Comments on: Charles Bolden: Obama’s New Man At NASA

By: Dkelsmith

Dkelsmith — Wed, 27 May 2009 17:17:37 +0000

I must have missed the point that both Oliver and Jaim are talking about. I don’t see the use in manned, or unmanned travel to Mars at this point. I am against it moreso because we are running a budget deficit. I think it would be much better to concentrate on stabilizing the economy. My main question is how will a manned trip, that could eventually lead to an “outpost” possibly do anything to benefit the earth? I can imagine the costs of the research and prep would be exorbitant, let alone the flight and the operations.

By: yo mama

yo mama — Tue, 26 May 2009 18:36:18 +0000

There is absolutely no good reason to go to mars. It would be a huge waste of money. Which is why I would expect Obama and his supporters to think it’s a great idea.

By: Mad Professah

Mad Professah — Mon, 25 May 2009 22:37:05 +0000

I think it’s great that he’s a Marine Brigadier-General AND a “spaceman” and happens to be Black.

A great choice for NASA administrator.

By: gruntled atheist

gruntled atheist — Mon, 25 May 2009 05:02:09 +0000

Spaceperson!

By: rwelty

rwelty — Sun, 24 May 2009 23:19:13 +0000

Chip Bolden is very highly regarded by everyone who has worked with him. he should turn out to be a first rate appointment.

By: SpiderJ

SpiderJ — Sun, 24 May 2009 18:20:29 +0000

Huh. Obama appoints another black man. The Stormfronters are right!!! Obama’s coming to enslave all whiteys!

[/insanity]

By: White Whale

White Whale — Sun, 24 May 2009 16:32:04 +0000

Mars bitches. Mars

By: Oliver Willis

Oliver Willis — Sun, 24 May 2009 07:06:48 +0000

I’m not advocating going back to the moon. Nothing’s there.

Nobody loves the Mars rovers more than I do. But they’re not humans. Space exploration is, by nature, a gamble. The people who do it know so. A robot grabbing soil samples and doing analysis is great hard science stuff but it just isn’t anywhere near a human being for the first time placing his or her feet on the surface of an alien planet. We clearly aren’t going to Mars tomorrow (pack your bags!) but we need a long term (10 years or so) plan with the expressed goal of a human outpost on Mars.

Most importantly when we land on Mars we have to have people there in order for us to speak to the Martians. Duh.

By: Jaim

Jaim — Sun, 24 May 2009 06:55:04 +0000

Yeah, we’ve had this argument before. I’m one of those cynical meanies who thinks the Romantic values of manned flight simply don’t stack up to the practicalities and risks of manned flight. Going back to the moon would be a waste of time and money because really, what’s there? Going to Mars with canned humans would be, as of today, far too risky. The propulsion systems are too slow, and the biggest concern would be prolonged exposure to radiation.

NASA has limited resources, and right now they’d be best spent of further robotic expeditions. Which isn’t to say we should put people into space at a later date, but we shouldn’t send them up like guinea pigs.

Too lazy to find the link, but a good compromise might be to start sending some robotic expeditions to Mars that could put some sort of infrastructure in place, even simple things like extra cans of oxygen and water, that could be utilized by an eventual manned expedition.

To the stars, Oliver! Us manned flight haters really aren’t space exploration haters, just realists!

And IMO, you do a disservice to the successful robot expeditions to Mars that really did tell us a lot and send back some amazing pics.

By: Oliver Willis

Oliver Willis — Sun, 24 May 2009 06:49:32 +0000

And robots have no flipping imagination. And bless their robot hearts it ain't the same when their wheels hit the martian surface vs. human boots. As neat as this is... It FAILS compared to

By: Jaim

Jaim — Sun, 24 May 2009 06:33:56 +0000

Robots do space exploration better, cheaper, and safer, at least for now.