It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Government Issues NASA Demand - ‘Get Humans to Mars By 2033’

page: 10
14
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow


NASA has serious deficits, as outlined in the agency’s 2015 report. You say the new Act will fix all the problems (when it’s passed).

No, I claim it is a step in the right direction and it does not penalize astronauts. It actually extends direct governmental coverage.


Yes, you keep repeating that all astronauts have lifetime health coverage, just like all regular federal employees. But your saying it doesn’t make it so.

Maybe NASA saying it helps?


A Quick Look at NASA Employee Benefits:

You have a choice from a variety of Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO) or fee-for-service health plans. If you are enrolled, NASA pays approximately 75% of your biweekly health benefit premium. There is an annual open season for switching plans. Pre-existing conditions are covered. Coverage may be carried into retirement.
Source: nasajobs.nasa.gov...

But I went further... to the healthcare page for Retirees/Survivors at the OPM.gov website :

FEHB for Retirees and Survivor Annuitants

When you retire, you are eligible to continue health benefits coverage if you meet all of the following requirements:
  • you are entitled to retire on an immediate annuity under a retirement system for civilian employees (including FERS MRA + 10 retirements); and

  • you have been continuously enrolled (or covered as a family member) in any FEHB plan(s) for the 5 years of service immediately before the date your annuity starts, or for the full period(s) of service since your first opportunity to enroll (if less than 5 years).
In some cases exceptions are made.

Now, either you are claiming that there is some exemption for astronauts, and only astronauts, to prevent them from having access to the Federal Employees Healthcare Benefit, which you have yet to point me to, or you are seriously misinterpreting the information.

Oh, and one of your sources, Spaceflight is a pre-existing condition, seems kinda happy about the appropriations act:

While lawmakers continue to argue over how they will repeal and replace Obamacare, both houses of Congress quietly passed the To Research, Evaluate, Assess, and Treat Astronauts Act, also known as the TREAT Astronauts Act, as part of a larger NASA authorization bill outlining the space agency's future.

The act – once signed by President Donald Trump – will allow NASA to treat former astronauts for any medical issues they have as a result of their flights to space.

It's about time, too.



As I said, and you agree, the ACT does NOT provide health insurance coverage for both “regular” and space-related conditions. In fact, it very specifically EXCLUDES treatment for “regular” conditions - those NOT associated with space flight. However, all existent data is associated with low earth orbit - because there’s never been any deep space flight - so nothing is yet proven to be “associated with” deep space flight. And therefore is not necessarily covered by the new terms.

Correct... everything in the appropriations act is in addition to normal Federal benefits. I don't know why you can't seem to understand that.

The exclusions exclude conditions from direct governmental treatment, not from private insurance coverage.


Here I was thinking recruitment will focus on economically displaced out-of-work people - the ones replaced by automation and robots. Those who don’t have a hope in Hades of finding work on-planet. Those who don’t have the wherewithal and resources to fight and get what they need from Big Gov and Big Biz.

But, I say. But. …The Act does not stipulate internal promotions and appointments. Or prohibit recruitment from the general population. Which means it could go any way TPTB want.

No, it doesn't stipulate that. Reality does!

If you seriously believe somebody displaced by robots at the local car wash is going to be hired off the street to pilot a multi-billion dollar, state-of-the-art vehicle through unexplored space, facing hazards that require immediate attention and actions based on a thorough understanding of physics, electronics, fluid dynamics, aeronautics, and mechanics, as well as a thorough understanding of the design of the ship itself, and being responsible for the success of the entire program and several other crew lives.... then I have nothing to say. You just said it all.

You really need to understand exactly what you are talking about.

TheRedneck




posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:43 PM
link   
RE: NASA has serious deficits, as outlined in the agency’s 2015 report. You say the new Act will fix all the problems.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soficrow


NASA has serious deficits, as outlined in the agency’s 2015 report. You say the new Act will fix all the problems (when it’s passed).

No, I claim it is a step in the right direction and it does not penalize astronauts. It actually extends direct governmental coverage.



That didn't seem to be your position earlier. I agree that it is a step in the right direction. But an incomplete step.


RE: You keep repeating that all astronauts have lifetime health coverage, just like all regular federal employees. …They don’t


Now, either you are claiming that there is some exemption for astronauts, and only astronauts, to prevent them from having access to the Federal Employees Healthcare Benefit, which you have yet to point me to, or you are seriously misinterpreting the information.



I am concerned about other space personnel too, not just “astronauts” - and comparing the situation to that of military vets - many of whom are totally fubarred by the flaws and limitations in their health coverage. The main flaw being that 20 years is the length of time required to qualify for full coverage. The reality being space personnel will NOT last for anywhere near 20 years working in space. Note the problem as described on military.com/benefits/...retirement-system.



All of these retirement systems have a common thread: (after) 20 or more years, you are eligible to receive a pension based on a percentage of your basic pay.




RE: As I said, and you agree, the ACT does NOT provide health insurance coverage for both “regular” and space-related conditions. In fact, it very specifically EXCLUDES treatment for “regular” conditions - those NOT associated with space flight. However, all existent data is associated with low earth orbit - because there’s never been any deep space flight - so nothing is yet proven to be “associated with” deep space flight. And therefore is not necessarily covered by the new terms.


Correct... everything in the appropriations act is in addition to normal Federal benefits. I don't know why you can't seem to understand that. ...The exclusions exclude conditions from direct governmental treatment, not from private insurance coverage.


Those "normal Federal benefits" only apply after 20-years service - and may place space personnel in the same unfortunate position as many military vets. Also as I said before, having 2 insurance providers puts claimants between a rock and a hard place - boxed between Big Gov and Big Biz Insurance. I am not the only one to flag this concern.



...…The act allows NASA to set up a system that would help treat astronauts for any health issue that stems directly from their time in space. It doesn't, however, allow NASA to treat astronauts for anything they deem unrelated to spaceflight, a limitation that has the potential to be problematic.

…"...in implementation it has potential limitations and is open to interpretation regarding what is spaceflight related or not. …”




RE: The Act does not stipulate internal promotions and appointments. Or prohibit recruitment from the general population. Which means it could go any way TPTB want.

No, it doesn't stipulate that. Reality does!

If you seriously believe somebody displaced by robots at the local car wash is going to be hired off the street to pilot a multi-billion dollar, state-of-the-art vehicle through unexplored space, facing hazards that require immediate attention and actions based on a thorough understanding of physics, electronics, fluid dynamics, aeronautics, and mechanics, as well as a thorough understanding of the design of the ship itself, and being responsible for the success of the entire program and several other crew lives.... then I have nothing to say. You just said it all.


I have no doubt the computers, automation and robotics can handle the physics, electronics, fluid dynamics, aeronautics and mechanics, as well as know the ship design inside and out.

A few “astronauts” will be required, but mainly, the crew will be computer specialists - hot shot programmers and computer scientists - along with technicians and grunts. It’s a new world out there, and NASA is leading the charge to automation.

So it’s mainly the non-astronaut complement I worry about. They are not covered by the Act at all, even with its recognized limitations. Only “astronauts” and “payload specialists” are specified as being covered for the too-limited health care provided. [The Act’s “definitions” being one of the other issues I have.]

This business of ignoring the plight of non-astronauts in space was flagged as a major problem long ago, notably for NASA’s past space-health studies. Looks like it’s still a problem. One which will magnify exponentially once things really get moving. ...A better foundation is required.



edit on 15-3-2017 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow


The main flaw being that 20 years is the length of time required to qualify for full coverage.

Wrong. I just posted a link directly from the OPM that says no more than 5 years, less if continuously enrolled while employed, is required. I also posted a link from NASA itself that stated all employees receive health insurance in compliance with the policies of the OPM.


Note the problem as described on military.com/benefits/...retirement-system.

NASA is not a branch of the military. Some astronauts are recruited from the military, but that transfer is a discharge from the military to NASA.

I believe (but am admittedly not sure of this) that such a transfer still allows the choice of retaining medical VA benefits.


Also as I said before, having 2 insurance providers puts claimants between a rock and a hard place - boxed between Big Gov and Big Biz Insurance.

Wait, where did you get the idea that TREAT or the programs it extends have anything to do with insurance?

Astronaut wellness is administered directly through the US government. The doctors are government employees, the nurses are government employees, the technicians are government employees, the equipment is owned by the government, the facilities are a part of a government base.... there is no insurance Involved! All astronauts are required as a part of their duties to undergo medical testing, diagnosing, and treatment at a government facility. There's no exchange of insurance information, no co-pays, no cashier, and no billing department. It is free care to ensure astronauts are physically and psychologically fit to undergo the missions, and to document mission-related issues.

Anything that is not deemed to be related to their missions is handled through insurance at private facilities. Of course, for an astronaut, that doesn't leave much out... no one gets to fly around in space with a sinus infection. For retired astronauts, though, that sinus infection would be treated through insurance at a private facility. It would, however, be documented so excessive instances that could later be tied to space travel could be identified.

There's nowhere to be 'caught between' anyone. Retirees already are eligible for lifetime coverage that will cover any conditions, including pre-existing conditions. That is in place and has been for some time. The difference under this act is that retirees now have the option to get free treatment at government facilities for duty-related illness, in order to allow government medical personnel to monitor for long-term conditions.


I have no doubt the computers, automation and robotics can handle the physics, electronics, fluid dynamics, aeronautics and mechanics, as well as know the ship design inside and out.

A few “astronauts” will be required, but mainly, the crew will be computer specialists - hot shot programmers and computer scientists - along with technicians and grunts. It’s a new world out there, and NASA is leading the charge to automation.

No. Just no. That is ludicrous.

Yes, the systems are automated, but there are also always overrides. No computer known to mankind has the ability to respond to unknown conditions. They all respond to known conditions by executing algorithms already programmed into them by people who know how they should respond to those conditions.

Only humans can respond to the unknown.

Sensors can also fail, or give false readings. Algorithms can have bugs that cause the automation to suddenly go awry. Humans must be present and ready at any moment to take over at the first sign of trouble. We're not talking about a self-driving car that assumes a solid roadway, GPS locating ability, known limits to temperature, visibility, humidity, etc. We're not talking about an assembly line that has had the knowledge of how to perform specific functions programmed into it. We're not talking about an automated car wash. We're talking about a spacecraft that will be required to undergo completely unexpected situations at any time under unlimited variations in environmental conditions. That cannot be automated.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

We agree the Act is a step in the right direction and improves coverage for "astronaut" and "payload specialist" positions, but not for all crew members. I also agree that NASA's coverage may be better than what may be offered in the private sector.

However, you have not provided evidence of any government, agency or company offering a FULL pension and benefit package before the requisite minimum term of employment, usually about 20 years. As in the military:



All of these retirement systems have a common thread: (after) 20 or more years, you are eligible to receive a pension based on a percentage of your basic pay.




...Anything less than full coverage is not enough. My concern about healthcare remains: space crew members will face the same problems accessing health care as military vets do:



US military veterans face inadequate care after returning from war – report




Veterans dying because of health care delays




Anyone who cares should read NASA's 2015 report, and compare it to the Act, paying special attention to the "definitions" established in the Act, and to the issues surrounding 'transparency' outlined in NASA's 2015 report.


2015: NASA’S EFFORTS TO MANAGE HEALTH AND HUMAN PERFORMANCE RISKS FOR SPACE EXPLORATION

CONCLUSION

...NASA recognizes that the astronauts it sends on deep space missions will be exposed to a greater level of risk than the Agency accepts for current missions to low Earth orbit. Therefore, it is crucial NASA develop an ethical framework to guide the informed consent and waiver process for astronauts. In addition, NASA must be transparent with Congress and the public about the level of the risk involved in deep space missions. Finally, NASA should continue to consider whether its current model for astronaut health care meets its research needs and the health care needs of the astronaut community.

[p.35]




Off the top, waivers need to fully detail the known medical threats, state clearly that the risks include lifelong debilitation. Investments in technology are needed to mitigate the already-known risks. …And so on.

As I've said before, I agree that the Space Program should go forward. Just not in the way corporate industry has always done things. Not on the backs of unwitting and mis-informed desperate people.

The budget should not be cut on health and safety just to push the program forward.





edit on 16-3-2017 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow


However, you have not provided evidence of any government, agency or company offering a FULL pension and benefit package before the requisite minimum term of employment, usually about 20 years. As in the military:

Yes I did! Would you like me to post it again?


A Quick Look at NASA Employee Benefits:

You have a choice from a variety of Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO) or fee-for-service health plans. If you are enrolled, NASA pays approximately 75% of your biweekly health benefit premium. There is an annual open season for switching plans. Pre-existing conditions are covered. Coverage may be carried into retirement.
Source: nasajobs.nasa.gov...

OPM.gov website :

FEHB for Retirees and Survivor Annuitants

When you retire, you are eligible to continue health benefits coverage if you meet all of the following requirements:
  • you are entitled to retire on an immediate annuity under a retirement system for civilian employees (including FERS MRA + 10 retirements); and

  • you have been continuously enrolled (or covered as a family member) in any FEHB plan(s) for the 5 years of service immediately before the date your annuity starts, or for the full period(s) of service since your first opportunity to enroll (if less than 5 years).
In some cases exceptions are made.

All bonding mine. I hope it means you actually read it.

You keep wanting to equate NASA astronauts to front-line soldiers. Astronauts are not soldiers and NASA is not military. Period. All of your links showing horror stories from the VA are probably true, but they have no bearing on this debate.


Off the top, waivers need to fully detail the known medical threats, state clearly that the risks include lifelong debilitation. Investments in technology are needed to mitigate the already-known risks.

All that is being done. No one is flying into space thinking they're going on vacation. NASA continually assesses health risks as an integral part of its operations. Whatever technology they find they need, is provided.


As I've said before, I agree that the Space Program should go forward. Just not in the way corporate industry has always done things. Not on the backs of unwitting and mis-informed desperate people.

You are SERIOUSLY misrepresenting our astronauts. They are not 'unwitting and mis-informed.' On the contrary, they are extremely familiar with the risks, the technology, the operations, and the missions.


The budget should not be cut on health and safety just to push the program forward.

It's not. The very appropriations act you are trying so desperately to misinterpret says so.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


RE: You have not provided evidence of any government, agency or company offering a FULL pension and benefit package before the requisite minimum term of employment, usually about 20 years.


Would you like me to post it again?

Coverage MAY be carried into retirement.



Right. Here’s a better link (more informative).


RE: The budget should not be cut on health and safety just to push the program forward.


…It's not. The very appropriations act you are trying so desperately to misinterpret says so.

…All of your links showing horror stories from the VA are probably true, but they have no bearing on this debate.



Read the Act. Only “astronauts” and “payload specialists” are covered for conditions associated with space flight - NO other crew members are covered for space-related conditions, ie., doctors, spaceflight participants, science officers, etc.

Please quote from the Act if you wish to claim otherwise.



… An accidental oversight? In a legal document? I think not.








edit on 16-3-2017 by soficrow because: clarity

edit on 16-3-2017 by soficrow because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-3-2017 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow


Right. Here’s a better link (more informative).

Yeah, pretty good find. Disabled retirement acceptable at any age after 18 months service:


You must have become disabled, while employed in a position subject to FERS, because of a disease or injury, for useful and efficient service in your current position. The disability must be expected to last at least one year. Your agency must certify that it is unable to accommodate your disabling medical condition in your present position and that it has considered you for any vacant position in the same agency at the same grade/pay level, within the same commuting area, for which you are qualified for reassignment.
Source: www.opm.gov...


Read the Act. Only “astronauts” and “payload specialists” are covered for conditions associated with space flight - NO other crew members are covered for space-related conditions, ie., doctors, spaceflight participants, science officers, etc.

Please quote from the Act if you wish to claim otherwise.

Now you're just being silly.

Where in the act does it state the pay grade for astronauts?

Where in the act does it specify 401k benefits for astronauts?

Where in the act does it specify vacation time policy for astronauts?

By your reasoning, astronauts are not paid and get no benefits because one document doesn't cover that. Please tell me you do not believe that...

I know and have worked with NASA physicists and engineers. Believe you me, they have excellent insurance, are well paid, and accrue generous vacation time.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 04:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: soficrow
Only “astronauts” and “payload specialists” are covered for conditions associated with space flight - NO other crew members are covered for space-related conditions, ie., doctors, spaceflight participants, science officers, etc.

What's are the definitions of "astronaut" and "payload specialist"?



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 04:24 AM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

Your literally coming up with bureaucratic petty legal crap to delay human progress.

Face it you don’t want Trump to be the one that gets the credit for Mars like JFK gets the credit for the moon! So you going to pull all out any little excuse.

Well it’s a moot point anyway cause Elon Musk will beat President Ompa lumba there anyway!

edit on 17-3-2017 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-3-2017 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: soficrow
Only “astronauts” and “payload specialists” are covered for conditions associated with space flight - NO other crew members are covered for space-related conditions, ie., doctors, spaceflight participants, science officers, etc.

What's are the definitions of "astronaut" and "payload specialist"?


To define “Government Astronaut,” the new Act references section 50902 of Title 51, United States Code, which in turn references Section 20113 of Title 51, National and Commercial Space Programs.

The term “astronaut” is not clearly defined in any of the documents; Section 20113 stipulates that the term is anything the administration wants it to be; while Section 20147 makes it clear that not all “crewmembers” are astronauts. The term "payload specialist" does not come up on a search of either of the 2 linked Title 51 documents.


TITLE 51—NATIONAL AND COMMERCIAL SPACE PROGRAMS

§ 20113. Powers of the Administration in performance of functions
(a) RULES AND REGULATIONS.—In the performance of its functions, the Administration is authorized to make, promulgate, issue, rescind, and amend rules and regulations governing the
manner of its operations and the exercise of the powers vested in it by law
.
(b) OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES.—In the performance of its functions, the Administration is authorized to appoint and fix the compensation of officers and employees as may be necessary to
carry out such functions. The officers and employees shall be appointed in accordance with
the civil service laws and their compensation fixed in accordance with chapter 51 and subchapter
III of chapter 53 of title 5, except that—
(1) to the extent the Administrator deems such action necessary to the discharge of the Administrator’s responsibilities, the Administrator may appoint not more than 425 of the
scientific, engineering, and administrative personnel of the Administration without regard to such laws
, and may fix the compensation of such personnel not in excess of the rate of basic pay payable for level III of the Executive Schedule; and
(2) to the extent the Administrator deems such action necessary to recruit specially qualified scientific and engineering talent, the Administrator may establish the entrance grade for scientific and engineering personnel without previous service in the Federal Government at a level up to 2 grades higher than the grade provided for such personnel under the General Schedule, and fix their compensation accordingly.

§ 20147. Recovery and disposition authority

(2) CREWMEMBER.—The term ‘‘crewmember’’ means an astronaut or other person assigned to an Administration human space flight vehicle.





edit on 17-3-2017 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: soficrow

Face it you don’t want Trump to be the one that gets the credit for Mars like JFK gets the credit for the moon! So you going to pull all out any little excuse.



Good grief! You may be a hammer, but I am NOT a nail.

My concerns about the health effects of space travel -and the fate of space workers- have NOTHING to do with party politics.

My love affair with the idea of space travel dates back to SF and my childhood (way back in the 1950’s). The health effects of space travel became interesting to me in the 1990’s, after I was diagnosed with fibromuscular dysplasia and started researching the disease. Thing is, studies about the health effects of space travel kept popping up in my searches. Long story short, it all led to my focus on misfolded proteins and prions.*

Like I said - NOTHING to do with party politics. It’s personal. Although admittedly, my anti-corporatism leanings do shine through on occasion.

Watch the old Total Recall with Shwarzennegger for a better understanding of my concerns about caring for peoples’ health in space. Watch 2001: A Space Odyssey for a good overview of A.I. capability in a space vehicle (ignoring HAL’s breakdown). While you’re at it, maybe watch Aliens for a peek at the effects of allowing corporatist “values” to govern space exploration.

It is not inconceivable that the “Rocket to Mars” will have fully functioning A.I. capabilities. When that singularity happens, the ‘heroically trained’ aspects of being an astronaut will start to disappear, as with airline pilots.

Just as all crew members on an airplane are not trained to pilot the plane, all crew members going to space are not fully trained “astronauts” (or “payload specialists”) - and those without the ‘special’ training are NOT covered for long term care.

Moreover, long term space flights will require more and more spaceflight participants who are not astronaut-trained, including doctors, science officers, other technicians and the like. But the Act does not cover their long term health care. It only offers long term monitoring, diagnosing and treatment to “astronauts” and “payload specialists.”

The laws enacted now will set the standard for space travel evermore. We need to get it right the first time. It is most unfortunate that space is officially ‘privatized,’ and commercial endeavors do not need to follow any laws, including laws enacted to protect peoples’ health. However, this does NOT mean government needs to lower its standards to “compete.”

* NOTE: I have come to see prions as adaptive and evolutionary mechanisms. Nonetheless, exposures in space do cause proteins to misfold and potentially become disease-causing prions, wreaking havoc with health in the long term, as with accelerated onset Alzheimer’s. Crew members other than astronauts and payload specialists are NOT somehow immune, but are NOT covered for the longer term health effects of space travel. This needs to be fixed.




Your literally coming up with bureaucratic petty legal crap to delay human progress.



If it's such "petty legal crap," why are there so many Acts, Codes, documents and program descriptions? Do you think they're there to be ignored? Or just that ordinary people should not be concerned about the details?

AND - Do you honestly believe you can define "human" progress? You apparently consider your anus to be a legitimately accredited school of learning, so I think not.




Well it’s a moot point anyway cause Elon Musk will beat President Ompa lumba there anyway!



Again, government does NOT need to ditch its principles to “compete.” It should set a higher standard of excellence.





edit on 17-3-2017 by soficrow because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-3-2017 by soficrow because: sp



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 03:50 PM
link   
So the bully boys turn tail when faced with hard evidence and a bit of return fire?







posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

No.

I am just not intrested in beurocracy and legal mumbo jumbo.
I agree astronauts need healthcare.


But thats for the lawyers to hammer out not the scientists.


Lets the scientists and astrnoughts off the leesh to do there job.
We should not be holding them back until every i is dotted and T crossed.

If the west does then we will find the moon owned by China and Mars by Russia.



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: soficrow

No.

I am just not intrested in beurocracy and legal mumbo jumbo.
I agree astronauts need healthcare.

But thats for the lawyers to hammer out not the scientists.

Lets the scientists and astrnoughts off the leesh to do there job.
We should not be holding them back until every i is dotted and T crossed.



Did you not read the OP? The linked articles? Do you not realize the Act has already been passed by both houses? That the only step left is Trump's signature? ...He's expected to sign. And I can't see him making any amendments to the Act. No matter what I might say.

My OP and follow-up posts are simply meant to flag the weaknesses and oversights with respect the the health impacts on crew members, and their need for better protections.

My best hope is that the starry-eyed ones will wake up, read their contracts and waivers, and demand full lifetime medical coverage and benefits gratis, before they sign up. Because it's pretty much guaranteed that they will NOT be coming home to pick up where they left off, or be able to keep working til their age of retirement.




If the west does then we will find the moon owned by China and Mars by Russia.


Do you not know know that Bush effectively privatized space in 2006? Or notice that the TITLE 51—NATIONAL AND COMMERCIAL SPACE PROGRAMS 'rules and regs' is dated 2010?

True, the Outer Space Treaty that forms the basis of international space law is viewed by many as a bit of a joke, but most nations have ratified the agreement (including Russia and China). Private corporations are another matter of course.


...the exploration of outer space shall be done to benefit all countries and that space shall be free for exploration and use by all the States.

The treaty explicitly forbids any government from claiming a celestial resource such as the Moon or a planet.[3] Article II of the Treaty states that "outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means".




As I said, this thread is just a heads up to starry-eyed wannabe astronauts who think they might get rich quick and see space too. Granted, it might apply most to private endeavors and 3-year asteroid mining tours, but the risks are far greater than what's openly discussed, and the protections are not there unless you're an established full time federal employee with the very specific title of either "astronaut" or "payload specialist."



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 08:00 AM
link   
The GW Bush admin. had a plan to 'return' man to the moon, by 2017, later revised to happen by 2020.

They failed, soon after.


Now the govt wants to land humans on Mars by 2033!


I suppose our next gov't will have a plan for humans to land on Saturn, or Jupiter, by 2045!

Vote on Planet X, anyone?



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1
Yup. NASA have proven (Or rather the bureaucrats behind it) useless at keeping deadlines or finishing through projects. And space X have proven to get things done with far more efficiency.

NASA really should just scrap manned missions using its own craft and planning manned missions and focus its time on R&D.
Nasa has a budget of what $15 billion?
NASA should just give $5 billion of that to space X as Musk will get done with $5billion what NASA would use $30 billion for and use the other $10 billion to research better engines and sort safety concerns out while sharing that research with the private sector.



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Looks like you read the budget.



NASA Poised to Lose $200 Million in Funding Under the Trump Administration

...The budget would basically allot NASA $19.1 billion for the 2018 fiscal year. That’s $200 million less than the $19.3 the agency received last year.

...Under the proposal, the Earth science division would take a $102 million cut compared to what it received in 2017. The budget would effectively end several Earth science initiatives, such as NASA’s carbon monitoring program and NASA’s involvement in the DSCOVR program.

Some of the other notable missions that are up for cancellation under the new budget proposal includes NASA’s Asteroid Redirect Mission and a mission to land on Europa, one of Jupiter’s moons. NASA’s education program, which the proposal described as redundant to other parts of the agency, would now be completely be scrapped. The agency’s human spaceflight program, fortunately, would mostly stay on track.

Despite these defunded programs and missions, the new budget request does draw focus to other NASA initiatives, such as commercial space travel.

“The budget supports our continued leadership in commercial space
, which has demonstrated success through multiple cargo resupply missions to the International Space Station, and is on target to begin launches of astronauts from U.S. soil in the near future,” Lightfoot said in the statement.

According to the proposal, NASA will continue to support and expand private-public partnerships that hope to grow civilian space travel. It seems that the new budget would be opening options for NASA to engage in “collaboration with industry” in terms of running the space station and developing deep-space habitats.




A cleverly written crit of the budget.


Trump’s Budget Would Break American Science, Today and Tomorrow

YOU CAN GO ahead and assume President Trump’s proposed federal budget will never be the actual federal budget. Members of Congress from every political persuasion will find a lot to hate about it, and they’re the ones who have to approve it—assuming they can sort out the arcane, procrustean rules for getting any budget passed in Washington.

It’s still worth looking at the budget, though—not as a blueprint for governing but as a map of a government, a philosophy of a state. From that angle it’s a singularly terrifying document, fundamentally nihilistic, that assumes a violent present instead of attempting to build a future of peace, security, and absence of want. By eviscerating federal funding of science, this budget pays for a world where the only infrastructure is megacities connected by Fury Roads.

...Instead of propelling the country toward that gleaming tomorrow, this budget invests in the grimmest possible present. Pollution? Double down; corporations gonna corporation. Climate change? If it was real, the market would be taking care of it. Same for cancer. But guns? Yeah, we only spend as much on that as the next seven countries on the list combined; we better goose that a little because, oh yeah I forgot to mention, we’re cutting diplomacy by 29 percent, too.

...“It would be wonderful if you could point to future successes. You always have to make this case retroactively. But it’s amazing how much of what we take for granted is a result of a few crazy people doing things outside the box.”

Federal spending on research and development has never beat its Cold War peak. In 1976 Federal R&D was just over 1 percent of GDP; today it’s under 0.8 percent, and most of that is defense spending. Cuts of the kind the president is proposing go past the bone and into marrow. Broad research cuts will narrow the pipeline of trained scientists who depend on grants to fund their graduate work. They’ll terminate multi-year studies, reduce the output of university labs with fewer incoming students. You don’t come back from that for a generation. And the worst part is, that’s the only future anyone can predict with confidence. The country won’t be ready for anything—except war.




posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Apophis comes back in 2029 so 2033 may be too late.
Just a thought.



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
Apophis comes back in 2029 so 2033 may be too late.
Just a thought.


lol. Yeah. Too bad about cancelling the Asteroid Redirect Mission, eh?


NASA’s Asteroid Redirect Mission

...The robotic mission also will demonstrate planetary defense techniques to deflect dangerous asteroids and protect Earth if needed in the future. ...

Perhaps most importantly, NASA’s Asteroid Redirect Mission will greatly advance NASA’s human path to Mars, testing the capabilities needed for a crewed mission to the Red Planet in the 2030s. For more information, read “How NASA’s Asteroid Redirect Mission Will Help Humans Reach Mars.”




And the DSCOVR: Deep Space Climate Observatory too - who needs to know what the sun is blasting out into the solar system? Won't matter on the way to Mars, right?

All useless information! YUUUUGELY useless!



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: soficrow


Watch the old Total Recall with Shwarzennegger for a better understanding of my concerns about caring for peoples’ health in space. Watch 2001: A Space Odyssey for a good overview of A.I. capability in a space vehicle (ignoring HAL’s breakdown). While you’re at it, maybe watch Aliens for a peek at the effects of allowing corporatist “values” to govern space exploration.

Ooooooo... Kkkkkkkkk.....

Forgive me for interrupting your fantasy. Please, carry on.

Oh, you should check out "I Dream of Jeannie." We have to get better monitoring of splashdowns!

Redneck out.

TheRedneck




top topics



 
14
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join