Congress is working hard to ground NASA's Mars mission

Recent years have seen a resurgence of interest in space exploration, in large part thanks to the idea of going to Mars. But a new report reveals that legislators who don’t share that excitement have been working to defund NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate, a program partly tasked with developing the technology needed to get to the Red Planet.

http://fortune.com/2016/05/15/congress-nasas-mars-mission/
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/05/senator-cuts-nasas-tech-budge/

Fortunately, Elon Musk and SpaceX don't depend on Congress. Mars, here we come!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is said that in a democracy the people get the government they deserve. Sadly this appears to be true today for the USA.

My principal goal in life is to live long enough to see the first humans on Mars. I suppose I should thank congress for helping to extend my life.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Exploration of space is very expensive no matter how you do it. The cost of a manned mission to mars would be very costly and that is only traveling there and returning to Earth not going there and landing then taking off and returning to Earth. Just going there is hundreds of billions of dollars which could be used to send robotic craft to other places around our solar system to explore over time and not putting a human life at risk. As we know now Mars isn't a very human friendly place to visit with no atmosphere, no water that we have found yet , temperatures ranging from minus 250 degrees F to over plus 150 degrees. That means that if we send a human there they will need allot of things to keep them alive and that is going cost allot.

The rovers on Mars are doing great work as we can see and we could even send more to get samples of the rocks there and return them to Earth. That would be lees money and humans wouldn't be put in danger. I feel that sending more robotic spacecraft to Mars would be prudent as the money needed for humans to fly there would be very costly and really not necessary. Ask yourself why does it need a human to go there when everything we need to know we can learn from robots? There are some that are pushing to go to Mars with humans but do not say why. They are only wanting to go there to keep their jobs, which isn't a bad thing but not a reason to send humans to Mars.

So let us send robots out into space and let them do humans work exploring space for less money and no worry about the humans who would be in danger. Robots work 24 hours a day so they are actually better than humans in that respect.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If our ancestors had adopted this approach we would all still be living in Kenya. I have nothing against Kenya, but equally Brazil and Dahomey are quite nice too.

A human can make more decisions, better decisions and deal more effectively with contingencies than any robot yet constructed.

 

Leaving Kenya wasn't funded by taxpayers.

 

And you know this how?
It is entirely possible that the tribal elders "financed" the emigration of a small group through the provision of flints and food. Sound like tax to me.

 

It seems more likely that the first out-of-Africa explorers were the Daniel Boone type. We have no reason to think that the exploration had a specific goal. And we have no reason to think that tribes with severely limited resources would squander them on such an iffy proposition.

 

Because man is the measure. The measure of a colony to support life is the measure of its ability to support humans, not robots.

I'm pushing to go to Mars because I think it is critical that we establish humanity on more than one planet, and so far Mars is our best option for doing that.

Humans are in danger from a great many things. Thousands die a day in the US from disease, accidents, pollution and random violence. The risk of death is a byproduct of life - and Mars is no different. The important question is not whether you will die or not (you will) but what you do with your life before that happens. And someone who spends their life setting up a new home for humanity on Mars - and dies there - arguably did a lot more than someone whose primary contribution to humanity was consumption of snack foods and entertainment - and died of a heart attack on their couch.

 

It matters not really how difficult it is, nor how dangerous it is, and how costly it is, and irrespective of the benefits of robotic probes, if it is humanly possible, in time we will have men on Mars and further afield....That is simply human nature and need.

 

But there is no big deal when humans go to Mars since robots can do more with their instruments to explore Mars rather than sending humans there as of this time. There are more problems here on Earth that need tending to wouldn't you agree? Spending money on costly human space flight projects can take a back seat to what is needed to be done here on Earth today.

If you were to ask the everyday people out on the street what they think I'd think they wouldn't want to have money spent on Mars trips by humans but instead use that money for things here on Earth. I've not seen any survey done as to what people think that taxpayers money should be used for have you? Then why not put up a survey and ask people what they think.

 

Same "logic" applies to cities in the deep sea, where mankind could survive a near-by gamma ray bursting star, which would wipe out surface life on Mars too.

 

No. the moon is best location for a "life boat for mankind." At times Mars is more than 2 AU from earth. The minimum distance from the Earth to Mars is about 54.6 million kilometers. The farthest apart they can be is about 401 million km. The moon is ALWAYS more than 150 times closer, less costly to supply any base there.

Perigee = 363,300 km
Mean = 384,400 km
Apogee = 405,500 km

On either moon or Mars, the colonizers would need to live under ground most of the time due to both Solar storm particles and galactic cosmic rays. Production of electrical energy on the moon can be much cheaper and several times more efficient than via solar cells. I have described how in detail in several posts. Quickly the nights and day are 14 earth days long. Every two weeks a sliding thin film reflector moves between the hot and cold Carnot engine sources of the ground. I. e. The full solar intensity continuously heats the hot source for 14x 24 hours to at least 525K, while the reflecting film shields the cold sink. It is maintained cold, perhaps at 25K, by 14x 24 hours exposure to the 4 degree K night sky.

Efficiency limit is [(Th - Tc) / Th] or in the above case (525-25)/ 525 = 500/525 = 95%. As real solar cells can not achieve 19% efficiency, the collection area can be five times smaller and as it is just some tubes buried in the ground 50 times cheaper.

Mars has approximately the same rotation rate as Earth, so this dirt heat sink and heat source thermal engine can not be applied there. Also Mars has an atmosphere, which can convect heat from the hot source to the cold sink I. e. a "life boat" for mankind on the moon is more than 500 times cheaper and less than a week away for resupply or emergency medical aid during the two or more decades while it is becoming self sufficient.

 

I'm with sideshowbob and cosmictraveler that robotic missions to Mars are our best bet for the foreseeable future. Of yall that think differently, I'd first ask: What country do you live in, and, do you pay taxes to the USA government, of which NASA is funded?

No? I do. And if you don't, why don't you voluntarily send in a check annually to NASA, to fund as much of it as I do, and especially for the increase budget needed for human exploration? That would make your argument for human exploration more persuasive. This is, after all, a topic about NASA, and not about any other interplanetary agency (is there any other, realistically?).

Or, advocate with your own government to undertake planetary exploration and/or colonization, AND STAY ON IT.

Don't get me wrong. I am about space exploration, but human v. robotic exploration is way too expensive, lest we need that. I'm for robotic until we get a fairly long list of questions that we can't answer robotically, and ONLY then send out a human crew to answer that list. It doesn't make any sense to me, cost-wise and life-wise, to attempt that until we absolutely must have humans present to progress further.

I also think it a specious argument that we need to get to Mars to "save humanity in the event of apocalypse on Earth" -- as, for any foreseeable period of time, any settlement on Mars would be dependent on Earth for their survival. If anything happened to Earth, and not Mars, the persons on Mars would have to quickly come back to Earth to survive -- and by doing so they would probably be susceptible to the problem, or effects of the problem, that originally plagued the Earth.

 

I guess congress really is the opposite of progress.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

[edit - wrong thread]

 

That's totally wrong.....and once again, who is suggesting "as of this time"?
The gist of some of the negative arguments I have seen is that we need not explore beyond Earth orbit, period.
Let me at the risk of boring some say, "We were not born to stagnate on this fart arse little blue orb"
The two horrible variables of economics and politics may at times slow down or delay our advancement into the solar system and beyond, but it will never stop it.

I'm for that also and have never objected.
Still, it will not hinder the advancement of mankind to establish him/herself beyond Earth and even in time, the solar system.

I'm from Australia, and we do not have much of a space Industry: We are also a young nation, less then 250 years since European occupation/discovery, and with barely 25 million inhabitants.
In saying all of that I have also said that to facilitate us getting to Mars and beyond, we need an International effort to alleviate the costs and simply because it would logically and sensibly be the best way to go.

We have many reasons to establish a colony not only on the Moon, but also on Mars, and perhaps a large Asteroid also.
Exploration, Adventure, knowledge, science, necessity to extend human lifetimes, and simply because its there!
Robotic craft are wonderful and have done a great job and will continue to do a great job, but that alone will not fulfill all that we need, hope or desire.
NASA is the foremost space exploration company on Earth, but many others are lining up also because they see the benefit and need for man to go where no man has gone before [to use the old Star Trek motto]
And with the advent of private companies I see all I suggest, eventually happening in time. Despite all the well known dangers and hurdles we need to overcome.
Given time, and if we are able to overcome all our Earthly squabbles and follies, we will go to the Moon [again] to Mars the outer solar system, and even following Voyager beyond to the stars.
That's what being human is all about.
I'm just sad that I won't be around to see it all.

 

Then put your money where your mouth is ... move to the USA and pay taxes to fund NASA, or send in a check annually to fund it to get it all jump-started. It seems easy to me to preach from there that it needs to be done, insulated from paying for it.

 

Perhaps you did not read all my post?
I did say I think it should be and in time will be an International effort, plus of course NASA is not the only one on the block at this time. Other nations are developing their own space Industry and as I also mentioned, private Industry is also moving in.
Oh, and btw, if NASA for some reason [with the nutty political situation in your country now with the moron Trump] ceased to exist and disbanded, we as a human race would still get to Mars and beyond to the stars in time.
ps: Its Cheque btw and a "jump start" ain't needed, it's already being considered and worked on.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/na...-system-7-other-wild-space-tech-ideas.156411/

 

Perhaps you didn't read the topic header or my original post. BOTH were about NASA, which is a USA agency.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

We are discussing space exploration by extension.
Perhaps you fail to realise that the Earth consists of far many more nations than the USA...perhaps you fail to realise that irrespective of NASA, we will still get to Mars......Perhaps you fail to realise we [the human race] also have an ISS that is an International effort, and that at this present time the good old USA/NASA needs to rely on Russia to ferry astronauts/Cosmonauts and any other 'nauts to the ISS and safely back again.
Although I wish them [NASA] the best of luck in re-establishing its own craft for this job.