Mars

Nanti-SARRMM · Post by **Nanti-SARRMM** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 9:44 am

#52571

To counter P.D. Kirke's answer, I would like to add the argument that the space program is constitutional. Section 8 of the Constitution says that Congress has the power to provide for the General Welfare of the United States. I would argue that considering Sputnik and the hype that it caused, that by going into the space race, by beating the USSR to the moon and all that, that it helped alleviate worries and tensions of many US citizens.

Dr. Smeed already linked to a website that listed spin off products from NASA that have been introduced into the markets, so that in itself indirectly provides for the general economic welfare of the country, by stimulating business and revenue.

So besides the financial end of things, by going to the moon first, by investing in Space Exploration, that Congress has helped the General Welfare of the country. At the very least it had a psychological impact that helped the mood of the country.

vorpal blade · Post by **vorpal blade** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 6:21 pm

The thing that bothers me about your point of view, Sam, is that it can be used to justify every expense of our government. I had the idea the framers of our Constitution were trying to limit the powers of Congress. Doing some good, and making people feel better about their country seems a little weak, to me. I agree it is a debatable point. Obviously a great deal of latitude was left to Congress with the vague phrase.

I'm not sure I agree with the government's spending for space, but as I recall at the time we were rushing to put a man on the moon there was a great deal of concern that the government provide for the common Defense. If the Russians got to the moon first, and claimed it as Russian territory, might that not cause a problem for defending ourselves in the future? Might not the resources of the moon be used in some kind of war against us? That's pretty weak also, but you could argue that we need to go to Mars to provide for the common Defense.

Well, maybe the common Defense is no better argument than the general Welfare.

I'm thinking we need a Constitutional amendment before we can justify going to Mars.

Humble Master · Post by **Humble Master** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 7:25 pm

Or we can just name Mars the 51st state. I need to start a petition for this...

Nanti-SARRMM · Post by **Nanti-SARRMM** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 9:50 pm

Humble Master wrote:Or we can just name Mars the 51st state. I need to start a petition for this...

Which means colonizing it, as if I recall there are population requirements. Perfect!

Vorpal: Or NASA can get more private funding, with a better designed shuttle to make things more cost effective.

My question is, why do we launch straight up? Wouldn't it be better to launch at an angle?

Darth Fedora · Post by **Darth Fedora** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 10:40 pm

Lifting off at an angle works for things shaped like airplanes, with narrow bodies and wide wings. Space shuttles can't be shaped like airplanes because the wings would burn up during re-entry, so they have to be thicker and stubbier in all dimensions. Because space shuttles don't have the right wing shape to generate lots of lift and become airborne at an angle like airplanes, it's easiest and most efficient to just shoot them straight up so they get as far away from Earth's gravitational pull as fast as possible.

Post by **Laser Jock** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 3:26 am

Darth Fedora wrote:...most efficient to just shoot them straight up so they get as far away from Earth's gravitational pull as fast as possible.

I would think that getting out of the atmosphere would be a bigger concern. They do aim for a specific orbit, though, not just go straight up.

Also: current designs (e.g., space shuttle) weigh way too much to make "flying" (airplane-style) practical. I'm not up on what future designs might do, though.

vorpal blade · Post by **vorpal blade** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:41 am

Nanti-SARRMM wrote:Vorpal: Or NASA can get more private funding, with a better designed shuttle to make things more cost effective.

Why not turn it over entirely to private enterprise? If it's worth doing, and if it makes economic sense to do it, some private company or individual will find a way to do it. Assuming we don't tax the rich into poverty, and regulate everything to death, and the government doesn't take over all of private industry.

Damasta · Post by **Damasta** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:01 am

Agreed. Privatize NASA. Let Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Scaled Composites, Orbital Sciences, CSXT, &c. do it better and more cheaply.