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: 7
14
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm all for expanding the space program. I just don't believe any combination of dollars, lawyers or time will ever get us there.


It's a near certainty we will get there, though I doubt NASA will be first.




posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd
Given that this is 'under development' at the moment, and that the actual working full-scale prototype does not exist, I think the whole thing poorly thought out. Dictating what technology will be used is a very unwise decision, IMHO, since other things may come along that pan out better.

Another thing that I think is poorly thought out is the possibility of interim missions to Mars' satellites, as if they would be easier than a mission to Mars.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
Who says NASA cant do both? Study climates and push the boundaries of space exploration?


I think they can, it's just a matter of budget. A lot of people don't make the connection between climate science and space exploration though so they push the latter while trying to defund the former. Some of the stuff NASA has been directed towards in recent years is absolutely ridiculous like the Muslim outreach program. The department has a 50 year record though of scientific breakthroughs. Giving them a clear goal, and the funding/support to reach that goal is almost certainly going to have good results.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Uphill
1. Despite the author herself being female, she does not discuss the much more negative effects of ionizing radiation on women versus men. Hmmm. Will trips to Mars be guys-only for the forseeable future?


This is one of the things that NASA has thought a lot about. People don't perform as well, or have mental breakdowns in isolation and space is pretty damn isolating. Even if you have some other people around, putting several people in a capsule where there's little personal space or privacy for years on end is going to create psychological issues.

Last I heard, NASA wants to send married couples into space for long term missions, because it reduces isolation. The problem though is that it's tough enough to find qualified people to go on these missions. It's exponentially harder to find couples that are qualified. Then you need the skills overlap, and proper mix. It's an interesting problem to try and solve.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Let's please not colonize Mars or any other heavenly body. Homo Sapiens has all but eradicated life on Earth; and, even with the availability of so much clear evidence how we are impacting the environment, we continue to ignore the reality due to avarice, arrogance, ignorance and indifference. We are not worthy of spreading our seed at this time, and most likely will die out as we continue to destroy the delicate balance that sustains life on Earth. Our intellect and technologies will not be enough to save mankind. Nor will it be enough to save the few percent who will have it all, as those riches will ensure they will be only the last to suffer death through dwindling numbers caused by a lack of resources. Homo Sapiens has existed for 200,000 years, the majority of which was in harmony with nature. But the advent of agriculture changed the game, while oil provided the coupe de grace. Too bad, actually. It does not have to be this way. But the majority seem too distracted to demand the change that is needed to restore balance though it is in the best interests of ALL people (and all species) that we do so. The end is not nearly as far out as you might think; it could happen within a hundred years. That should cause a sense of urgency, but I don’t see it, in America anyhow. We are ruining it for everyone. Way to go.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan



... A lot of people don't make the connection between climate science and space exploration though so they push the latter while trying to defund the former.



BINGO!







posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence


I've already stated what should be taken into account and what precautions should be addressed. Re-read my posts in this thread.

The only thing you have stated that you want is a team of dedicated medical doctors on board. As I have stated, that is impractical. As it is, the necessary payload for an exploratory trip to Mars would include food, water, oxygen, and the crew themselves, as well as the equipment needed to gather data. For sake of argument, let's say this first trip includes a pilot, an engineer, a couple scientists, and a communication expert... five people. Now add in two doctors. You just increased the payload by a factor of 40%. Now we have to expend more fuel to get there, carrying more water, food, and air, and the doctors will need medical equipment. Of course, we want the best equipment we can get, so there will need to be x-ray equipment, MRIs, a fully-staffed operating room, a pharmacy, a recovery room, EKG monitors, and let's not forget the nurses... two doctors will need at least three nurses, so make that a 100% increase in payload, and several times the needed area aboard ship.

Do you see yet how impractical this is? You say you don't want a hospital on the trip, but that is exactly what you describe.

Medical consideration, absolutely! Definitely include any medications that might be warranted in any conceivable emergency. Train the astronauts to be proficient in medical technology (as is already done). Ensure, as much as possible, they are healthy enough to survive the journey. But it sounds to me like you are advocating trying to give the same medical treatment that exists in a major city on earth, and that's just not possible... and probably not needed anyway.

If we ever get to the point that there is a way-station on Mars, I'm sure there will be NASA doctors and a nursing staff to treat issues just like there is on earth. But we're not there yet, and we never will get there unless we take the first step: get to the darn planet, look around, take some samples, and get back home.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow


Everything is all about Republicans v/s Democrats. Voting for the winning Party. Being on the the winning side.

No, it's about being on the doing side, as opposed to the whining side.

Don't be surprised if you get linked to politicians when you act like them.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


you have stated that you want is a team of dedicated medical doctors on board.


That is one of the things I said.

The other is that until issues of the negative and detrimental impacts to the human body by long term exposure in space are solved, long term, human-led space missions are irresponsible and negligent.


Now add in two doctors. You just increased the payload by a factor of 40%.


Which would be needed for a responsible long-term mission.


For sake of argument, let's say this first trip includes a pilot, an engineer, a couple scientists, and a communication expert... five people. Now add in two doctors.


Yes, a medical doctor or two. Not having those on a long term space mission is simply, again, irresponsible and negligent, and honestly quite stupid.


we want the best equipment we can get


Yes we do. Within reason for the flight, and certainly more than "just an astronaut trained as an EMT with a first aid kit."


But we're not there yet, and we never will get there unless we take the first step: get to the darn planet, look around, take some samples, and get back home.


HOW? Therein lies the main problem, as I've addressed elsewhere: getting back home. That is the hardest part, leaving the surface once there; furthermore, if during the space flight there is extreme bodily deterioration to muscles, bones, tissue, the astronauts won't even be physically well enough to attempt any of that. Hence, the need for a solution for the detriments of long term space travel to the human body.

As I said, I am all for trying and wanting to get to Mars. But responsibly, and not ignoring known problems simply "just to get there."



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Backatcha.

...Guess I just don't get the deep thinking.



/sarcasm



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: 0zzymand0s


I'm all for expanding the space program. I just don't believe any combination of dollars, lawyers or time will ever get us there.

No, but scientists, engineers, and money can.

NASA doesn't have many lawyers on staff. What they have is engineers and scientists who want to explore, but have been stymied for years by political correctness and apathetic policies. Trump just gave them a much-needed direction: figure out how to get to Mars.

It seems some in this thread think that means there's a room somewhere at NASA in which people are unrolling plans for a mining complex, complete with travel schedules. Nope. There are a lot of rooms at NASA where people are studying papers and working on designs for how we might get a small group of astronauts there and back. Most designs will end up in wastecans; a few will make it to grant applications; some of those will get funded; and most of those will result in a paper being published. Then, a group of top engineers will look at the papers and develop a basic plan to get to Mars. After that, more engineers will fill in details to get actual plans on what is needed.

We already have people in this thread trying to second-guess and demonize decisions that haven't even been made yet, who are complaining about even trying to figure out how to do something because of some fantasy that it won't be to their liking. That's my issue. Going to Mars is an awesome goal, and one that has been overlooked for far too long. It shouldn't be side-railed over claims about the results by people who obviously don't even know how a plan is devised.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 07:15 PM
link   
I will have to be away from computers for the next few days, but then I will check back with this thread.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck
a reply to: Liquesence

Just to be clear - the most significant health effects occur after astronauts and space workers return to Earth gravity, and manifest as long term chronic disease. These health effects result largely from changes and mutations to the epigenome (not the genome), and are epigenetic.

The CONSPIRACY is that:

1. Government is specifically and clearly offloading the responsibility and cost of long term healthcare for astronauts and space workers, despite knowing that the known effects are debilitating, and many (most?) effects are still unknown, and

2. 'Advising' that astronauts and space workers need private insurance coverage, while

3. Insurance Companies Are Now Demanding Epigenetic Profiles.

POINT: Astronauts and space workers will NOT qualify for health insurance coverage when they return to Earth. As a direct result of their participation in the "Space Program" they will be chronically ill, debilitated and have no resources.



Anybody get it yet?

HINT: It's not about partisan politics.






edit on 12-3-2017 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence


That is one of the things I said.

The other is that until issues of the negative and detrimental impacts to the human body by long term exposure in space are solved, long term, human-led space missions are irresponsible and negligent.

OK, so how are we going to even know what those issues might be unless we identify them? How are we going to identify them if we never make a move to see if they exist?


Yes, a medical doctor or two. Not having those on a long term space mission is simply, again, irresponsible and negligent, and honestly quite stupid.

Apparently you missed Byrd's earlier post. Some astronauts are licensed physicians, as well as being able to fill other roles on a mission. I didn't mention it myself because I wasn't sure.


HOW?

BY TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT!

We didn't know how to make smart phones until someone set a goal to make them. They didn't know how when they decided to do it. We didn't know how we would send moving pictures through the air until someone decided to set a goal to make a TV. We didn't know how to make a computer until someone decided to set a goal to make one, and we didn't know how to connect them together until DARPA decided to set a goal to connect them.

What, do you really think there's a storehouse somewhere where every invention mankind will ever develop is sitting all written out and ready to go when someone decides to say "let's do this"? NO! People see needs, set goals, design, test, redesign, retest, redesign, retest, recalculate, refine, redesign, and retest again until they know how to accomplish their goal. Then and only then do they get to actually build it. That's why even 16 years is a short time frame, because there is going to be a lot of work to do just to figure out how to get a livable vehicle there, and yes, how to get it back off the ground and back to earth.

But the silliest thing of all is to say "we don't know how" and then use that as an excuse to never try to figure out how.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow




Astronauts and space workers will NOT qualify for health insurance coverage when they return to Earth.
Not if the GOP has its way.

Sorry. I couldn't help it.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 07:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: soficrow




Astronauts and space workers will NOT qualify for health insurance coverage when they return to Earth.
Not if the GOP has its way.

Sorry. I couldn't help it.




You're such a card.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Thing is, we DO know.

The most significant health effects occur after astronauts and space workers return to Earth gravity, and manifest as long term chronic disease. These health effects result largely from changes and mutations to the epigenome (not the genome), and are epigenetic.

We KNOW this. And now,

The CONSPIRACY:

1. Government is specifically and clearly offloading the responsibility and cost of long term healthcare for astronauts and space workers, despite knowing that the known effects are debilitating, and many (most?) effects are still unknown, and

2. 'Advising' that astronauts and space workers need private insurance coverage, while

3. Insurance Companies Are Now Demanding Epigenetic Profiles.

POINT BEING:

Astronauts and space workers will NOT qualify for health insurance coverage when they return to Earth. As a direct result of their participation in the "Space Program" they will be chronically ill, debilitated and have no resources.



Do you get it yet?

HINT: It's not about partisan politics.






posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow


POINT: Astronauts and space workers will NOT qualify for health insurance coverage when they return to Earth. As a direct result of their participation in the "Space Program" they will be chronically ill, debilitated and have no resources.

So far as I know, NASA employees, including astronauts, get health coverage (very good healthcare coverage!) as part of their employment with NASA. That coverage continues after retirement as part of the retirement package, and would certainly cover conditions arising from their work environment.

My mother worked for a Federal agency for quite a while, and she is very well covered, to the point that she actually has to look for medical expenses that she needs to pay out of pocket. Between government coverage plans and Medicare, she is set for anything that happens, and she spent her time right here on earth in an office chair.

If you have information that contradicts this, please link it. On that issue, I will side with you; astronauts deserve health care too.

As to the issue of prolonged exposure being dangerous, that does sound possible. But we have some experience with that: several manned moon missions, and a history of long-term exposure in the ISS. If there is a related health issue, that falls under the same umbrella for me as veteran care for ailments like PTSD: we need more research and results.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 08:12 PM
link   
RE: Astronauts and space workers will NOT qualify for health insurance coverage when they return to Earth. As a direct result of their participation in the "Space Program" they will be chronically ill, debilitated and have no resources.


originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soficrow



POINT: Astronauts and space workers will NOT qualify for health insurance coverage when they return to Earth. As a direct result of their participation in the "Space Program" they will be chronically ill, debilitated and have no resources.

So far as I know, NASA employees, including astronauts, get health coverage (very good healthcare coverage!) as part of their employment with NASA. That coverage continues after retirement as part of the retirement package, and would certainly cover conditions arising from their work environment.



You didn't read the Act, did you?

Why don't you click on the linkie and scroll down to Subtitle D—TREAT Astronauts Act?



Subtitle D—TREAT Astronauts Act

SEC. 441. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the “To Research, Evaluate, Assess, and Treat Astronauts Act” or the “TREAT Astronauts Act”.


SEC. 442. FINDINGS; SENSE OF CONGRESS.
(a) Findings.—Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Human space exploration can pose significant challenges and is full of substantial risk, which has ultimately claimed the lives of 24 NASA astronauts serving in the line of duty.

(2) As United States government astronauts participate in long-duration and exploration space flight missions they may experience increased health risks, such as vision impairment, bone demineralization, and behavioral health and performance risks, and may be exposed to galactic cosmic radiation. Exposure to high levels of radiation and microgravity can result in acute and long-term health consequences that can increase the risk of cancer and tissue degeneration and have potential effects on the musculoskeletal system, central nervous system, cardiovascular system, immune function, and vision.

...(4) Since the Administration currently provides medical monitoring, diagnosis, and treatment for United States government astronauts during their active employment, given the unknown long-term health consequences of long-duration space exploration, the Administration has requested statutory authority from Congress to provide medical monitoring, diagnosis, and treatment to former United States government astronauts for psychological and medical conditions associated with human space flight.

...(4) such monitoring, diagnosis, and treatment should not replace a former United States government astronaut's private health insurance;

....“(c) Exclusions.—The Administrator may not—

....“(f) Definition Of United States Government Astronaut.—In this section, the term ‘United States government astronaut’ has the meaning given the term ‘government astronaut’ in section 50902, except it does not include an individual who is an international partner astronaut.






If you have information that contradicts this, please link it. On that issue, I will side with you; astronauts deserve health care too.



See the Act, Subtitle D—TREAT Astronauts Act.

See the thread Insurance Companies Are Now Demanding Epigenetic Profiles.




As to the issue of prolonged exposure being dangerous, that does sound possible. But we have some experience with that: several manned moon missions, and a history of long-term exposure in the ISS. If there is a related health issue, that falls under the same umbrella for me as veteran care for ailments like PTSD: we need more research and results.

TheRedneck


The research and results already exist - it is well-known and indisputable that as the Act states explicitly, there are "increased health risks, such as vision impairment, bone demineralization, and behavioral health and performance risks, and may be exposed to galactic cosmic radiation. Exposure to high levels of radiation and microgravity can result in acute and long-term health consequences that can increase the risk of cancer and tissue degeneration and have potential effects on the musculoskeletal system, central nervous system, cardiovascular system, immune function, and vision."

And there's more than radiation and microgravity to worry about - all researched, documented and studied, btw. For example - acceleration and deceleration place incredible physical stress on cells, mutating proteins and causing epigenetic effects - and the predictable flaring, shedding and mutation of unidentified latent viruses in microgravity environments creates new diseases and spreads through the onboard crew.

The point is that no efforts are being made to mitigate these known risks, never mind the unknown ones. In fact, the solution -aka fallback position- is a corporate CONSPIRACY to offload all the risks onto the idiots who get sucked in to going on a 'space adventure.' Read the Act! It's all about "not responsible" for follow-up healthcare when the astronaut or space worker comes home from active duty.






edit on 12-3-2017 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow


You didn't read the Act, did you?

I have now.... at least Subtitle D. I'll keep that open and finish reading it between bouts of mathematical mania.

Thank you for the link.


SEC. 442. Findings; sense of Congress.
    (a) Findings.—Congress makes the following findings:
      (4) Since the Administration currently provides medical monitoring, diagnosis, and treatment for United States government astronauts during their active employment, given the unknown long-term health consequences of long-duration space exploration, the Administration has requested statutory authority from Congress to provide medical monitoring, diagnosis, and treatment to former United States government astronauts for psychological and medical conditions associated with human space flight.
Source

It appears to me the situation you are angry with is being recognized and measures taken to improve it.

The monitoring, diagnosis and treatment is being made voluntary, not necessary if an astronaut wishes to remain being treated on private insurance. It is a part of their employment, so obviously it is not available for those no longer employed. I suspect that absolute compliance with medical requirements is a necessary part of the process in order to obtain good data, so it makes no sense to try and get good data from someone no longer under the control of NASA. Instead, Congress has announced an intent to simply provide long-term coverage to previous astronauts in the section I posted above.

What's wrong with that?

It looks to me like we simply don't know all the consequences of long-term space exposure yet. I would be suspicious if someone said we did. But we do know what those who have ventured into space have experienced, and we are now researching to find a treatment and protection for our astronauts.


(b) Sense of Congress.—It is the sense of Congress that—
    (5) expanded data acquired from such monitoring, diagnosis, and treatment should be used to tailor treatment, inform the requirements for new space flight medical hardware, and develop controls in order to prevent disease occurrence in the astronaut corps;
Source

It also appears there will be quite a bit of attention given to ensuring protection from adverse affects as we understand them.

I guess the question is: did you read it?

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join