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

originally posted by: soficrow

Forget science! Just fire the damned rockets!

But that attitude actually increases the pace of science!

So much more got done and so much new technology got developed fast between the 1950's and 1980's when the USA had focused goals and clear deadlines with NASA because NASA where forced to come up quickly with solutions so the USA could achieve its spaced base goals. It why we have things from Velcro to super absorbent adult diapers!

a reply to: crazyewok

Ya think?

Technological innovation? Without science?

...Try terra-forming a planet (like Mars for example) without climate science or environmental protection knowledge, using coal and oil as your off-planet energy sources. Or even just building a tiny little safe, self-sustaining bubble. Without science.

a reply to: soficrow

i never said damn the science . i didn't understand why op was poo pooing it because of health concerns yes space is a dangerous place . but we have new technology coming out everyday. under the last prez he tried to make nasa a climate agency and a muslim placating one. don't belive me there is a video of obamas nasa director stating just that. on this very website . nasa is supposed to be about space exploration we got plenty of organizations studying earths climate. nasa should be investigating other planetary bodies climates. there is so much we could learn in space

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: soficrow

i never said damn the science . i didn't understand why op was poo pooing it because of health concerns yes space is a dangerous place . but we have new technology coming out everyday. under the last prez he tried to make nasa a climate agency and a muslim placating one. don't belive me there is a video of obamas nasa director stating just that. on this very website . nasa is supposed to be about space exploration we got plenty of organizations studying earths climate. nasa should be investigating other planetary bodies climates. there is so much we could learn in space

Agreed. It's way past time to get on with it.
There are already technologies in place to protect astronauts, but they will never be 100% safe.
The health & safety brigade as well as the environmentalists will tie the world in knots of they are allowed to. We must not let them.

a reply to: crazyewok

Ummm I Do believe getting humans on Mars in the 2030s has been nasa's goal for a few years now. Just one more thing Trump had nothing to do with and is getting credit for

I agree with Soficrow's reasons why human travel to Mars may not work out. Then there's also some other brutal realities: Mars has no magnetic field ... none ... zero. Therefore, delete all those cute pictures of humans living and working on the surface of Mars. Underground, Mars could be made habitable, given a massive cash infusion. But on the Mars surface? Negatron.

The popular novel The Martian (by Andy Weir) was made into a popular movie by the one and only Ridley Scott:

www.imdb.com...

Mr Scott simplified the technology issues in the novel, which is very wise because of the novel's many technical mistakes. Mr Weir is a NASA programmer, *not* a botanist and certainly not a biologist.

a reply to: soficrow

The first mission wont be a long term mission to set up a permanent base. Just to test out getting there and back. Forget terraforming for now lets just get a crew there and back first ffs!

Plus we have had technology to generate energy apart from oil and coal for #ing decades, it is NOT new technology.



No one is talking about doing anything without science, i dont know where you have that idea. Only to push the bounds of what when can do with current technology and then useing that to fuel science.

a reply to: soficrow

Technological innovation? Without science?

No, with science. Without propaganda.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soficrow

Technological innovation? Without science?

No, with science. Without propaganda.

TheRedneck

And the value and validity of said "science" to be decided by politicians and others with no relevant qualifications. On the basis of whether or not the results support their agenda.

They threw the baby out with the bathwater.

a reply to: soficrow

No, science doesn't work that way. Physics determines what is and is not true.

Once again, you're confusing science with propaganda. No wonder you're so scared of space.

TheRedneck

God dammit, you naysayer buffoons.

To be human is to be, by nature, curious and exploratory. How the F do you think ancient Europeans came to rest in the Taklamakan Desert? Australia was discovered? America came to be? Because people had the exploration itch to scratch, ya dingdongs.
Nowhere today would be as we know it if some bumbling African hominids eons ago hadn't decided to start footing it to begin with, so I guess we should have what, stayed put on that continent?

We've crossed continents and oceans over umpteen generations, the next step in satisfying our natural instincts is to explore off the planet, in person. We can send all the satellites and robots we want to do the exploring, but it's no substitute for our own flesh on the ground, finding the nooks and crannies robots can't get to, let alone in.

Think of Earth as the playpen, and everything else as the playground outside. Let's have at it already.

My OP focused on the health effects of space travel because it's a pet project of mine.

Rocket acceleration, microgravity, radiation-exposure and deceleration are known to cause long term chronic disease - that can be passed on and inherited. I've been tracking the research for more than a decade - and I KNOW there are serious long term health impacts that have not been properly addressed. Not in terms of adequate protections, or with effective cures or treatments.

So if you go to space - best get an airtight, guaranteed lifelong comprehensive health package before you go.




That's it for me. Let the R's and D's destroy any possibility of fruitful discussion, and continue to reduce everything to their standard "Us agin them" and "for it or against it" poll. Have at it fools.

a reply to: soficrow

There's risks, therefore don't bother, right Sofi? Did you stop to consider the flurry of research that's going to come about to try to solve these issues you're hollering about as a side effect of this push?

I doubt you considered that natural flow.

a reply to: TheRedneck

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.

Correct, but these current space missions are not long distance (such as a mission to Mars), and it's easier to get supplies in the event something goes wrong. That's the difference. On a long term space mission there should be more than just a astronaut or two trained in basic medical treatment with a first aid kit, but someone (or several) more qualified to make diagnoses and treat a variety of conditions short of major medical, and with more at his/her disposal.

On a long term mission you'd want not simply an EMT, but a (or several) medical doctor(s).

That's the point.

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.

My initial point was that long-term exposure in space creates issues even to the most healthy, and until a solution for that is found it's simply negligent and irresponsible to ignore them.

Some jobs are just dangerous. You do what you can to minimize the danger,

Exactly. That's why precautions should be taken against known threats and issues (mentioned above), instead of recklessness and irresponsibility, and why a qualified physician/medical doctor(s) should be on any long term mission.

originally posted by: PhoenixDescending
Tried to search for more info on the two astronauts, bodily degeneration - could you please give me some more info, links etc? Thanks

Here's a start.

National Geographic.

a reply to: Liquesence

... long-term exposure in space creates issues even to the most healthy, and until a solution for that is found it's simply negligent and irresponsible to ignore them.

True. ...btw, did you know? Even rigorous testing does not and cannot reveal latent viral infections. So the stress of acceleration triggers flares, then then the viral particles float around in microgravity and 'mate,' and radiation causes the diseases to mutate, and reinfect ................

But that's just science.

Space exploration gives kids a reason to go to school..... To take science classes instead of being a businessman or a banker.....

a reply to: Liquesence

OK, let's try it this way: what precautions do you recommend for such a mission?

TheRedneck

a reply to: soficrow

It will take a lot more than a demand from the Government to get to mars by 2033.

To date we have NO data on the physiological challenges of getting to Mars and having the ability to stand upright when we get there. (Provided of course that you can actually see what you are doing by the time you arrive)

The only viable possibility in getting a living, functioning human to mars at this point would be to drastically reduce the time it takes to get there. Chemical rockets won't do it without killing the astronauts.

EM drives are yet to be proven and VASMIR technology is only vapour ware at this stage.

You can't change the laws of physics and human biology by passing a bill.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: soficrow

What an awful waste of money, horrendous.

First, Tesla or Bezos could do it sooner, cheaper and more reliably.
Second, they throw money away on this all the while seeking to make healthcare more unattainable and at a time when they're running out of money because they've not operated under a budget for the last 8 years.

Typical government blundering.

It is amazing the credit Tesla and Bezos get. Yes, on paper, they have made their shareholders tons of money. But, Tesla has not yet profitably been able to build cars even though his cars sell for twice that of anyone else. Elon Musk is without a doubt a great visionary and his ideas are a positive addition to humanity. But, he isn't going to be able to do it alone. Amazon does make money now, but it took 20 years. They have experience in distribution, not the technology to get us to Mars.

The technology to go to Mars successfully, which should be defined first is well beyond any project ever taken. I would define success as getting the astronauts safely landed and the ability to survive at least two years on the surface. Frankly that is probably optimistic. It is going to take the input and efforts of a lot of bright folks to make even that work. If NASA is well funded and given priority, it will attract the personnel required to reach these goals, if not, it won't. It is hard to imagine private industry can achieve that unless there is some potential profit to be achieved within the time horizon of a willing investor. NASA spends tremendous sums on safety protocols. Well beyond what any normal corporation would generally spend.

Corporate culture is developing a product that works and then selling it. The one industry subject to massive safety protocols is the drug industry and the required FDA testing. These drugs take 10-20 years to get to market because of that. People gripe, but, look what happened in France when Bial tested a mood altering drug on humans before they were ready. People died. While humans are tough survivalists, the human body is also fragile and dies pretty quickly if it is not in its required conditions. Going to Mars is exciting. The challenges are enormous.