Apollo capsule on Mars?
“There in lay the challenge and you have just telegraphed to the space community you’re not up to meeting it. Congratulations. So we won’t expect you to be working on this project.”
Who are “we”? Are you the “space community”? You have no idea what you’re talking about. Again.
“No doubt if this was 1961, you’d balk at a lunar landing as well, with the whine, “Did you ever, I mean EVER, read what it takes to actually land on the Moon? To land a crew on the Moon? As opposed to orbit the Moon?â€
See how idiotic these remarks really are? You seem to infer that landing someone on the Moon is as challenging as landing on Mars. And you are supposed to be an advocate? A rocket scientist? A journalist?
Ok CS. You have degraded DCSCA’s assertion that the reason to go to Mars is to land, yet the only thing you offer is tele-operated robots? Seems vary lame to me. How about some hard facts on why, if you spend the resources needed to go to Mars, it would be be so much more difficult to land, (and return). Also, why would you go to such lenghts of time and expence and risk to life, rather than develop more inteligent robots?
Last month Boeing came up with a plan for getting to the Moon by 2022. Best part of the plan seemed to be the “Exploration Gateway Platform” for L1.
Here’s the link to the platform design, mostly time tested modules, 80% “off the shelf’ parts:
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Hatfield_8-10-11/
Kinda of a slow upload,
but worth a look..and comment?
@ MrEarl wrote @ December 5th, 2011 at 11:47 am
“Ok CS. You have degraded DCSCA’s assertion that the reason to go to Mars is to land, yet the only thing you offer is tele-operated robots? Seems vary lame to me.”
Okay. Look I am not in the business of “degrading” anything. But DCSCA makes statements about landing on Mars that are childish. The landing of a crew and return is not feasible today. Not in a realistic, safe manner. No one, that I know, knows how to land a large mass on Mars. I am sure you can run a search and find journal articles about the challenges associated with landing a large mass on Mars. The very little atmosphere there is actually playing a lot against you. Unlike for Earth entry. Telerobotics will offer you to send humans in Mars orbit, or on a Mars moon without atmosphere. Being so close to Mars you will be able to teleoperate almost real time. Actually, landing on our Moon might be a place to start. It is about mission design. As you learn how to operate in Mars orbit you keep developing the technologies to possibly someday land a crew. But you do not make it your primary mission. It’s a little like Orion, and Shuttle before it. Trying to get some vehicle to do everything will result in failure. We are not at this level of technology yet, primarily because it is not affordable. It’s the famous learning to walk before you run and horses and carriage thingy.
“How about some hard facts on why, if you spend the resources needed to go to Mars, it would be be so much more difficult to land, (and return).”
Yes very difficult. Again dig up “landing large mass” on Mars. Most vehicles (probes) that made it to the surface entered its atmosphere at zero or very little angle of attack thereby experiencing large deceleration (g) values. The landing itself becomes highly difficult as well. Landing accuracy also. And then you need to land something in good enough shape (after landing) that it can actually take off of Mars. Remember that you will most likely have to stay about 1 year on the sruface of Mars before return with current technology.
“Also, why would you go to such lenghts of time and expence and risk to life, rather than develop more inteligent robots?”
Ah. That is a very good question indeed. And I don’t have a very good answer. If the goal is to send humans to Mars then we must make it in as much an affordable way we can. And not in an Apollo “stunt” way. Or it will eventually go away for cost reasons. My take is I would like to see humans expend into the Cosmos (my own childish point of view). In order to do so we must leverage all the available technology, starting with robots. It’s all about goal and reasons. But we’re back to the fundamental question: Why? And this is not answered. not yet. Survival of the species is a good one but yet it is not fully embraced by our highly divided community.
We’ll see.
Have any of you done a demographic on exactly how strong the support for manned flight to Mars really is, and how age related it is?
On the cosmic scale of things, it is not that important.
MrEarl wrote @ December 5th, 2011 at 11:47 am
“You have degraded DCSCA’s assertion that the reason to go to Mars is to land, yet the only thing you offer is tele-operated robots?”
DCSCA forgets about Apollo missions 8 & 10, where we orbited the Moon but did not land. The Apollo program had a very deliberate and progressively more complicated test program, and that is a good template for when we go to Mars.
For instance, the first mission to Mars is going to be concerned with retiring risk with the journey out and back, so adding the additional complication of landing, surviving, and getting back off of Mars is over-complicating everything.
If we are truly going to Mars to stay there, then building up our capabilities and competencies makes sense. Only armchair astronauts (i.e. none of their skin at risk) would argue otherwise, which is what DCSCA is. Don’t be a DCSCA.
@red wrote @ December 4th, 2011 at 9:46 pm
From twitter:@chakafattah Chaka Fattah (Space Politics) A little too enthusiastic? bit.ly/s8eWfc via @addthis Color me too enthusiastic I’m confident in the USA & NASA My take: Astronauts on the surface of Mars may or may not be achievable by 2030 with intelligent space policy strong on commercial services…”
ROFLMAO. Gagarin’s government/military sponsored orbital flight flew 50 years ago last April. The 50th anniversary of Glenn’s U.S. government sponsored Mercury orbital flight is in February. And as of today, half a century on, there has been no successful commercial orbital HSF flown so silly chatter of ‘commerical HSF to Mars’ is as big a joke as Master Musk planning a retirement on Mars, or rather orbit around instead as ‘common sense’ insists landing is much too difficult. Why… that’s like asking for the moon.
Re: Landing on Mars.
I am assuming that DCSCA can at least read introduction and conclusion. I am not the only one who thinks that landing large mass on Mars for a human crew is too difficult, or let’s say challenging. And especially challenging wrt cost. Of course with infinite money dump you can do anything. Now as some one likes to remind us how many cents are being borrowed to the dollar?
Whatever.
http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/cms/7126/7622.aspx
http://www.ssdl.gatech.edu/papers/conferencePapers/AIAA-2011-7296.pdf
http://www.ssdl.gatech.edu/papers/conferencePapers/AIAA-2009-6684.pdf
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/39664/1/05-3869.pdf
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/39664/1/05-3869.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/501326main_TA09-EDL-DRAFT-Nov2010-A.pdf
CS:
There are plenty of theories for landing on Mars and we’re not totaly clueless about how to safely land and retrieve people from another body in space. If the moon/Mars becomes the focus of HSF, it not unresonable to expect that we would be able to do that in 20 years.
Ron:
Apollo 8 and 10 were not focus of the Apollo program, Apollo 11 was, landing on the moon. While there may be one or even two missions to Mars for scouting and preperation of landing sights, the real goal is to land.
So, if there will be missions that orbit Mars as preperation to a manned landing as Apollo 8 and 10 were, then fine. If the focus is to send people to orbit Mars to tele-operate robots, no thanks.
Obama presents a manned orbit of Mars as the focus or final act.
@ MrEarl wrote @ December 5th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
“There are plenty of theories for landing on Mars”
No, there are not “plenty of theories”. Mars has one given atmosphere. We have so far a few concepts. Never used. Such as deployable heatshield (most promising) to retro-propulsion (very, very difficult – and you need to bring extra fuel thereby increasing the mass). So again there are not “plenty of theories”. Read the links I provided above.
“and we’re not totaly clueless about how to safely land and retrieve people from another body in space.”
I don’t believe I said we were clueless. I said we cannot do it. We do not have the technology.
“If the moon/Mars becomes the focus of HSF, it not unresonable to expect that we would be able to do that in 20 years.”
It all depends on the funding. I did not say it was mysterious what needed to be done. I said we cannot do it today with the technology we have. We do not have the plans nor the funding to do it. Your “20 years” expectation is, unfortunately, meaningless. And btw, the way things are going it seems to me totally unreasonable. But that’s me. And maybe a few others…
Hi CS –
This is going to be interesting – kind of like watching someone get burned at the stake for being a heretic. How long do you think you’ll be able to take the heat? I’ve just been claiming for about 10 years that building CAPS on the Moon has a far higher priority.
You haven’t even brought up the radiation problem and the back contamination problem hurdles yet. But that does not matter, as none of it sinks in. Once you understand that you are not dealing with science, but with a space based utopianism, then it becomes clearer.
@commonsense:
Landing a ‘large mass’ on the moon was also considered “too difficult” in 1961 as Apollo was being planned and initiated. Houbolt famously noted the ‘difficulty’ of landing a mass the size of an Atlas on the moon and presented an alternative- LOR. Of course, the can-do engineers and managers of the time “worked the problem” and created a smaller mass to make the descent. We call it the Lunar Module. Your can’t-do attutude won’t do at all in the can-do world of HSF. Stay away from it.
@Coastal Ron wrote @ December 5th, 2011 at 2:33 pm
=yawn= Believe you’ll find a sound ‘template’ for an ultimate goal of an expedition to Mars was sketched out fairly well by Chris Kraft, Neil Armstrong, Gene Cernan, Glynn Lunney, et al, last year in op-eds and letters. Suggested the way forward in terms of hardware development, operations and procedures. Guess you missed it.
@ E.P. Grondine wrote @ December 5th, 2011 at 5:32 pm
“This is going to be interesting – kind of like watching someone get burned at the stake for being a heretic. How long do you think you’ll be able to take the heat?”
Forever. I am in no rush. Science is no heresy. It is for the weak minded though.
“You haven’t even brought up the radiation problem and the back contamination problem hurdles yet.”
No since it was not the issue. I was assuming the voyage to Mars had been done and now we were dealing with the landing. All highly hypothetical.
@ DCSCA wrote @ December 5th, 2011 at 5:45 pm
“Landing a ‘large mass’ on the moon was also considered “too difficult†in 1961 as Apollo was being planned and initiated.”
But you know, I mean you have to know that we are in 2011. Right? Knowledge has increased since then…
“Of course, the can-do engineers and managers of the time “worked the problem†and created a smaller mass to make the descent.”
I am waiting for your “smaller mass” lander to Mars. Let’s talk about it. Anytime you’re ready.
“We call it the Lunar Module.”
Just for fun. Assume that you can actually build a LM-sized lander for Mars. What are you going to do with it?
“Your can’t-do attutude won’t do at all in the can-do world of HSF. Stay away from it.”
Well too late. I am in the world of HSF and have been for sometime now. I can’t help. But I did a few things to be there one of which was to learn. I mean learn science, not lunar landing footage by heart…
DCSCA wrote @ December 5th, 2011 at 5:45 pm
Technology isn’t the problem. Money is the problem. Congress is unwilling to fund anything near a Constellation type effort. Mars would be more expensive than the moon. Per Dr. Griffin, Constellation would have cost 7+ billion a YEAR with an additional 1 billion for advance development starting in FY2011. Do you really see congress supporting this kind of program?
NASA needs to be more efficient and Commercial Crew, Nautilus-X, Food growth and In-Situ Resource Utilization start us down that road. These types capabilities allow us to send astronaut/scientist all over the solar system for extended periods. Scientist have been working for years in Antarctica. Don’t you think they will need years to explore Mars? Or is it all for show?
DCSCA wrote @ December 5th, 2011 at 6:06 pm
“Believe you’ll find a sound ‘template’ for an ultimate goal of an expedition to Mars was sketched out fairly well by …snip – a bunch of people no longer responsible for doing anything in space – snip…, et al, last year in op-eds and letters.”
Ooh, op-eds and letters! Well that is a sound basis for spending hundreds of $Billions on a mission to Mars.
“Guess you missed it.”
If someone says something irrelevant, should I care?
Unless these people plan to stick around and actually, you know, DO SOMETHING about their “plans”, then it’s just a bunch of talk. As you demonstrate well, talk is cheap.
DCSCA wrote @ December 5th, 2011 at 5:51 am
“No doubt if this was 1961, you’d balk at a lunar landing as well, with the whine, ‘Did you ever, I mean EVER, read what it takes to actually land on the Moon? To land a crew on the Moon? As opposed to orbit the Moon?’ ”
Probably wouldn’t balk, because in 1961 we couldn’t do anything from orbit except gaze out the window. We can now. You’re living in the wrong era. But yes, even now we’re unable to drop that anchor or shoot those muskets while we’re on orbit.
I won’t argue that putting a human being on Mars isn’t technologically tractable. It’s just unaffordable right now. In fact, a whole lot of that expense is just about going the last yard. Someday we’ll do it, but we’d be dumb to put on blinders and presume that the whole game is about putting flesh on other worlds.
@John Malkin wrote @ December 5th, 2011 at 7:07 pm
Funding has always been the issue and given the size of the U.S. ecomony/global economy, a comparatively small increase in funding for space efforts would make the technology more readilly available but generating the support is trhe key. FEllas like ‘common sense’ lack same, pitching robots as a substitute. If you want Martian rocks, a grab and bag mission could be put together fairly cheaply and fast. But the point of gonig to Mars is just that- going there. And an expedition will go one day for sure. Whether it is American led is another matter. But the plan thumbnailed by Kraft, Lunney, Armstrong,Cernan et al, last year in terms of methodogy, hardware development, planning, operations and procesures for mid and lond duration space expeditions was on tyhe right track
@common sense wrote @ December 5th, 2011 at 6:20 pm
Your can’t-do attitude has been duly noted. No matter. We’ll get there w/o you.
John Malkin wrote @ December 5th, 2011 at 7:07 pm
PS- Antarctica is a good model for long-duration expeditions to the moon and Mars. A lot of what has been learned and experienced there can and will most likely be transferred to future off-planet expeditions. Kraft’s plan had the right idea simply in terms of developing the hardware, software, methodolgy and procedures in cislunar space and operating a lunar facility as a precursor to a Martian expedition akin to Gemini as prep work for Apollo. Most likely some kind of Martian ‘beachead’ will eventually be established based on Antarctic and lunar experience.
DCSCA wrote @ December 5th, 2011 at 6:06 pm
=yawn= Believe you’ll find a sound ‘template’ for an ultimate goal of an expedition to Mars was sketched out fairly well by Chris Kraft, Neil Armstrong, Gene Cernan, Glynn Lunney, et al, last year in op-eds and letters. ..
I read them, or some of them and there was nothing convincing about them.
All these guys (and others) are stuck in an era that is long gone.
In every other field of exploration known to mankind the notion of humans v robots and where things “sit” if you will has long been answered. We dont explore the ocean floor with crewed submersibles; we do it with robots run by people safe on mother ships; we do more and more exploration of the Polar regions with “machines”…why?
Machines are cheaper and while less versatile then humans we get more bang for the buck in terms of exploration with machines at the pointed end…then we do with people.
The only reason that is not the obvious conclusion in human spaceflight is because in the 1960’s human spaceflight got all caught up in “the person” in the capsule and left behind was mostly the science that the effort did. An entire political infrastructure including well paying jobs in mostly poor states has grown up to support human space “exploration” and that is why the effort has some traction.
on a dollar per dollar science result per science result we have learned more from uncrewed programs about the Moon, then we learned from all of Apollo; or would from a similar type program.
Armstrong et alll had their reason but pushed hard they all hard back to the “Buck Rogers” theory of the 60’s. And that no longer sales.
There is I think a role for people in space, but for it to have some staying power past just raw pork; the price to keep people in space and have them do anything is going to have to come way down. That means less people on the ground “sitting console” and cheaper means of operating in space. I think we will find useful things for people to do in human spaceflight; hubble and ISS building pointed to that.
But “exploration”? Thats a none starter now unless the cost comes way down.
Robert G. Oler
sftommy wrote @ December 5th, 2011 at 11:58 am
Last month Boeing came up with a plan for getting to the Moon by 2022. Best part of the plan seemed to be the “Exploration Gateway Platform†for L1.
Here’s the link to the platform design, mostly time tested modules, 80% “off the shelf’ parts:
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Hatfield_8-10-11/
Kinda of a slow upload,
but worth a look..and comment?>>
It is a effort looking for a reason…there is no reason to do it other then keeping the groups that have grown up around human spaceflight busy RGO
DCSCA wrote @ December 5th, 2011 at 10:22 pm
Funding has always been the issue and given the size of the U.S. economy/global economy, a comparatively small increase in funding for space efforts would make the technology more readily available but generating the support is the key.
What is a little? Also Congress was still unwilling to fund at proper levels in a good economy.
So how would you spend your little extra money to “make the technology more “readily” available”?
Hi CS, RGO –
Talking sense to these people is like trying to tell a 3 year old no candy until after dinner.
People believe what they want to believe, facts be damned. But its worse than that, as If you keep bringing the unfortunate facts up, this lot will do their best to see that they shut you up, and they will continue until reality finally intrudes.
@Robert G. Oler wrote @ December 5th, 2011 at 11:46 pm
“I read them, or some of them and there was nothing convincing about them.”
But then, your conclusion, albeit incomplete per your own admission really doesn’t carry much weight, does it, per your own words: “Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 4:17 pm– First I really dont care that we (the US or humanity or whatever) goes to the Moon or Mars or an asteroid in the next 10-20 years. I dont think that there is any need to send people we have good robotics which can do the job at far lower cost.â€
‘Nuff said.