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

But for some reason, ATS is not formatting my responses to quotes when I click on the big quotation mark in the response menu.

To add insult to injury, I get a double post.

Will reboot.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I am seriously confused here. Why is space exploration a bad thing?

Mars is already being explored. The question really comes down to the cost/benefits of sending humans to mars versus robotic explorers. With future advancements in robotics and virtual reality there may be no point sending humans into space at all.

Now if we had rockets that could accelerate/decelerate at a constant 1G, allowing trip to mars in 1.7 days at earth/mars closest approach, then the issue of humans versus robots would be less of an issue. But the huge cost in sending humans in space with current technology doesn't make sense.

I don't really care whether we reach Mars or not. What I'm excited about is the large-scale funding. Lots of great tech comes from NASA and people inspired by that vision. Hope the engines of ingenuity are revitalized so we get "flying cars, not just Twitter" this time around.

originally posted by: Miccey
Hmmm would that be 19THOUSAND and 508 billions
Or 19 point 508 billions?!?!?!?

$19,508,000,000

a reply to: RAY1990

What trump IS doing is telling NASA to do it and giving them funds. That's all a President can do.

a reply to: soficrow

Well, that's going to be interesting.

...they cut NASA's budget
...cut spending on the sciences
...lack of support for the sciences
...more difficult for foreign engineers and scientists to enter the US as the work force...


There's going to have to be a huge cultural change in Congress before we get the support we need to get people to Mars or the Moon. At this point, I think another country (possibly India, possibly Europe, maybe Russia or China) will beat us to the goal.

originally posted by: Aazadan
A good space program with a clear grandiose goal is something I can get behind Trump on. I'm just worried they won't be funded enough to carry through on the mission.

That's where I'm at.

I'm very pro getting off this planet and expanding the space program.

Let's hope Trump doesn't just want something else to take credit for and boost his ego -- again.

a reply to: soficrow

No, but earlier posters, including the OP, seem to think so.

TheRedneck

a reply to: soficrow

Like many here I have always dreamed of going to space. I want to see it happen. But the effects on human health are very real and extremely serious - and need to be handled. It's a question of priorities. Like I do not think you cut the effing budget on technology that mitigates health effects.

I'm not big on going myself... old now, and want both feet on dirt. But the new batch of young'uns... yeah, I can see the allure.

Health concerns absolutely should not be compromised, but understand we are talking about venturing into a great unknown. There will be accidents, miscalculations, even disasters. But those who sacrifice are making that sacrifice for something greater than themselves. They're heroes.

The urgency is no different than the JFK directive to go to the moon. It's a goal, and one that many in NASA are happy with. The budget has been increased, and the idiotic regulations (like trying to turn NASA into a social diplomacy program) are gone. I expect to see grant money coming in shortly, and for things I am already working on. Maybe, just maybe, these old eyes might someday watch the screens or displays of something I designed and built flashing in the videos of the crew leaving orbit on the greatest adventure of their lives.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Byrd

...more difficult for foreign engineers and scientists to enter the US as the work force...

How does the USA need foreign engineers and scientists from the seven insignificant war torn barbarian overrun countrys on the ban list?

Added together they make up a tiny percentage of the population.

I doubt the lack of Somalian immigrants will effcet the new space race

There are several problems that are there with any trip to Mars, by NASA:

1) Is congress going to increase the budget to Nasa for them to accomplish this? It takes money, a lot of money to do such.
2) Then there is the technical side of this, from engineers to other people who would be required on the earth side to accomplish this. Not to mention the people required to man the flight to Mars, let alone getting them down onto the ground to Mars.
3) Time. They would need time not only to get the craft built, tested, and landed, but also the travel time to get to Mars. First there is the launch window that would have to be done, and then the travel time of up to 8 months.
4) The technology. Once there the people who set up on Mars, would have to be self-sufficient, on many things, from fabricating potential parts needed, having shelter, food, water and air. Exploration would have to come second.
5) The crew that would go there, as they would have to be able to handle many problems, so you figure a doctor, an engineer, and probably a biologist would be required, not to mention a pilot and others to make this work.


Those are some of the requirements. However, there are problems that they have not discussed. The biggest problem is that the technical knowhow, the people who were very skilled at sending people to space, are no longer there, they retired or moved on to other jobs when the US stopped sending people into space from the United States. They are working on a new craft to do such, but they have yet to be any where ready for such a voyage or endeavor.

a reply to: intrptr

I find your point's highly credible

a reply to: crazyewok

Reread Soficraws OP, you're making the same mistakes in comprehension that TheRedneck made

I never thought about Trump pushing the space program, I'm glad he has, I think even some liberals could agree on that. Honestly though, NASA can't even get humans to the moon (regardless of Apollo being real or fake, I'm talking NOW). Getting humans to Mars by the 30's seems like a pipe dream. I hate internationalism (it destroys freedom and sovereignty), but the only chance humanity has to make it to Mars, or even the moon, in the next few decades, is by international cooperation.

originally posted by: Byrd
a reply to: soficrow

Well, that's going to be interesting.

...they cut NASA's budget
...cut spending on the sciences
...lack of support for the sciences
...more difficult for foreign engineers and scientists to enter the US as the work force...


There's going to have to be a huge cultural change in Congress before we get the support we need to get people to Mars or the Moon. At this point, I think another country (possibly India, possibly Europe, maybe Russia or China) will beat us to the goal.

Looks like a faith based mission.

Who needs science when you already have really YUUUGE rockets? Point and fire.

a reply to: TheRedneck

The OP does NOT say space exploration is a bad thing. It says that the "plan" involves setting people up for serious health problems and stripping them of needed follow up care. I did not say the "plan" stupid, but it is.

It is unbelievably, incomprehensibly stupid to "plan" a mission to Mars whilst cutting:

* NASA's budget,
* spending on the sciences, and
* support for the sciences.

Like, what's the "plan" here? Besides space exploration without the benefit of science and appropriate medical care.

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy
I never thought about Trump pushing the space program, I'm glad he has, I think even some liberals could agree on that. Honestly though, NASA can't even get humans to the moon (regardless of Apollo being real or fake, I'm talking NOW). Getting humans to Mars by the 30's seems like a pipe dream. I hate internationalism (it destroys freedom and sovereignty), but the only chance humanity has to make it to Mars, or even the moon, in the next few decades, is by international cooperation.

We'll have to see what NASA's timetable looks like. It took 12 years to build the ISS, but that was a first attempt. An actual Mars mission needs way more infrastructure than the ISS did, and we still had shuttles for that. We need a new space launch system, a space launching point, multiple spaceships (due to mission turnaround time), a docking station at Mars, a landing system at Mars, and a relaunch system.

Building all that from where we are now, is extremely ambitious for a 16 year timetable. I would love to see it happen, but lets say it takes 6 years to build a Mars station (likely the biggest bottleneck), then there's transit time. We're talking about having such a system built and merely awaiting construction by 2025 at the latest. If nothing else, I don't see how we can get a fleet of interplanetary ships built by 2025 to make manned missions to Mars and start assembling the Mars station.

a reply to: soficrow

The OP does NOT say space exploration is a bad thing. It says that the "plan" involves setting people up for serious health problems and stripping them of needed follow up care. I did not say the "plan" stupid, but it is.

So... you want every rocket equipped with a hospital?

I saw not a single shred of evidence that anyone is being deprived of healthcare. As a matter of fact, NASA employees have excellent health care. If you mean that people will be involved in dangerous missions, of course they will! Just like fishermen die to bring that can of tuna to your local grocery store, people died building the railway system that makes cheap delivery possible, and people died going to the moon. In that case, I stand by my earlier post: I'll be sure to wake you from that fetal position when it's over.

It is unbelievably, incomprehensibly stupid to "plan" a mission to Mars whilst cutting:

* NASA's budget,
* spending on the sciences, and
* support for the sciences.

13.5 > 13.2.

It's a small increase, yes, but there's nothing to spend it on yet. And it's certainly not a cut.

Like, what's the "plan" here? Besides space exploration without the benefit of science and appropriate medical care.

To go to Mars.

Maybe that's mentioned in the OP, most replies, and the linked article? I dunno, why not look and see?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

So... you want every rocket equipped with a hospital?

Not necessarily a hospital, but every long term manned mission should have a qualified physician (or several) and the medicine or means necessary to treat, within reason, whatever illness or injury might arise.

a reply to: Liquesence

Actually, that's kind of a given for space missions now. An astronaut is trained in basic medical treatment like an EMT, and common medicines are available in first-aid kits. You might have 1 or 2 astronauts on a typical mission of 5 or 6 who are not qualified in medical care, but that's it.

Medical doctors at this stage are simply not practical. Most are unable to withstand the physical rigors of space travel and would likely wind up being a liability. There are doctors available to help diagnose and give instructions on treatment remotely if necessary... far from immediate medical care, but the best option there is.

Astronauts are tested every way from Sunday as well. No one goes unless their health is checked, double-checked, and triple-checked while undergoing expected situations.

Some jobs are just dangerous. You do what you can to minimize the danger, but in the end those who undertake the jobs accept the risks. That's just the way life is.

TheRedneck