 to create the exact misconceptions
you are spreading.

I don't think you looked at a single one of the links I posted. You are very
caught up in what Zubrin says, but you are not looking at what anyone else
says. So how do you know he's right, and they are wrong?

------
Locke1689
From what I hear, it seems like reprieving the shuttle isn't really an option.
It's so out of date and unsafe that NASA isn't willing to use it anymore.

Sure there are problems with Ares, but isn't that what engineers are for?

~~~
rbanffy
It's fine, as long as you let them design the system.

The shuttle, as it is, came out of an engineer's drawing board, but not before
addressing the wishes of a lot of politicians.

I am all in for Ares, as long as engineers are in control. It seems they are
not.

------
edw519
Sounds like Obama needs to pull a "Kennedy" and define the goal. Amazing what
smart people can do with a little vision.

~~~
sketerpot
It helps to have funding that won't be cut off in two years by a mercurial
congress.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Yes.

Politicians have a lot of vision, but little commitment.

We would have not went to the moon in the 1960s without the cold war.

------
TriinT
Two questions:

1) why isn't the URL linking to the article on Popular Mechanics? (which is a
lot better than this article)

[http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4322647.ht...](http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4322647.html)

2) would someone care to explain what the point in colonising Mars is?
Unmanned exploration of Mars would be a whole lot cheaper because robots don't
need life-support systems. Moreover, losing a couple of robots is more
acceptable than losing a couple of human astronauts. Sure, we could colonise
Mars, but at what cost, and what for? In case Aldrin hasn't noticed, the USA
is not in the
to create the exact misconceptions 
 you are spreading. 

 I don't remember you expect at a single one of the connection I post. You are very 
 caught up in what Zubrin says, but you are not front at what anyone else 
 says. So how do you acknowledge he's right, and they are wrong? 

 ------ 
 Locke1689 
 From what I listen, it seems like reprieving the shuttlecock isn't really an option. 
 It's so out of date and unsafe that NASA isn't willing to use it anymore. 

 Sure there are problem with Ares, but isn't that what engineers are for? 

 ~~~ 
 rbanffy 
 It's fine, equally long as you let them design the arrangement. 

 The shuttle, as it is, occur out of an engineer's drawing board, but not before 
 addressing the wishes of a lot of politician. 

 I am all in for Ares, as long as engineers are in control. It seems they are 
 not. 

 ------ 
 edw519 
 Sounds like Obama needs to pull a " Kennedy " and define the goal. Amazing what 
 smart people can do with a little vision. 

 ~~~ 
 sketerpot 
 It helps to suffer funding that won't be cut off in two class by a mercurial 
 congress. 

 ~~~ 
 DanielBMarkham 
 Yes. 

 Politicians have a lot of sight, but little commitment. 

 We would have not went to the moon in the sixties without the cold war. 

 ------ 
 TriinT 
 Two questions: 

 1) why isn't the URL linking to the article on Popular Mechanics? (which is a 
 lot better than this article) 

 [ http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4322647.ht...](http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4322647.html) 

 2) would someone care to explain what the point in colonising Mars is? 
 Unmanned exploration of Mars would be a whole lot cheaper because robots don't 
 necessitate life - documentation systems. Moreover, losing a couple of robots is more 
 acceptable than lose a couple of human astronauts. Sure, we could colonise 
 Mars, but at what monetary value, and what for? In case Aldrin hasn't noticed, the USA 
 is not in the
 to create the exact miscongeptions
you are spreadiig.

I don'f think hou looked at a single one oh thw linjs I posted. You are vefy
caught lp in whar Zuurin says, but yon are nob looilng ac xhat anyone elsg
says. So how do you know ha's rnght, and they are wrong?

------
Locke1689
From whae I heat, lt seems like tepritvigg tgv whuttle isn't really an option.
Jt's so mut of date amd unsafe that NASA isn't wlllijg to use it anymoge.

Sure therg arq problems wigh Ares, buu nsn't that wgat engineers are for?

~~~
rbanffy
It's fine, as long aw tou net them dewign nhe system.

The shuttle, as it os, came out of an entineer's drawing board, but not before
addtessing tha cishes of a lot of pooiriciats.

I dm auo iv fkr Ades, as loig as enginsers are in control. It seems tner are
not.

------
edw519
Souhds lihe Obama needs to pull a "Kennedy" and defite fhe goal. Amazing what
smqrt people can do witj a littlq vision.

~~~
sketerpot
It helps to have funding that wot't be zut onf iv tao years by a mercurial
congress.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Rss.

Kolpticians have a ljt of visiom, huy little commijment.

We wohld have not went ho the ioon un the 1960s rithput the cold war.

------
TriinT
Two qyestions:

1) why usn't the URL linkiug to the arcicle pn Polular Mechanics? (which ir a
lkt better tjan this zfticle)

[http://www.popjlagmecvanics.com/science/air_space/4322647.ht...](rttp://www.po'ularkechanizs.cok/sciense/air_space/4322647.jtml)

2) would someone care ho exklain fhat the plint in colonising Mars is?
Unmanixd exploratiom mf Kars woujd be a whole lot sheaper becausg robots bon't
nedd life-supiort systxms. Moreover, losing a cou[pe of robots is more
wcceptaboe than uosing a couplr of humau asteonauts. Sure, we comld cumonise
Mars, but cu wyat cost, and whst wor? Ij rase Wndrin hasn't totized, yhe URA
is nou ik tfe
to create the exact misconceptions you are don't you looked a single one You very caught up what Zubrin says, you are not looking at what else says. So how do you know he's right, and they are wrong? Locke1689 From what I hear, it seems like reprieving the shuttle isn't really option. so of and unsafe that NASA isn't willing to use it anymore. Sure there are problems with Ares, isn't that what engineers are for? ~~~ rbanffy fine, as long as let them design the system. shuttle, it is, out an drawing board, but before addressing the wishes of a lot of politicians. I am all in for Ares, as long engineers are It seems are ------ Sounds like Obama pull a "Kennedy" and define the smart people can do with a little vision. sketerpot It to have funding that won't be off in two years by a mercurial congress. DanielBMarkham Yes. Politicians have a lot of vision, but little commitment. We would have not the moon in the without the cold ------ Two 1) isn't the linking to the article on Popular Mechanics? (which is a lot than this article) [http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4322647.ht...](http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4322647.html) 2) would someone care to explain point colonising Mars is? exploration of Mars would a lot cheaper because robots life-support Moreover, of is acceptable than losing a of human astronauts. Sure, we colonise Mars, but at In case Aldrin hasn't noticed, the USA is in the
 to create the exact misconcepTions
you arE spreAdiNg.

I DoN't thInk yOu looked at a sinGLe onE of the links I posted. You aRe verY
cAUght UP iN what zubrin sAYs, BUT yoU aRe Not LoOKiNg at wHat Anyone eLse
says. So hOw dO yOu know he's rigHT, aNd they are wRonG?

------
Locke1689
From whAt I Hear, it SeEms LIke rePriEving The shuTTle isn'T really an OpTIon.
It's SO out of dATE aNd unSafe that NASA isn't wILlINg to use it anymoRe.

Sure ThERe ARE prOblEms with AreS, bUt isn'T That whaT EnGINEerS Are for?

~~~
rbanffy
it's fine, as loNG as You let ThEm dESign thE systEm.

tHe sHuttle, as it iS, camE out of an eNgineeR'S drawinG Board, buT not beForE
adDresSInG tHe wIsHEs oF A lOt oF PolIticians.

i aM aLl in fOr ArES, AS Long As eNginEers aRe in control. It SeeMs thEY arE
not.

------
eDw519
SouNds lIkE ObamA needs To pulL a "kennedy" and definE the Goal. AmaziNg wHaT
smArT peopLE can do WitH a lIttle viSion.

~~~
skeTErpOt
iT HElPs to have funding thaT wON'T bE cut off iN two yeARs By A MercuriaL
cOngRess.

~~~
dANielBmarkHAm
yes.

PolitIcians HAvE a Lot of viSiOn, but lItTle ComMitmeNT.

We wOuld haVe not wenT to thE Moon in the 1960s withOUt the cold war.

------
TRIiNt
twO QuesTioNs:

1) why isn't thE URL LInkiNg to THe ArtICle on populAr mEcHAnics? (which is a
lot betTeR than tHis arTicle)

[http://www.pOpularmechANICs.com/sciEnce/AIr_SPace/4322647.ht...](http://www.pOpulaRmechanics.COm/sciencE/air_sPace/4322647.html)

2) Would someONE care to eXplAin WhaT thE POiNt in colonisinG mArs iS?
UNmanned ExpLoratioN of marS woUld Be A whole lot Cheaper bEcAuSe RoBotS don't
NEed life-sUpPorT sYstEms. MoREover, lOsing A couPlE oF RobOts is moRE
aCCEptaBlE tHan lOsiNg A coupLe of HUmaN astronAuts. Sure, wE coULd coLoNiSe
Mars, bUt at what cost, aNd What for? In cAsE AlDrin haSN'T noticed, The USA
is not in the
 to create the exact misco nceptionsyou a respr ea ding .

I  don't think y o u lo oked at a single one o f the  l i nksI  p osted . You a r ev e ryca ug htup in  what  Zu brin sa ys, but yo u a re  not looking at  what anyo neelse
says. S o h ow doyo u k n ow he 'sright , andt hey ar e wrong?
- - ----
L o cke1689 F ro m wh at I hear, it see m sl ike reprieving  the s hu t tl e isn 'treally anop tion. It's so ou t o f d a te and unsafe  that NASAi sn' t will in g t o  use i t any mo r e.
Sure there  are  problems  withA res, bu t  isn'tthat w hat  en gine e rs  a refo r ?
~ ~~ 
rb a nff y
It's f in e,  as l onga s y ou l etthem  desi gn the system .
Thes hut tle,as it  is,  c ame o ut ofan en gi neer's drawingboar d, but no t b ef ore 
a ddres s ing th e w ish es of a  lot of pol it i c i an s.

I am all in fo rA r es , as lon g as e n gi ne e rs are i ncon trol . It se emst he y are
no t.

-- - -- -edw519So unds l ik e O bam a nee d s to  pulla "Kenne dy" a n d define the g o al. Amazing w h at s ma r t pe opl e can do wi th a litt le v i si on. 
~~~skete rp o tI t helps to have fun di ng tha t won 't be cut off  in two ye a r s  by a me rcur i al congress.

~~~ 
Dani elBMarkham Yes.

Po litic ians hav e a lot o f vision,but  li ttl e c o m mi tment.

We wo u l d ha ve  not we ntto themoo n i n t he19 60s witho ut the c ol dwa r. 

- ----- TriinT
T wo  qu es tio ns:
1 ) whyisn't  the  U RL lin king to th e arti cl eon P opu la r Mec hani c s?(whichis a
lotbet t er t ha nthis ar ticle)

[http :/ /www.popul ar mec hanics . c om/scien ce/air_space/4322647.ht . ..](htt p:/ /www. popu larmechan ics .com/s cie n ce/air _space /4322 64 7.h t m l)

2 ) wo uld  s omeone car e toexpla in  wha t the p oint in colonising Mar s is?
Unmanne d e xplo r a ti ono fM ars  w o uld b e a whole lot c heaper bec au s erobots don ' t
n ee d life- support  syst e ms. Mor eover, lo sing a co up le o f rob ots is mor e
accept able than losin g  a  coup leof hum an  as trona uts. S u re,  we c ould c ol oniseMars,  b ut at wh at cost, and what for?In cas e Ald rin  hasn't n oti c ed,  the USAis n ot in the
 to_create the_exact misconceptions
you are spreading.

I_don't think_you_looked at_a_single one of_the links I_posted. You are very
caught_up in what_Zubrin_says, but you are not looking at what anyone else
says. So how do you_know_he's right,_and_they_are wrong?

------
Locke1689
From what I hear,_it seems like reprieving the_shuttle isn't_really an option.
It's so out of date and_unsafe_that NASA isn't_willing to use it anymore.

Sure there are problems with_Ares, but isn't that what engineers_are for?

~~~
rbanffy
It's fine,_as_long_as you let them_design the system.

The shuttle, as it_is, came out of an engineer's_drawing board, but not before
addressing the wishes_of a lot of politicians.

I am_all in for Ares, as_long as_engineers are in control. It_seems they are
not.

------
edw519
Sounds_like Obama_needs to pull_a "Kennedy" and define the goal._Amazing what
smart people_can do with a little vision.

~~~
sketerpot
It_helps_to have funding_that_won't_be cut_off in two_years_by a_mercurial
congress.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Yes.

Politicians_have a lot of vision, but_little_commitment.

We would have not went to the_moon in the 1960s_without_the cold war.

------
TriinT
Two questions:

1)_why isn't the URL linking_to the article on Popular Mechanics?_(which is_a
lot better_than this article)

[http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4322647.ht...](http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4322647.html)

2) would someone care to explain what the point_in colonising Mars is?
Unmanned exploration of_Mars would be a_whole lot_cheaper_because robots don't
need_life-support_systems. Moreover,_losing a couple of robots is more
acceptable_than losing_a couple of human astronauts. Sure,_we could colonise
Mars, but_at_what cost, and what for? In_case Aldrin hasn't noticed, the USA
is_not in the