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

reply to post by hp1229


It's the current administration. Obama has told NASA their most important objective is to make Islamic nations feel good about their achievements. I kid you not.

NASA administrator Charles Bolden says President Obama has ordered him to pursue three new objectives: to “re-inspire children” to study science and math, to “expand our international relationships,” and to “reach out to the Muslim world.” Of those three goals, Bolden said in a recent interview with al-Jazeera, the mission to reach out to Muslims is “perhaps foremost,” because it will help Islamic nations “feel good” about their scientific accomplishments.

hotair.com...

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by hp1229

 

It's the current administration. Obama has told NASA their most important objective is to make Islamic nations feel good about their achievements. I kid you not.

NASA administrator Charles Bolden says President Obama has ordered him to pursue three new objectives: to “re-inspire children” to study science and math, to “expand our international relationships,” and to “reach out to the Muslim world.” Of those three goals, Bolden said in a recent interview with al-Jazeera, the mission to reach out to Muslims is “perhaps foremost,” because it will help Islamic nations “feel good” about their scientific accomplishments.

hotair.com...

Interesting indeed if true. However it all comes down to the mulaah Who's going to be contributing how much?

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 can see where they're coming from. When we were launching the Apollo missions, the US was without question the leading authority on space technology for the simple reason that we had the money to pay for it that the Soviets couldn't match. Nowadays, not only has NASA been restricted to a yearly budget of a typical Hollywood movie, other nations have quickly caught up to us. The Russian Soyuz capsule is one of the most reliable workhorses of any space program, and other nations have launched their own space probes (Japan launched their own moon probes), and China is launchign their own Taikonauts into space. Canada has the technology to build the arm for the Space Shuttle program, and the European Space Agency has launched so many rockets for paying customers it's practically a side business for them now.

Any mission to Mars will not only need to have the bill for the project shared among many nations, the scientific knowledge of many nations will need to come together to make it happen. Hydroponics, space medicine, even the ability to send the parts into space to build the thing, will need a multinational coalition to make it happen.

This is why I put no stock in any of these "NASA is hiding evidence of aliens" conspiracy claims. All NASA needs to do is show us that evidence and they'd instantly be given all the money they could possibly need and NASA would be a country unto itself with colonies all over the Solar System.

How can these bureaucrats even have the nerve to even consider Mars an option? When we went to the Moon, what did we get in return for spending tens of billions of taxpayer dollars in return for Moon rocks and a very shallow achievement? I guess this time around we'll get Mars rocks in return. Sure will be worth the billions of taxpayer dollars we waste on such frivolous pursuits. There are better things to do with taxpayer dollars, such as maintaining our robust military and defense industry.

Originally posted by Diablos
How can these bureaucrats even have the nerve to even consider Mars an option? When we went to the Moon, what did we get in return for spending tens of billions of taxpayer dollars in return for Moon rocks and a very shallow achievement? I guess this time around we'll get Mars rocks in return. Sure will be worth the billions of taxpayer dollars we waste on such frivolous pursuits. There are better things to do with taxpayer dollars, such as maintaining our robust military and defense industry.

The total cost to send a mobile science laboratory to Mars: $2.5 billion
The total cost US women spend slathering cosmetics on their faces in a year: $7 billion

I will take a probe to Mars over women making themselves look like raccoons with their "smoky eyes" any day.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
The total cost to send a mobile science laboratory to Mars: $2.5 billion
The total cost US women spend slathering cosmetics on their faces in a year: $7 billion

I will take a probe to Mars over women making themselves look like raccoons with their "smoky eyes" any day.

You don't seem to understand the issue here. Do you pay for women "slathering cosmetics on their faces"? No, as that is out of their pocket.

reply to post by Diablos

How can these bureaucrats even have the nerve to even consider Mars an option? When we went to the Moon, what did we get in return for spending tens of billions of taxpayer dollars in return for Moon rocks and a very shallow achievement?

spinoff.nasa.gov...

And that's just Apollo.

reply to post by hp1229


It is easy enough to fact check, there is an interview with the chief of NASA, it's video.

I've never had a problem with the idea of cooperation between countries in space exploration.

I still from time to time think about the Cold War. If they could do this then. We as a species still have hope today.

I just want to know how they can get through the van allen radation belts.... seems - I can't find a single flight
that is above say 300 miles from the atmosphere... you would think that we would do more than circle the earth with the ability to go to the moon ... oh maybe you guys can answer another problem I have... with all the Apollo landing sites - none are even close to the dark side of the moon >?? why land where you can see... if your exploring = why not in the twilight zone edge ... ???

1 chinese
1 american
1 British
1 Canadian
1 Japanese
and 1 Russian

we represent EARTH when we land on Mars, not the USA.

Originally posted by DJW001


spinoff.nasa.gov...

And that's just Apollo.

Red-herring fallacy. Just because some good came out from a government agency whose existence is completely unconstitutional and stands against everything this great country has been founded on, that does not nullify that fact. Unless you people are now in favor of going back to the old days of vigilantism? It's ironic because the same people who defend NASA in this manner are almost always authoritarian in nature and strongly believe against the principles of vigilantism. Fact is, unless we have direct observation of a parallel universe wherein NASA was never created and thus these technologies would have never emerged from the private sector, then there is absolutely no evidence that would point to the fact that these technologies were only possible through NASA.

Instead of using some spin-offs that have been made possible (which is vastly overshadowed by the spin-off technology from military R&D, which is constitutional), why can't you people ever defend justifying the funding of NASA directly and continuously fail to address the fact that its unconstitutional?

reply to post by Agit8dChop


edit to add,

1 egyptian

reply to post by Diablos

Red-herring fallacy. Just because some good came out from a government agency whose existence is completely unconstitutional and stands against everything this great country has been founded on, that does not nullify that fact. Unless you people are now in favor of going back to the old days of vigilantism? It's ironic because the same people who defend NASA in this manner are almost always authoritarian in nature and strongly believe against the principles of vigilantism. Fact is, unless we have direct observation of a parallel universe wherein NASA was never created and thus these technologies would have never emerged from the private sector, then there is absolutely no evidence that would point to the fact that these technologies were only possible through NASA.

Instead of using some spin-offs that have been made possible (which is vastly overshadowed by the spin-off technology from military R&D, which is constitutional), why can't you people ever defend justifying the funding of NASA directly and continuously fail to address the fact that its unconstitutional?

Now I know you're just trying to get a rise out of people. How is NASA "unconstitutional?" The Constitution provides for:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts

Section 8

The same section also establishes that the Congress shall provide for a Navy, but specifies that defense of the land will be provided by militias, not a standing army.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Diablos

 

Now I know you're just trying to get a rise out of people. How is NASA "unconstitutional?" The Constitution provides for:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts

And where in there does it at all imply that it must be forced by the government on the taxpayer? Sure, the Founding Fathers believed in promoting the progress of science and useful arts, but definitely not by taxation of the American citizenry. This is certainly a major stretch on what the Founding Fathers envisioned for this nation when they wrote that statement.

reply to post by Diablos

And where in there does it at all imply that it must be forced by the government on the taxpayer? Sure, the Founding Fathers believed in promoting the progress of science and useful arts, but definitely not by taxation of the American citizenry. This is certainly a major stretch on what the Founding Fathers envisioned for this nation when they wrote that statement.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Section 8

Please read the Constitution before declaring something "unconstitutional."

Originally posted by DJW001

Section 8

Please read the Constitution before declaring something "unconstitutional."

Last I checked, a Mars rover and other obscure space projects that do not at all bring any benefit to the taxpayer does not "provide for the common defense or the common welfare".

reply to post by Diablos

Last I checked, a Mars rover and other obscure space projects that do not at all bring any benefit to the taxpayer does not "provide for the common defense or the common welfare".

The engineering skill and knowledge that such projects create eventually spread into the rest of the economy. The scientific data gathered may someday provide solutions to pressing problems (eg; environmental degradation) or uncover new resources that might one day be beneficial. I'll bet you think the Lewis and Clark expedition was an utter waste.

Originally posted by DJW001The engineering skill and knowledge that such projects create eventually spread into the rest of the economy. The scientific data gathered may someday provide solutions to pressing problems (eg; environmental degradation) or uncover new resources that might one day be beneficial. I'll bet you think the Lewis and Clark expedition was an utter waste.

Once again, you're wrong. Defense research is light years ahead of any technology that is going to be used in space, and that is a fact well known by anyone who has worked in military R&D. And it is not for government to gather scientific data according to the constitution to pressing problems or new resources, that is for the private sector. How on earth does "provide for the common defense" = "provide solutions to pressing problems (eg; environmental degradation) or uncover new resources that might one day be beneficial".

If NASA stuck purely to military and spy satellites, it would no longer be unconstitutional and then they would be doing work that actually promoted defense of this nation and I wouldn't have any problems with that. I don't see how anyone can justify with a straight face that the $2.5 billion Mars Rover and its endeavours would help promote the defense and national security of this country.

reply to post by Diablos


Last I checked the boundaries of the US are fixed, while the population is increasing. I would imagine finding suitable places to live off Earth is providing for our common welfare. Finding a cache of rare minerals that would enable the Govt. to pay down the debt would also help the common welfare. I don't care that you don't want them to do it, or that you think another group should be doing it, the fact is it is constitutional as it DOES provide for our welfare.