E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Bill Ingalls / NASA
A commemorative wreath adorns a monument to the crew of the shuttle Columbia at Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia on Friday, the 10th anniversary of the shuttle's destruction and the astronauts' deaths.
President Barack Obama and NASA's leaders paid a 10th-anniversary tribute to the space shuttle Columbia's fallen astronauts on Friday — and pledged that the lessons learned would be applied to future space odysseys, including eventual trips to Mars.
"As we undertake the next generation of discovery, today we pause to remember those who paid the ultimate sacrifice on the journey of exploration," Obama said in a statement released by NASA. "Right now we are working to fulfill their highest aspirations by pursuing a path in space never seen before, one that will eventually put Americans on Mars."
The shuttle Columbia's catastrophic breakup on Feb. 1, 2003, killed seven astronauts, forced a two-year grounding of the three remaining space shuttles and led to stepped-up safety measures at the space agency. The disaster also led Obama's predecessor, President George W. Bush, to plan for the retirement of the shuttle fleet once construction of the International Space Station was complete. The last shuttle mission flew eight years later, in 2011.
Bush's space vision called for a new generation of vehicles to be built for trips back to the moon by 2020 — but Obama shifted the focus of exploration to a near-Earth asteroid in the mid-2020s, with trips to Mars and its moons starting in the mid-2030s.
'We will never forget'
In his own 10th-anniversary statement, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said the sacrifices made by the crew of Columbia's last mission will inspire future explorers.
"We will never forget these astronauts, nor all those who have lost their lives carrying out our missions of exploration — the STS-51L Challenger crew; the Apollo 1 crew; Mike Adams, the first in-flight fatality of the space program as he piloted the X-15 No. 3 on a research flight," Bolden said in an agency statement. "These explorers, and their families, have our deepest respect. We work every day to honor and build on their legacy and create the best space program in the world — to infuse it with the life and vitality that they worked so hard to achieve."
Bill Ingalls / NASA
NASA Administrator Charles Bolden looks on as Apollo 11 moonwalker Buzz Aldrin gives a salute during a wreath-laying ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery on Friday. The ceremony paid tribute to astronauts who died in the Apollo 1 fire of 1967 as well as the 1986 Challenger explosion and the 2003 Columbia tragedy.
Retrace the final, tragic flight of the space shuttle Columbia, from its launch to its catastrophic end on Feb. 1, 2003.
On Friday morning, Bolden laid a wreath in honor of the agency's fallen astronauts at Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia, where monuments to the Columbia and Challenger crews have been erected. Earlier in the week, he attended a spaceflight conference held in Israel to honor Ilan Ramon, that country's first astronaut, who died in the Columbia tragedy. The other victims included Columbia commander Rick Husband, William McCool, Michael Anderson, David Brown, Kalpana Chawla and Laurel Clark.
Memorial ceremonies also were conducted in Texas, where the Columbia wreckage fell to earth, and at Kennedy Space Center's visitor complex in Florida. The focal point of the Florida ceremony was the Space Mirror Memorial, which bears the names of NASA fliers who died in the line of duty.
Roots of the tragedy
At that ceremony, Bill Gerstenmaier, NASA's associate administrator for human exploration and operations, acknowledged that the roots of the Columbia disaster went "all the way back to the first shuttle launch in 1981." Even then, NASA knew that ice and pieces of foam insulation could fly off the shuttle's external fuel tank and strike the orbiter — but the fact that no severe damage was done "reinforced the idea that all was well," Gerstenmaier said.
That view changed dramatically when Columbia was felled. Investigators determined that the leading edge of Columbia's left wing was fatally damaged by a piece of flying foam during launch, setting the stage for the breakup 16 days later during atmospheric re-entry. NASA was reminded that "even small problems can surface as major failures," Gerstenmaier said.
"Ten years ago, it would have been easy to pull back from the frontier of space, and say it was too risky to pursue," he said. "Instead, we dedicated ourselves to improving how we pushed the boundaries of space exploration, and we vowed to continue with our eyes open. We cannot be afraid of risk, and we cannot be ignorant of it, either. Our lasting tribute to those we have lost is to carry on with the cause that they believed was worth the ultimate sacrifice."
Other speakers at the Florida ceremony included Evelyn Husband-Thompson, the widow of Columbia's commander, who has since remarried. She recalled how she and other family members anticipated the return of their loved ones on that fateful Saturday morning 10 years ago, only to be jolted into a nightmare of "fear, uncertainty and horror."
NASA
Evelyn Husband-Thompson, the widow of Columbia commander Rick Husband, speaks at a memorial ceremony conducted Friday at the Space Mirror Memorial at Kennedy Space Center's visitor complex.
"The grief journey has been difficult, complicated and surprising," she said. Over the past decade, she has drawn comfort from her friends, her family and her faith. She noted that the Columbia crew's legacy includes educational initiatives, scholarships, museum exhibits, and even the name of the airport near her home in Texas: Rick Husband Amarillo International Airport.
"Just as a forest fire reduces beautiful foliage to ashes, those ashes ultimately become nourishment for new, healthy growth," Husband-Thompson said. "There are indeed small, green shoots of hope that are springing up in our lives."
More about Columbia:
- 10 years later, Columbia's loss still stings
- Shuttle tragedies serve as warnings to NASA
- 10 myths surrounding the Columbia tragedy
- NASA celebrates its fallen astronauts
- Film finds uplifting story amid Columbia's loss
Alan Boyle is NBCNews.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter and adding the Cosmic Log page to your Google+ presence. To keep up with Cosmic Log as well as NBCNews.com's other stories about science and space, sign up for the Tech & Science newsletter, delivered to your email in-box every weekday. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
Isn't this President the same man that killed the space program shortly after taking office? Exactly what space program is developing the craft that will take us to Mars? And what entity is going to provide the training that will be required to do what this President alleges we are going to be doing?
President Obama is a walking contradiction...
Your current knowledge of the US Space Program lags obviously far behind your intake of political spin and lies. NASA/US Space Program was not "killed" by any President, and never has there been a threat to do so.
President Bush ceased production of replacement parts for the Space Shuttle program in 2004, and the last flight of the Shuttles was in 2010 per order from President Obama. In that time, NASA has continued in its mission to explore not only our planet, but our neighboring planets and the vast reaches of space around us. That includes missions to Mars and Pluto plus ongoing missions like Hubble Space Telescope, SOHO (Sun observing satellite), Mercury and a myriad of Earth observation missions.
Human spaceflight is still being conducted, as there are still US Astronauts on the ISS (of which we are a partner). The US currently does not have any domestic spacecraft capable of human transport into orbit, i.e. the "space gap". This gap, between the Shuttle program and the Orion-centered missions, are what political spindoctors use to say the space program was "killed" by ____— (fill in blank with your political opposite). The gap exists due primarily to the failure of Congress to agree on, then properly fund, a suitable replacement for the Space Shuttle. Neither President, Bush nor Obama, should be faulted for the Shuttle program ending as the space craft were near the end of their operating lives and we needed a cheaper, safer and more better designed spacecraft to take us beyond Low Earth Orbit, which is the best the Shuttle could do.
Don't get your news from the political sites. That's pure garbage spun into a easy to consume froth.
The fact that the US has failed to develop a viable alternative to the shuttle is completely unacceptable. Our government needs to refocus it's priorities. Were it not for the demands / expectations of space exploration, we would not have many of the electronic marvels we take for granted. NASA unfortunately had become a bureaucratic monster, not the scientific powerhouse it needs to be. Their push to rely on commercial sources, while seemingly affordable is a formula for disaster. Space is a formidable and unforgiving environment. Garden variety commercial products will not survive and perform in the stringent, demanding environment of space.
Not to worry, Alfred. Elon Musk is catching up fast...
As for Mars the most important question is can we make oxygen on what we can find on mars. From my understanding is that their 2 routes to Mars. One being the most conservitive taking 9 mths both ways. But theres is another that would take a month but would require a years wait on mars for the return. Either way would require a lot of oxygen. To me the best idea is the 1 month.
Yes we can make Oxygen. Just like we can split water into hydrogen and oxygen, we can recycle breathed air back into oxygenated air. If plants can do it we can too with technology. The real issue going to mars is food. Do you really want to send along enough food to last a year, or do you want to send enough till production of food can take over and sustain the crew? I would prefer to produce food. Food production gives people an activity to participate in that helps relieve stresses of extended periods of confinement. It supplies them with fresh food instead of preserved year old food. It can also provide variety that a space MRE cannot provide. Nobody wants to be stuck on Mars during corned beef week.
Since when did Mr. Obama "kill the space program?" In truth it was George Bush that threw the monkey wrench into NASA. In his desperate attempt to salvage something out of his completely failed presidency, Mr. Bush foolishly put forth the repeat of the manned missions to the moon together with the unfeasable manned mission to mars. To pay for his nonsense, Mr. Bush took money from important unmanned space projects thereby displacing science and knowledge with stunts and propaganda. Mr. Obama convened a panel of professionals who took six months to research the best direction for NASA. The asteroid mission makes sense as the objects present a real danger to our planet.
The risk and expense of sending people into space cannot be justified when essentially anything human beings can accomplish in space can be accomplished much more effectively and cheaply with unmanned probes. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory is the real space program and is responsible for the vast majority of scientific discovery accomplished by NASA. The manned space program, by contrast, is a giant boondoggle. If China, or any other country, wants to send its citizens/subjects to Mars, so be it. US taxpayers should demand better and NASA should focus on science, not politics and public relations.
While I would certainly hope that as much space exploration/exploitation/construction and so on be done by automatons to decrease risk to human lives, I am skeptical that our robotics technology has come along far enough to plausibly replace astronauts with robots completely.
In addition, regardless of what you say, people WANT to go into space. We certainly don't want to stop producing/researching technology to put people in space safely. Colonization of other planets should absolutely be an ultimate goal of humanity, and you certainly can't do THAT with robots.
Skepticsteve, your first mistake is assuming that pure science and pure exploration is the only reason we do things in space.
Second, you mistakenly assume that nothing more can be done to reduce the risk and cost of humans in space.
Third, the more sophisticated a machine is, the more it approaches the cost of using people anyway. Especially as you learn to reduce launch costs. (And that partly occurs by demand and economies of scale, that unmanned 'science' probes alone, cannot provide)
And then there's speed-of-light delays for command and control, at increasing distances from Earth. As long as we don't have FTL communication or true AI, there will continue to be a place in space for humans.
The major advances in space expolration have been accomplished by cameras, machines, computers, and robots.
Humans in space are purely political stunts. The space station uses humans to study the effect of living in space on humans. It is purely circular research and of little real value.
What did the man on the moon mission really accomplish?
The Hubble telescope is an excellent example of money and time well spent.
You also assume it's only about science and exploration...
Have you actually tried to find out what the research schedule on ISS is? It's easier to point to the success of a specific instrument, than a more general purpose laboratory.
It is going to be a very, very long time --- likely around 40 years until a man sets foot on Mars (if even then.) The reasons are many:
1) NASA budgets are going to take a huge hit that will take decades to recover from. This would be similar to what the Reagan administration hit the NWS with some years ago. NASA is an easy target because of the vocal anti-science Tea Party crowd.
2) The way NASA is funded is incompatible with huge projects that require new science discoveries to succeed. The problem is that these always run into huge cost overruns because producing that scientific genie from a bottle simply does not happen on schedule or on budget. Until Congress approves (shortly after hell freezes over) open-ended budgeting for such projects as a manned landing on Mars, it will not happen.
3) While Curiosity has determined that cosmic radiation is lower on the surface of Mars than previously thought, in transit cosmic radiation is still a major issue. The only ways we currently have to protect astronauts from cosmic radiation on such a long flight are heavy and bulky, exactly what a space mission cannot afford to have. Without good shielding the damage to astronauts' DNA will be so severe that things like cancer become likely. (The ISS does not have this problem so much because it is within the Earth's protective magnetosphere.) Bulky shielding is not a part of any existing Mars craft plans, and definitely not a part of the Constellation craft.
4) Weightlessness is another issue. Long term weightlessness causes atrophy of muscle tissue (including the heart and diaphram) and loss of bone density that are very serious and difficult for the body to recover from. We are talking about sending men to Mars and landing them when we are not even certain that they would be able to withstand the g forces of takeoff from Mars' surface. Exercise is a partial solution but not nearly enough. The basic "easy" answer is using centrifugal force to simluate gravity as in sci-fi movies. This would work, but is incredibly heavy and bulky and is not part of any current mission craft planning.
5) While NASA is struggling with the problems of manned space flight to Mars, unmanned craft will be becoming more and more complex and mission-capable, and artificial intelligence improvements will allow more and more autonomy from Earth guidance. By the time one would expect a Mars craft to be ready, we would also expect an unmanned lander to be about 20-40 times more scientifically capable and about 90% or more autonomous. There is very little that a manned flight could do that an unmanned flight could not do. And you don't have to worry nearly as much about the effects of cosmic radiation and weightlessness and environmental support. And if we lose an unmanned lander (versus a manned lander) you don't have to run around re-naming all those jumior high schools.
The last 3 presidents or more, have killed most of the existing plans for space exploration, because of a lack of money at the time, and political misunderstanding. So, it's a fall back, and regroup, and wait and see, if we have the money for what the uninformed, and dumb politician's, want to spend on projects the will make them look good.
While I completely agree with you on the dumb politician comment, NASA's budget has been pretty consistent for the last few years, seeing a slight increase in the first few years of President Obama's first term, so the money is there. Check Wikipedia, look up "NASA Budget". It is there in black and white. Ending the Shuttle program helped significantly by shifting money from that to other projects. It also hurt, as we have to buy a seat from Russia to access the ISS until Orion is ready (or perhaps SpaceX gets into Dragon human rated first). But we needed to move past the Shuttle and its limitation to LEO, so we can move outward into space.
Political "misunderstanding" is putting it pretty mild. NASA gets push and pulled around by the various factions in Congress, each seeking money for their home states' programs. Most of those in Congress fail to grasp 10% of what NASA does, and like their constituents choose to bash the organization rather than attempt to learn about what NASA. Add to that missions to the Moon, Mars and/or an asteroid take years to plan, many times taking longer than a politician has in office. Thus, Congress has been as effective in choosing the proper course for NASA as a 3-year old is in choosing what they want for dinner and what you get is the current space gap, and a lot of frustrated Americans watching us pay the Russians to launch to ISS.
The Colombia disaster was an event caused by NASA bureaucrats and contractor management types who accept no responsibility for killing of astronauts from the Challenger to the Colombia.
The original fuel tanks had a white epoxy covering over the insulating red foam so that chunks of the foam would not fall off and strike the orbiter. Check the Rockwell Space Division's specifications on this. Around 1984, in order to lift the Hubble telescope nearly 4 tons of weight had to be removed from the launch vehicle so that proper orbit could be achieved. The white epoxy added 1600 pounds to the launch weight and it was not applied -for just this one launch- to help put the Hubble in orbit. When NASA management saw that nothing bad happened they ordered that the white epoxy be dispensed with hence forth.
As far as I am concerned the company managers and NASA managers that signed for the Challenger launch in sub-freezing weather, which was more than 20 degrees colder that the engineering launch minimum of 55 degrees, those managers were criminally responsible for the slaughter of the astronauts.
And the Colombia disaster resulted from complacency and irresponsibility of NASA and company managers, starting in 1984.
It is my hope that NASA is never again entrusted with the lives of any human. If that puts them out of jobs, I could not be happier.
and I think you should probably put a barrell in your mouth. Are you to stupid to understand what they are doing, they are strapping themselves to a rocket and going to space. 3 deadly mishaps for the entire space progrma, that is amazing. I was 11 when I watched, on black and white television, us landing on the moon, laying block as a Peace Corp Volunteer in Central America when the Challenger blew up and with two small children when Colombia came apart. Landing on the moon and all of that, we were Americans, not Dems or Republicans, we could do stuff and we still can. I pay a lot in Federal Income Tax and that is OK even though many parasites on the extreme right and left do nothing but I would pay more if it was just for space exploration, exploring for the sake of exploring. the people who can do thing need to drown out the whiny little men like Jim Rowles
Gee DM57,
Thanks for the ad hominem.
It is my opinion that NASA, as it exists now, can and will do nothing. Their bureaucratic machinery is fixated on keeping their jobs and are so very afraid to do anything wrong that they end up doing nothing right.
well we can tank JFK for turning rockets towards the moon and kept teh cia /miltary from turning them onusin CMC, Operation Northwoods and General Clay running tanks on Berlin Wall trying to undermine JFK and Premiers detente initiative to force Khrushchev who as a dictator from a militaristic country into nuclear war for Israel, is real, and not in the leastbit unclear.
"Unclear"should be the title of your post.
Lesson Number ONE: Do not cancel a working space program.
The last two presidents failed that quiz!! Next quiz, can non nasa people toss a few humble souls off this rock? Quizes due by 010120, no cheating, no chattering.
ray, I love the Space Shuttle but it was absolutely necessary to end the program after 30+ years. First, the Shuttle was never designed, nor constructed, to be anything than a ferry to Low Earth Orbit (LEO). Also, the economies of scale that were supposed to enable the spacecraft to be a quick and cheap launch vehicle never appeared. Finally, the safety margin for any one flight was getting close to be unacceptable, with the loss of another orbiter and crew too much of a possibility. For once, the Presidents made the right call with NASA. President Bush ended the supply chain of replacements parts, effectively ending the program in 2004, and pointed NASA in a new direction looking outside of Earth orbit while President Obama symbolically ended the program after the final flight (it would have cost far too much to restart part production at that point to make it worth it).
By ending the Shuttle program, and diverting those resources to new programs designed to ferry to LEO and explore beyond Earth orbit, NASA stand a much better chance of succeeding even though the morons we call Congress chronically tinker with and underfund NASA. Again, I love the Shuttle. I grew up watching it launch so for me, it WAS the space program. But all programs must end, and the new spacecraft designed to succeed the Shuttle promise a return to real manned space exploration.
Bottom line....the U.S. is no longer the leader in manned space exploration. We have to ride in Russia's space capsules in order to get to the ISS.
It is rather hard to "crown" a leader in space exploration as no human has left Low Earth Orbit since Apollo 17 returned to Earth, and only US Astronauts have EVER left Earth orbit. Every human since Apollo 17 has basically gone the same distance (ISS currently orbits around 250-265 miles above sea level). I'd say more like we, the people of Earth, are all on the tied in the new "space race" until someone/anyone leaves Earth orbit again.
Yes, that's true, we ride on Russian rockets, but an international effort accomplishes more than if America was the sole country sending manned space flights into space.
#1 first as most will agree is cost. #2 second is we are in a "global" economy and to continue with the world as a global economy, countries need to participate in it. Space exploration and manned space flights with international cooperation accomplishes this. [and yes it takes away jobs, well paying jobs from American workers, but see # 1.]
America could send a manned mission to Mars if it wanted to. Just like the spare no expense Apollo project, America could spare no expense for a manned mission to mars, however, the financial repercussions, even with international cooperation in building all the necessary equipment, makes politicians very skittish. Especially with very little return in science, that could other wise be obtains with unmanned missions.
Therein lies the real reason America doesn't send a manned mission to Mars. In most politicians eyes, there's no need to, given the cost.
So, pray tell, who would you crown as the leader in space these days?
Despite our difficulties at the moment, we still have the most robust space program of any country, the best tech, and the most experience. And within a couple of years, will have our own home-grown options to take astronauts back up. That will be multiple home-grown private enterprise options.
I'm just curious - based on other posts you've made, I thought you wanted gubernmint out of all things. But here you seem to imply that space is different, and NASA should do everything?
I still say we should build a space station on the moon then try terra forming it.
Terraforming the Moon? Good luck with that. At 0.167 G, it will never hold an atmosphere.
No one suggests terraforming the Moon, and I wouldn't, even if I could.
It is, in fact, potentially more useful to us in its present form.
RAY SMITH: Lesson #1: Learn the facts accurately. The Manned Space Program wasn't cancelled. We're still "riding" in the Russian ships. Lesson #2: What it was cancelled was the Shuttle Program due to the fact that the vehicle was more than 30 years old and that we need a new vehicle that can got out of the Earth (Space Shuttle wasn't capable of that). Sometimes you need to let go the old to come down with something new. In the 60's we jumped from Mercury to Gemini to Apollo because we were in a "race" with the Russians because of the Kennedy promise (I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth. No single space project...will be more exciting, or more impressive to mankind, or more important...and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish...".
President John F. Kennedy, May 1961.) The "race" doesn't exist anymore, so the times for achieving the goals are very different.
Talk of Mars missions 20 or more years from now without a well-defined roadmap with realistic interim goals is useless. It's just a way for the Obama administration to kick the can down the road and not really commit to anything ambitious. For the record, I voted for Obama and I agree with his administration on many things, but this is one area that I think should have been handled better.
Let's focus on getting crews back into low Earth orbit on US vehicles before we worry about Mars! Hopefully the "commercial crew" program will produce something of value, though I fear when all is said and done budgetary constraints will lead to a single provider (likely SpaceX) providing the most basic capsule that can get the job done, with more ambitious efforts going by the wayside.
The trouble with manned space exploration is that in comparison to planetary exploration, the Moon was a walk in the park. Yet the US is the only one who has done it. Sure it would be nice to say we put four or five Americans on Mars, but we forget about what it takes to do that. How good would it feel to say we left five dead bodies on another planet?
The amount of risk is enormous and for what gain? Can a manned mission really do more than robotic missions? I really don't think so. It just seems to me that we have far too many hurdles to overcome just to get to Mars, and then where next?
Frankly I think we left the Moon too soon. We really ought to be looking at low level colonization there first. In the long run, establishing a base on the Moon offers us the ability to learn a lot about living on another celestial body. Plus, the Moon makes for a much better place to leave from for planetary exploration. If we want to go to Mars, we really ought to consider a large enough ship with adequate supplies, systems with multiple back up systems and most likely some type of propulsion system capable of faster speeds. We could potentially build something in low Earth orbit but doing it on the Moon might make more sense.
There may still be a lot to be learned from the Moon. When you consider how little we actually did there, who knows. I think it is interesting that we still are learning thing about our own planet in the ocean depths. Seems silly to have given up on the Moon already
The ideas of the Constellation project were pretty good, but it lacked leadership and clear vision. We threw away a lot of money on this and then seemed to lose interest. Seems like that basic concept ought to be resurrected under a more directed path. If we can't make that work, I don't see how we can make a Mars mission work.
We have learned a lot from the ISS, but maybe we should be looking at an International Moon Base. Seems like that could bring a lot more money into the project too. There would be incentives to other countries to have one of their people walk on the Moon.
Part of what got us to the Moon was the "Space Race". In reality, a lot of this was about military goals. No doubt this lead us into spy satellites and other such uses with military and security applications. It would be nice to think that we could accomplish more working together, and such joint projects are good for international relations.
That said, I'd also like to see more robotic missions too. These could take two paths. One might be bigger and better projects and another might be more smaller specific, but more autonomous missions. These smaller missions could be cheaper and developed more quickly. More elaborate and complex is not always better.
Manned missions have a value in doing something never doen before, but beyond that, man still needs the machines to make the real discoveries. To some extent you have to ask if it is better to learn more, or better to feel good about what flesh and bones accomplished by their physical presence. We all want something to be excited about but really we ought to be more excited about what so many of our unmanned missions have accomplished.
My take on this mistake is that we have way too many problems to solve down here in the real world. Mars can wait, it's not going anywhere soon. Let's cure cancer, mental illness and hate.
The irony of this is that what we have found out from Mars, Moon exploration, and reverse engineering ET technology can cure cancer, mental illness, and even hatred. But this information is kept from us and the technology is suppressed in favor of the destructive technologies of gas, coal, oil, and terrorism, which ensure the paychecks of those folks in power on this planet.
Carlito, you write as if these are mutually exclusive things, that no one is working on those 'more important' problems (indeed, most of them get more money than NASA), or that not doing anything more in space will fix those other things any sooner.
All of those would be false assumptions.
We're a civilization that can walk and chew gum at the same time. If not, then which other problem do we work on first? What's that? All of them? Gee, I guess we can do more than one thing at a time...
And as undesirable as it is, 'hate' is not an actual 'illness' that you can cure, at any price...
And willieturner?
Please...
Show us just one thing that actually supports that nonsense.
One.
Oh I have plenty. But it may not make a difference if you have a closed mind, or if you are not able to get past the dis-information about this subject that abounds on the net.
For starters I will point you to a couple websites. I am not sure if I can list urls here - so I will have you go to google and do a search on Dr. Steven Greer - he has 2 wonderful websites with lots of info.
Also search on Joseph P. Skipper. Go to his website. Read thru all of his reports. All of them.
This is just the beginning.....
I think we can build thermonuclear rocket engines by taking a superconducting magnetic pinch rocket nozzle, and then mounting a large adjustable (and replaceable) fuel rod of lithium(6) deuteride to the rear of this external rocket nozzle, in line with the focal point and center axis of this rocket nozzle, while bombarding the front end of this adjustable fuel rod (whose forward end is positioned at the focal point of the external nozzle) with accelerated deuterons and tritons fired backward through a center hole in the forward nose of this superconducting magnetic pinch rocket nozzle. - Rick Carter
(A 12 engine by 12 matrix of these small rocket motors (144 engines total), each giving off 1 lb. of thrust (per second) continuously for three months should be able to accelerate a 50,000 lb. space ship to a speed of 14400 mph. By that time it would have traveled approx. 5 million miles. Allowing the same period time for deceleration, and that amounts to approx. 10 million miles. The closest approach of Mars to Earth is approximately 34.8 million miles, so that still requires an additional coasting time of 2 months and 12 days in addition to these acceleration and deceleration times to reach Mars. So the total travel time to Mars is approx. 250 days one way using this kind of vehicle. A person living in a zero G environment should not consume over 1 lb of dehydrated food a day, so you are talking approx. 500 lbs of food per person for the entire trip, so a crew of 4 would use approx. 2000 lbs of food for the entire trip. That still leaves you 48,000 lbs for the vehicle and support systems, in addition to whatever thermonuclear fuel is used by these solar powered thermonuclear rocket engines. Hopefully breathing gases can be recycled too, in addition to any water required for the voyage, by using using solar energy along the way, and possibly even some of your food can be grown as part of this recycling process. This definitely sounds plausible as a joint international project in the next couple of decades, if only as a fly around mission to Mars where we could also land on one of the Martian moons as well. - RC
I think it is very important for these astronauts to grow their own food, not just to cut down on the amount of supplies which they need to bring with them, but also to give them something meaningful to do on this long space voyage. It can also give them a valuable (backup) means of replenishing their oxygen supply, too. We should start working on translucent inflatable agricultural modules now, and even install some on the ISS for future testing. - RC
(The entire ISS weighs approx. 970,000 lbs. I think a 50,000 lb. Mars vehicle is quite reasonable, especially if it is only designed to orbit Mars and possibly land on one of the Martian moons. We might want to make sure that these small rocket motors are fully reconfigurable during the voyage to Mars so they can be used to land the entire ship on the surface of one of these Martian moons (as well as take off again). It is suspected that Phobos might actually harbor a large underground reservoir of ice, which might make it very ideal for a future space colony, especially since Phobos appears to be quite porous underground as well. The escape velocity from Phobos is only 25 mph, and the escape velocity from Deimos is approx. 1/2 that.) - RC
Personally, I think when we do finally land people on Mars, it should be from an international staging colony we have already established on Phobos. - Rick Carter
I would also build the Mars vehicle out of inflatable modules, all mounted on the outside a rigid hollow tubular axis (made up of sections), which in turn serves as a connecting tunnel for all of these inflatable modules. These inflatable modules could be designed to harden under exposure to solar UV light and space vacuum once they are inflated. - RC .
lets start what i called project genisis but i think we have to change the name the outcome from that is a big fight-forget genisis lets call it something else but it can be done
interesting they should talk to nat geographic for in planets stars and galaxies-kids book page 165
turning mars green-lets accelerate it
see NASA press release about dark energy and dark matter -i like the sound of it as they are with europe -now we need Russia and china and we have a whole new planet
for a ship maybe copper and aluminum
by the way why in nutri drinks is metals like copper-zinc ect
lets explore under the out limits of every planet and atmospheres and on the ground as well as titan as a moon and mercury Uranus and venus
lets explore limitless possibilities
any jobs on neptune nasa
Classified projects connected to extraterrestrial matters have operated outside of constitutionally required oversight and control by the President and Congress since the mid-1950s. Secrecy on the subject has, in part, been maintained by a carefully orchestrated psychological nexus of ridicule, fear, intimidation and disinformation that makes it difficult for any public figure to openly address the matter.
Because of this secrecy, new sciences related to advanced energy generation, propulsion and transportation have been withheld from “we the people”. These advances include the generation of limitless clean energy from the so-called zero point energy field and quantum vacuum flux field from the space around us, and propulsion that has been termed (incorrectly) anti-gravity. The field of electromagnetic energy that is teeming all around us and which is embedded within the fabric of space/time can easily run all of the energy needs of the Earth - without pollution, oil, gas, coal, centralized utilities or nuclear power, all of which are destructive to the environment. These sciences were actually born in the late 19th and 20th centuries but were abandoned and suppressed due to the lust for power, greed and out of fear of unsettling the status quo.
The so-called MJ-12 or Majestic group that controls this secrecy operates without the consent of the people, or the oversight of the President and Congress. It functions as a transnational government unto itself, answerable to no one. All checks and balances have been obliterated. While as a governing entity it stands outside of the rule of law, its influence reaches into many governments, corporations, agencies, media and financial interests. Upwards of $100 billion of USG funds go annually into this operation, also known as the 'black budget' of the United States - enough to provide universal health care to every man, woman and child in America.
Related to this is a secret, 'unacknowledged' operation that has used very advanced electromagnetic weapon systems to track, target, and on occasion, but with increasing accuracy, down extraterrestrial vehicles. This reckless behavior constitutes an existential threat to all of mankind and must be reined in immediately. In light of the reckless and aggressive nature of many of our covert military actions and the extraordinarily advanced technologies that permit interstellar travel by these extraterrestrial civilizations, if they were hostile, human civilization would have been dealt with decisively at the dawn of the nuclear era.
(taken from an actual letter sent to President Obama)
rotflmao!