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.

 

NASA chief: U.S. won't go it alone on manned Mars mission

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   
I think we should strive to pursue this quest on our own instead of teaming up. Let other countries go to mars or moon on their own. I was puzzled at the statement by Mr Bolden. Why can't we lead now? Is it due to the budget issues or politics in the background that we don't know about? Is NASA lacking the key technical staff?


"I have no desire to do a Mars landing on our own," Bolden said. "The U.S. cannot always be the leader, but we can be the inspirational leader through international cooperation" in space exploration.

LINK

Your thoughts/comments/opinions/viewpoints please.




posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   
I thought we already had a base on Mars in partnership with the negative Reptiles. Wasn't there a pict with trees? If that is the case, then terraforming is already underway. The "normal people" (you and I) are not suppose to know about the mars bases. They are just doing PR here, consumption for the masses.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   
The Majority of NASA missions have been a conglomeration of work done by many different nations. NASA brought in Nazi scientists during Operation Paperclip at its birth...remember?

Canada has contributed much to the development of the shuttle and the international space station.

To say that you want to go it alone is quote a naive statement, no offense.

I would not mind going to mars with a US counterpart.....
edit on 2-8-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   
I really dont like that Bolden guy. He has been the Nasa Chief for far too long, and is probably persuaded way very easily over budget. NASA is no where near what it used to be.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by hp1229
 



I think we should strive to pursue this quest on our own instead of teaming up. Let other countries go to mars or moon on their own. I was puzzled at the statement by Mr Bolden. Why can't we lead now? Is it due to the budget issues or politics in the background that we don't know about? Is NASA lacking the key technical staff?


Sadly, all of the above. A Mars mission is much more hazardous than a lunar mission and requires more fuel and supplies. This country can't even get a simple manned orbital system green lighted. Worse still, the population of aerospace engineers is aging. People who would have majored in engineering in the 60s are majoring in computer science. Nothing wrong with that, but even if the US did decide to go to Mars, it would probably need to draw on engineers from Europe and Asia.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Very simple...we will use other countries resources/money to get us there. Once we are on Mars there will be a "terrible accident" in which the only survivors are of US. Let the conspiracies fly

edit on 2-8-2012 by HawkeyeNation because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by hp1229
 


Yes, I think the whole statement is code for "We don't have the money, or the approval of our leash-holders, nor will we ever have the money and approval of our leash-holders to do it, at least in the current political/financial climate unless a whole bunch of others chip in".

America is broke, and would rather spend $$$ on it's toy soldiers than its rocket ships.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by hp1229
I think we should strive to pursue this quest on our own instead of teaming up. Let other countries go to mars or moon on their own. I was puzzled at the statement by Mr Bolden. Why can't we lead now? Is it due to the budget issues or politics in the background that we don't know about? Is NASA lacking the key technical staff?


"I have no desire to do a Mars landing on our own," Bolden said. "The U.S. cannot always be the leader, but we can be the inspirational leader through international cooperation" in space exploration.

LINK

Your thoughts/comments/opinions/viewpoints please.


I think he's right. Space, is the one area where we can all get along on a planetary scale. If you put all the knowledge of different nations together, there is more chance of success, and quicker workflow to being able to prepare for it.

I'm not a person who believes in "flags". By that, i mean we shouldn't be living with borders and boundaries in this day and age. It means nothing, and is the only reason for international disputes. If we're going to reach out and get away from this planet, we have to all work together as a whole.

The only thing holding us back from that, is a mixed range of politics... which only exists because we are all living in isolated "communities" which we call countries.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by MDDoxs
The Majority of NASA missions have been a conglomeration of work done by many different nations. NASA brought in Nazi scientists during Operation Paperclip at its birth...remember?
Canada has contributed much to the development of the shuttle and the international space station.
To say that you want to go it alone is quote a naive statement, no offense.
I would not mind going to mars with a US counterpart.....
edit on 2-8-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)

Well if NASA brings them onboard as a private contractor and a paid consultant, any work that is performed belongs to NASA. Its basically hiring someone to do your work. Pretty simple to me. Likewise the components and major plants are situated world wide for major airplane manufacturers. Yet the final product represents the company and country that undertook its design and development and ofcourse commercializing the product.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by hp1229
 
America is broke, and would rather spend $$$ on it's toy soldiers than its rocket ships.
Well I think it should be privatized heavily. NASA is a Government Agency. Surely there will be heavy mismanagement of funds.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by hp1229

Originally posted by MDDoxs
The Majority of NASA missions have been a conglomeration of work done by many different nations. NASA brought in Nazi scientists during Operation Paperclip at its birth...remember?
Canada has contributed much to the development of the shuttle and the international space station.
To say that you want to go it alone is quote a naive statement, no offense.
I would not mind going to mars with a US counterpart.....
edit on 2-8-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)

Well if NASA brings them onboard as a private contractor and a paid consultant, any work that is performed belongs to NASA. Its basically hiring someone to do your work. Pretty simple to me. Likewise the components and major plants are situated world wide for major airplane manufacturers. Yet the final product represents the company and country that undertook its design and development and ofcourse commercializing the product.


Wow, so in your opinion we are just the mindless labour eh?

Here is a quote from NASA website to perhaps enlighten you a bit


NASA's vision: To reach for new heights and reveal the unknown so that what we do and learn will benefit all humankind.

To do that, thousands of people have been working around the world -- and off of it -- for 50 years, trying to answer some basic questions. What's out there in space? How do we get there? What will we find? What can we learn there, or learn just by trying to get there, that will make life better here on Earth?
.


Source



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by MDDoxs

Originally posted by hp1229

Originally posted by MDDoxs
The Majority of NASA missions have been a conglomeration of work done by many different nations. NASA brought in Nazi scientists during Operation Paperclip at its birth...remember?
Canada has contributed much to the development of the shuttle and the international space station.
To say that you want to go it alone is quote a naive statement, no offense.
I would not mind going to mars with a US counterpart.....
edit on 2-8-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)

Well if NASA brings them onboard as a private contractor and a paid consultant, any work that is performed belongs to NASA. Its basically hiring someone to do your work. Pretty simple to me. Likewise the components and major plants are situated world wide for major airplane manufacturers. Yet the final product represents the company and country that undertook its design and development and ofcourse commercializing the product.

Wow, so in your opinion we are just the mindless labour eh?
Here is a quote from NASA website to perhaps enlighten you a bit

NASA's vision: To reach for new heights and reveal the unknown so that what we do and learn will benefit all humankind.
To do that, thousands of people have been working around the world -- and off of it -- for 50 years, trying to answer some basic questions. What's out there in space? How do we get there? What will we find? What can we learn there, or learn just by trying to get there, that will make life better here on Earth?
.

Source

No. NASA definitely promotes diversity and its nothing new. There are international projects and there are domestic projects. I dont think the staff is mindless. But how would you justify the ownership of a project if you're the primary entity funding it? Sure the Russians, Chinese, Indians and many others have specialized talents working on their project in addition to purchasing specialized equipment. Do they claim to be a international achievement?



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   
What a closed minded and naive OP.

Most of the recent NASA missions, in parts, have been (to a certain extent) international. There is always some contribution from ESA or other agencies. Oh hey, you know that right now they need to go with the Russians to get freight up to the ISS, which, by the way, ALSO consists modules from other agencies, like ESA. (Hence: INTERNATIONAL Space Station...)

So..what reasoning is behind your entirely awkward "nationalism"? Instead of closed minded "nationalism", i think there is more important things to consider looking at future missions.

As for a future manned Mars mission, the costs would like be so incredible huge that thinking about partnerships with others is just a natural thing....not only for sharing a small percentage of the actual costs...but also for taking advantage of the fact there are great engineers and scientists ELSEWHERE as well, not only in the states.
edit on 2-8-2012 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by flexy123
 
Nothing nationalistic about it. It is not closed minded by any means. Its more to do with appropriately utilizing the budget by promoting more private sector competion with the space explorations. I never denied nor contended that there are scientists and engineers who might be brighter and intelligent outside of US. I know all about the vendors that are involved including space agencies from other countries with several projects that NASA houses. This is nothing new. Same goes for other space agencies outside the US where they have similar approaches to their projects on hand. They never claim or provide any credit where its due to other teams and/or nationalities involved in their projects. But read my previous response.


edit on 2-8-2012 by hp1229 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-8-2012 by hp1229 because: add content



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   
People are forgetting that Mars does not have a magnetosphere, its atmosphere is about one hundredths of Earth,
the temperature never gets above 40 below, the atmosphere is mostly methane and CO2, and someone saw a tree growing? The ultra violet from the sun would fry it!
Without a magnetosphere, Mars really is dead, nothing to hold its atmosphere (gravity too weak) nothing to protect it from the Suns nasty rays (ultra violet, infrared, charged particles [really bad stuff], and other assorted stuff the sun likes to throw around) plus plenty of micro meteorites from the asteroid belt hitting Mars.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
I agree with the bold statement.
The exploration of space (beyond our tacky LEO) is a HUMAN endeavour, and as such, it should be tackled by humanity as a whole rather than being just a nice medium for national propaganda.
But, alas, we have a lot of work to do before we can start thinking in terms of the Human Nation rather than US, Russia, China, etc...
Which is not to say it's imposible, actually it's inevitable.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by pikestaff
 





People are forgetting that Mars does not have a magnetosphere,


It does have a magnetoshpere. It is just very weak.


Mars has a very weak magnetosphere, so it deflects solar winds poorly.





its atmosphere is about one hundredths of Earth,


Yes but the atmosphere does provide a little bit of protection from the solar radiation.


Mars has an atmosphere. Although it is very thin (about 0.7% of Earth's atmosphere) it provides some protection from solar and cosmic radiation and has been used successfully for aerobraking of spacecraft.





the temperature never gets above 40 below, the atmosphere is mostly methane and CO2, and someone saw a tree growing?


I don't believe the tree thing but Mars temps are similar to the artic here on earth.


Mars is much colder than Earth, with a mean surface temperature of −63 °C and a low of −140 °C. The lowest temperature ever recorded on Earth was −89.2 °C, in Antarctica.



There are natural settings on Earth where humans have explored that match some conditions on Mars. The highest altitude reached by a manned balloon ascent, a record set in May 1961, was 34,668 meters (113,740 feet).[4] The pressure at that altitude is about the same as on the surface of Mars.[5] Extreme cold in the Arctic and Antarctic match all but the most extreme temperatures on Mars.




The ultra violet from the sun would fry it!



Mars has no global magnetic field comparable to Earth's geomagnetic field. Combined with a thin atmosphere, this permits a significant amount of ionizing radiation to reach the Martian surface. The Mars Odyssey spacecraft carried an instrument, the Mars Radiation Environment Experiment (MARIE), to measure the dangers to humans. MARIE found that radiation levels in orbit above Mars are 2.5 times higher than at the International Space Station. Average doses were about 22 millirads per day (220 micrograys per day or 0.08 gray per year.)[10] A three-year exposure to such levels would be close to the safety limits currently adopted by NASA. Levels at the Martian surface would be somewhat lower and might vary significantly at different locations depending on altitude and local magnetic fields.





Without a magnetosphere, Mars really is dead, nothing to hold its atmosphere (gravity too weak) nothing to protect it from the Suns nasty rays (ultra violet, infrared, charged particles [really bad stuff], and other assorted stuff the sun likes to throw around) plus plenty of micro meteorites from the asteroid belt hitting Mars.


See quoted posts above.

We have been to the moon, we live for sohrt periods in the artic, and we can stay at the bottom of the ocean for a short period. There is no reason to think that we couldn't figure out a plan to safely put a habitable place to live on the surface or in a cave on Mars.

It is not a matter of forgeting, it is a matter of taking the next step and go for it.

I just wanted to reply to your post because you make it seem like it is impossible to visit and explore Mars. It will be tough but i believe with the right funding it can be a success.


Early human missionsSee also: Vision for Space Exploration

Early human missions to Mars, such as those being tentatively planned by NASA, FKA and ESA would not be direct precursors to colonization. They are intended solely as exploration missions, as the Apollo missions to the Moon were not planned to be sites of a permanent base.

Colonization requires the establishment of permanent bases that have potential for self-expansion. A famous proposal for building such bases is the Mars Direct plan, advocated by Robert Zubrin.[17] The Mars Society has established the Mars Analogue Research Station Programme at sites Devon Island in Canada and in Utah, United States, to experiment with different plans for human operations on Mars, based on Mars Direct. Modern Martian architecture concepts often include facilities to produce oxygen and propellant on the surface of the planet.


I believe that the mars Direct plan is suffecient enough to get us there for a short period, just to explore. The real problem is the cost, not the environment.

Link for info.
link

In my opinion we have the money(lets face it, they can print it for the bankers and war) and the "know how", what we are lacking is the "balls".



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by pikestaff
People are forgetting that Mars does not have a magnetosphere, its atmosphere is about one hundredths of Earth,
the temperature never gets above 40 below, the atmosphere is mostly methane and CO2, and someone saw a tree growing? The ultra violet from the sun would fry it!
Without a magnetosphere, Mars really is dead, nothing to hold its atmosphere (gravity too weak) nothing to protect it from the Suns nasty rays (ultra violet, infrared, charged particles [really bad stuff], and other assorted stuff the sun likes to throw around) plus plenty of micro meteorites from the asteroid belt hitting Mars.


No one is denying that (despite the few freaks interpreting images and seeing "stuff") - but on the other hand this is a little TOO "closed minded". Funny that there was just a thread about evolution which contained about the same thoughts.

Why do you assume that life on Mars would be similar to life on Earth? If we go so far already to speculate about POTENTIAL life on other planets, we can not assume they are requiring the same circumstances for life as organisms here. Some organisms could live in extreme temperatures, UV rays, etc..etc....

But with Mars, there is a likelihood that Mars likely ONCE was a habitable planet much like Earth...other theories going even so far as to say that life one Earth might have come from Mars. So..even if Mars is a "dead planet" (which, by the way, is still not proven, tests were INCONCLUSIVE) - i think the idea is highly interesting that Mars might have had life millions/billions years ago.
edit on 2-8-2012 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   
This has more to do with money than anything else.
The fact is a manned mission to Mars would be incredibly expensive. The only way we're going to be able to do it is to develop technologies in conjunction with other nations.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
This has more to do with money than anything else.
The fact is a manned mission to Mars would be incredibly expensive. The only way we're going to be able to do it is to develop technologies in conjunction with other nations.
I somehow doubt that. I think its mismanagement of funds by the agency.




top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join