Slashdot Mirror


NASA Policy Includes Mars, Moon Missions

TopSpin writes "The US House of Representatives passed a bill establishing NASA policy for the next two years. The bill is seen as an endorsement of President Bush's Vision for Space Exploration, including returning man to the Moon and eventually Mars. The House struggled with compromising other NASA initiatives against new manned exploration, eventually deciding to expand the budget enough to accommodate both prerogatives. The bill also endorses a servicing and repair mission to the Hubble Space Telescope."

22 of 235 comments (clear)

  1. Never give up, never surrender! by bigwavejas · · Score: 5, Interesting
    This is the perfect opportunity for the United States to peak childrens interest in science and mathematics classes. NASA should go to local schools to hang posters inspiring kids to set their goal on becoming an astronaut.

    I also think NASA ought to prepare the american people by making it clear human lives will be lost in this endeavor. With the last two disasters (Columbia and Challenger) each time it setback their mission years. In an industry such as this people must be made to understand it's not an accident, rather a probability.

    --
    "Simplify, simplify, simplify!" Thoreau
    1. Re:Never give up, never surrender! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is the perfect opportunity for the United States to peak childrens interest in science and mathematics classes.

      I think spelling needs some attention too.

    2. Re:Never give up, never surrender! by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is the perfect opportunity for the United States to peak childrens interest in science and mathematics

      and english.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    3. Re:Never give up, never surrender! by demachina · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "...and space-hotels,"

      LOL there's the ticket. Hey, kids you should aspire to be astronauts so you can be a space janitor or a space maid in a space hotel. I wonder if illegal aliens will be able to make it in to space to fill these jobs.

      I totally agree that having a space industry would be nice but NASA ain't going to get you to any of these. You are going to have to hope some of the private ventures can scrape together the funds to build an afforable launch vehicle to LEO. It is a lot harder to do than Rutan's suborbital shots and more expensive.

      Not sure the solar power thing will fly anytime soon. Nuclear reactors on Earth are a lot better bet.

      The absolute pinnacle I can see NASA aspiring to is a moonbase which will end up looking a lot like an ISS except on the moon. People living in tin cans trying to find things to do on a place totally hostile to life.

      The only objective really worth doing in my book is flying people to Mars one way, and doing what it takes to keep them alive and to develop self sufficiency. At the point you have colonists on Mars and not Astronauts that is the point you have accomplished something, you have achieved a revolution and you will change the way humans think about the universe.

      Due to the ravages of long duration in low G's I doubt anyone would want to endure coming back to Earth and 1 G from a long mission to Mars anyway. I'm sure NASA will never break out of the round trip mode of thought but it is totally the wrong mindset for a Mars policy. Get as many people as you can and can keep alive, help them find the resources they need to live without depending on expensive and iffy space shots, and let them start manufacturing future colonists on site. Its way cheaper than flyng them from Earth.

      --
      @de_machina
    4. Re:Never give up, never surrender! by Deinhard · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you really want to know what it will be like on orbit and on the Moon, read Orbital Decay or Lunar Descent by Allen Steele.

      His thoughts are that the comment about iron workers being the first to orbit isn't too far off. While his books are decidedly 80s-ish (pot smoking steel workers more interested in getting whiskey on a shuttle flight than working), I think he's on the right track.

      --
      Successfully condensing fact from the vapor of nuance since 1998.
    5. Re:Never give up, never surrender! by Bad+D.N.A. · · Score: 4, Informative

      "The problem, of course, becomes trying to establish the safety of childbearing in low Gs"

      No, that's not the problem.

      We can debate all of the "fufy" issues regarding space travel until the cows come home.

      Radiation. That's the major issue on the table. For short missions (a few months) it's a non issue. But for missions that take a year or so, like a mars mission, the people will be exposed to the continuous Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) and the solar cycle dependent solar energetic Particle (SEP) events... i.e. radiation. Our atmosphere shields us from the majority of these particles but when you put someone on the moon or mars you have to duplicate the shielding of the Earths atmosphere to achieve the same radiation protection we enjoy on Earth. Bottom line is that is a lot of mass and some of that mass has the nasty problem that it produces a lot of secondary particles (neutrons).

      To shield or not to shield... that is the question.

      There are a lot of people working on this problem. There is currently no solution. If we put someone in space for an extended period of time (years) there is a serious radiation problem. We will get there in the future but bringing issues up like childbearing, or the mental fatigue, or if masturbation in low G causes a tilted penis... etc... are orders of magnitude below the real current threats.

      --
      "Truth is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations"
    6. Re:Never give up, never surrender! by demachina · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "To shield or not to shield... that is the question."

      I think that question has already been answered, you have to shield.

      "There is currently no solution"

      Mike Griffin said in Congressional testimony before he became administrator:

      "Overall, however, the most difficult physiological issue is likely to be that of cosmic heavyion radiation. The human effects of and countermeasures for heavy ion radiation, encountered in deep space but not in the LEO environment of the ISS, have received little attention thus far. These are the essential technical and physiological challenges as I see them. Exploration missions will not be accomplished without human risk. While certainly worthy of our attention, however, none of these is so daunting that we should stay home."

      "There is currently no solution."

      Don't think that is true. Its just a question of how much to shield, with what, how bad the mass penalty is, can you push it to Mars, and where the mass comes from.

      The favorite sci fi based solution is you shield with a water tank around a safe room or maybe around the main habitat module in the ship. You need the water anyway. The other one is you manufacture shielding out of lunar regolith since its easier to get the mass off the moon, though it would take a lot of infrastructure to make there, or you have a heavy lift launch vehicle and launch shield from earth.

      When you are talking about the habitats on the moon and mars its a given the habitats should be buried to the extent necessary to be safe. Then you are just facing the problem of how much radiation astronauts face on the surface in rovers or space suits. Again shield as much as you can and yes there will be a field for medical study for treating the effects.

      When people set out to sail in to uncharted waters or cross the west in prairie schooners they encountered stuff that killed them too, scurvy on ships for example. It didn't stop them.

      --
      @de_machina
  2. 2 years eh? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So NASA is supposed to do all that in two years? or will the expenditures carry on until the next president has another "vision"?

    What NASA does (or perhaps is forced to do) is waste money, because everybody knows none of these grandiose plans will ever occur. The Mars mission will be international or won't be at all, because there's no cold war to justify n-times the cost of sending some bozo to Mars where robots do just as well for cheaper.

    So, like Slashdot just told me very accurately, nothing for you to see here, please move along.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  3. "Returning" man to the "Moon"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    We can't return man there - that'd mean we were there to begin with.

    And, as we all know, the "Moon" is a ridiculous liberal myth.

    It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)

    Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors .. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.

    Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!

    Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.

  4. Pay for results by Colin+Smith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not programmes. If you pay for programmes, you get programmes, not results.

    Seriously, this is basically how all successful exploration has proceeded in the past.

    --
    Deleted
  5. /. Section by hobotron · · Score: 4, Insightful


    Politics, indeed. Since this is only one of the hurdles in getting the budget NASA needs to fulfill the promises by this administration, I am still wary. Ill believe it when I see cold hard funding translated into actual projects.

    --
    There is truth in humor.
  6. Amazing by Mensa+Babe · · Score: 5, Funny

    "The bill is seen as an endorsement of President Bush's Vision for Space Exploration, including returning man to the Moon and eventually Mars."

    Returning man to the Moon is nothing but returning man to Mars is what I really look forward. You are a true visionary, Mr. President.

    --
    Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
  7. Why the moon? by FlamingWombat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have to ask, why do we need to go back to the moon? Is there any real, scientific reason for it, or is it just our dear president trying to keep people's minds off other things with another moon mission?

    1. Re:Why the moon? by cyclone96 · · Score: 5, Insightful


      I have to ask, why do we need to go back to the moon? Is there any real, scientific reason for it, or is it just our dear president trying to keep people's minds off other things with another moon mission?

      Good question.

      In my mind, part of the answer is for practical engineering experience. The moon is a less ambitious goal than going to Mars out of the chute, but much of the technology and simple organizational engineering experience can be leveraged towards Mars.

      I think folks often overlook the evolutionary nature of aerospace projects. One program provides the building blocks for the next. There are many elements in today's space program which are derived from Apollo. One example is the space shuttle main engines, which are the direct decendants of the old Saturn V J-2 engines in the second and third stage (and these engines have been surfacing as possible powerplants for the shuttle derived heavy lift vehicle that is likely to be used for the Exploration program).

      Even the ISS program, which has been criticized extensively for poor science, has provided invaluable engineering experience on how (and maybe how not) to build a vehicle to go to the moon/mars. For example, we've had serious problems with the gyroscopes on ISS, there's something going on in the bearings which only happens in zero-G that causes them to wear out. The opportunity to dissect a broken one after the next shuttle brings it back is going to be invaluable. The spacesuits we are using require a lot of maintenance - somehow we need to improve that. When I discuss this with my colleagues (I'm a NASA engineer, flying people in space is what I do), we often remark that if we had tried going to Mars in the '90s without the experience we gained on ISS, it would have been a mess.

      If we do Exploration right, we're going to leverage an aerospace workforce that has learned lessons from Shuttle and ISS, and use the moon as a proving ground. That experience is going to allow us to tackle the greater challenge of going to Mars.

      As far as Bush using this for a "distraction", I tend to find that argument pretty weak. The space progam ceased to be a daily headline news item (except for the occasional event) in the early 70's. Nobody realistically believes America is going to forget about Iraq and other major issues for a relatively minor government program.

      --
      Worst...sig...ever!
  8. Re:Does anybody else... by zippthorne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you live in America, how can you justify that statement? The whole reason you're here is because someone thought it would be a good idea to traverse dangerous terrain at considerable risk and expense and evidently, liked it enough to stay. (and yes I count native americans in that group as well. Walking across a land bridge in the sub-arctic couldn't have been easy or cheap.)

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  9. unfortunately by roman_mir · · Score: 3, Funny

    Neither Mars nor the Moon were available to comment.

  10. Re:We Have To Use The Moon by luna69 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > Yes of course we could do it otherwise, but not as
    > efficiently or as often

    This is not the case. At all.

    We don't go up from a gravity well, then down into another gravity well 390,000 km away, to a surface even less hospitable than low Earth orbit, and gain anything except higher fuel costs, more danger, and theed for even MORE hardware.

    Most well-respected mission designs came to the conclusion a long time ago that the Moon wasn't a "stepping stone" to Mars, it was an unnecessary detour.

    --
    No gods, no demons, and no masters. Secular Humanism!
  11. it'll never happen by sargosis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nasa is by it's very nature too afraid to move on anything this quickly. To date, they've been too concerned with the possible loss of human life. if you look through history, america has made great progress riding on the corpses of great men who gaves their lives to the progress of success. Nasa should follow in these footsteps and begin launching rockets more often, with more emphasis on getting to the moon and staying there. Yes, i know i'm ripping on them, and they have done a lot. But oh well.

    --
    for free wallpapers, visit Sargosis.com
  12. Re:Does anybody else... by nyrk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Think? Yes

    "Greatly increase the standard of living for the world's poor"
    So would throwing huge ammounts of money/resources at the poor fix the problem? Tell me how to translate resources into "encouraging education and intelectual development, and tollerance", and I would agree that government funds such as these should be routed towards it.

    Blind statements of "let's save the world first" are pretty ironic. Save the world from what? The world is what it is. We cannot create a utopia, becasue not everyone can agree on what that is. Yes, we can clean up our backyard, and *some* resources should go to that, but not all.

    Manned space exploration is not something you do instead of cleaning up the situation, it is something you do in addition to. Programs such as this create the demand for the educated, because it is something that people WANT, and like to see.

  13. Re:I'm not impressed by cmowire · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because you could completely remove NASA from the budget and the little piece of the budget you'd get wouldn't do a damn bit of good for the health-care, education, and economic systems. NASA doesn't take up that much of the federal budget, and most of the problems there are not a matter of money, but of dreadful mismanagement.

    And there's probably more that can be done with space technolgies, STILL, than trying to explore the oceans for new life that we'll probably make extinct anyways.

  14. Show me the money by Telvin_3d · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If there is no extra money, and a long term cash commitment attached, then this is nothing but hot air. It is easy to SAY that we are going back into space, but it is only words untill they put the money where their words are.

  15. Send money to Mars by dpbsmith · · Score: 3, Insightful

    NASA should simply send an unmanned probe to Mars containing a well-sealed, well-protected capsule containing a check for $1,000,000,[insert your favorite number of zeroes here], payable to bearer.

    The first person who manages to get there and collect it gets to keep it.