How To Beat Congress's Ban Of Humans On Mars

An anonymous reader writes "Earlier this year, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would ban humans on Mars at NASA: "Provided, That none of the funds under this heading shall be used for any research, development, or demonstration activities related exclusively to the human exploration of Mars." The bill is held up in Congress and the anti-Mars language may be taken out. But in case the Mars ban becomes law, the Space Review has a handy guide on how NASA can beat the ban and continue its research and development without breaking the law."

Comments

Congress?

[rossdee]

Somebody please tell congress that they don't have jurisdiction on other planets.

Re:Congress?

[Pantero Blanco]

This is one of the many reasons I don't like sensationally-worded headlines.

Congress did not "ban humans on Mars". They stopped NASA's funding for a human mission to Mars and told it to concentrate on other things. Other nations, or private citizens of the US if I understand correctly, are free to shoot for it.

Re:Congress?

[Stringer Bell]

They do, however, have jurisdiction over the U.S. budget.

Re:Congress?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is one of the many reasons I don't like sensationally-worded headlines.

Congress did not "ban humans on Mars". They stopped NASA's funding for a human mission to Mars and told it to concentrate on other things. Other nations, or private citizens of the US if I understand correctly, are free to shoot for it. The US is allowed to shoot for it as well. They just can't pay for things that apply exclusively for Mars for the next year. This will barely affect anything. Only if NASA was researching human landing sites or actually building the Mars spacecraft could they say that their research was *only* for human exploration of Mars. And this would have to pass every year in the foreseeable future to ban NASA from human exploration of Mars (since it is a funding bill).

Re:Congress?

[Bazar]

Congress isn't limiting what other people can do, they are simply giving conditions on how [b]THEIR[/b] money is not to be spent.

I don't think there is anything preventing NASA from getting private funding to do it themselves, but frankly, i can't see any private sources coming up with the billions required to research a manned mars mission.

Its Cheapest to simply let commercial interests develop a way. That IS the American way after all, Capitalism.

Also i can't honestly see the point on why we need men on mars. Emotional as it is, its just not practical.
There is only 1 thing that brining a human to mars achieves, and thats a story. Does America really want to spend billions for another "One small step"?

Re:Congress?

[innerweb]

This is the kind of stuff that you need to figure out who did it. Then, you need to find out why. Most likely, the reason will be somewhat insane, but at least you know what you are dealing with. Then, after you know who and why, you work to make sure that it does not happen again. Ignorance is a powerful disadvantage.

From the reference, it seems that this is an attempt to keep NASA form being administratively destroyed by a Bushism. Remember the guy Bush put in place that started slashing everything else to make one thing happen. The NASA budget is so tiny compared to so many other budgets, the solution to achieve things is not to slash and burn, but to fund it. OMG! Look at everything we have gotten out of the space race so far. Microwaves (communications and ovens), new materials, better computing, better aircraft, and more!

So, the who is not so important, but the why is very important. To prevent another slash and burn like the last Bush appointee.

Maybe this language is needed. Remember how many things this administration has made happen for short sighted goals that have disastrous mid to long term impacts (yeah, nothing new, but they are very good at it). Would it actually be good to go for Mars at the expense of so many other things?

InnerWeb

Re:Congress?

[Nossie]

"Congress did not "ban humans on Mars". They stopped NASA's funding for a human mission to Mars and told it to concentrate on other things. Other nations, or private citizens of the US if I understand correctly, are free to shoot for it."

Did you really mean that? I read it as:

Congress did not "ban humans on Mars". They stopped NASA's funding for a human mission to Mars and told it to concentrate on other things. Other nations, or private citizens of the US if I understand correctly, they are free to shoot at.

hmmmmmm :)

Re:Congress?

[spockbert]

"There is only 1 thing that brining a human to mars achieves, and thats a story."

Except for that sentence, I pretty much agree with you. There could be any number of things gained by sending humans to Mars. We could develop new techniques related to long distance space flight. We could develop a better understanding of the long term effects on humans of space flight. And those are just the first two things I could think of. As someone else pointed out, think of all the things we have now as a product of NASA and it's past space exploration. Who knows what researching and planning for a manned mission to another planet could produce? While we may not need men on mars, there may be benefits we can't imagine now that could be discovered by putting them there.

Of course, there is nothing saying the same advancements couldn't be achieved through private citizens/corporations doing the same thing. NASA and the US Government don't have a monopoly on innovation.

Re:Congress?

[amccaf1]

Well, China has a bigger army and Russia has more nukes. So...

China and Russia, huh? Well, Mars is the red planet...

Re:Congress?

[Dan Ost]

But humans are so more expensive. They need to eat and breath. They require more space. You need to handle their waste. You need to keep them healthy. You need to provide a way for them to come back (they're not disposable like robots).

Robots are cheap and you can do more science per dollar spent using robots in space than you can using humans in space.

Re:Congress?

[MontyApollo]

I think this all came about from when Bush announced his vision for the future of NASA, the administrator at the time immediately started scrapping existing programs like Hubble to pay for this "vision". Congress had approved the NASA funding for various programs like Hubble, not for this new vision, and they didn't want someone in there killing these programs to pay for Mars. Basically they are saying that if the president wants to go to Mars, then he needs to get in funded like anything else.

Re:Congress?

[plague3106]

Honestly though, why should Congress get to decide that? NASA's main purpose is space exploration, I think that covers going to Mars.

Re:Congress?

[HUADPE]

Honestly though, why should Congress get to decide that? NASA's main purpose is space exploration, I think that covers going to Mars.

Because Congress created NASA and has final say over the purposes and funding of all federal agencies.

Re:Congress?

[rothic]

Also i can't honestly see the point on why we need men on mars. Emotional as it is, its just not practical. There is only 1 thing that brining a human to mars achieves, and thats a story. Does America really want to spend billions for another "One small step"?

Well, we've spent nearly a trillion dollars occupying a politically insignificant nation in the middle east. I don't think a few billion dollars spent doing something that we can actually be proud of is going to hurt anyone.

Re:Congress?

[FinestLittleSpace]

You are right in many many regards, however, the cost of sending humans to Mars is so unbelievably huge that it actually, despite the inanity of it, STILL costs less to make endless robot missions improving/revising a mission which didn't suit the appropriate criteria. It is true that humans with a suitably powered rover could zip around Mars and find so much more than one robot, but it would cost orders of magnitude more than just sending 10 different robots there one after the other. ...and even then, you'd probably have gathered the research even before the humans-to-mars R&D stage had finished.

I really really love the romanticism of humans on Mars. I really love the concept of terraforming, and I really wish it wasn't so damn dangerous to throw larger nuclear powered crafts up into space, as this could really open up possibilities, however it really is a low-return for the money you would throw at a human project.

As lovely as putting people into space is, it's expensive, risky and a hard case to argue. If we were a world all obsessed by expanding to other planets, we might even have had miniature civilisations on Mars by now, but as a whole, the obsession is looking after one self and not the far future...

Re:Congress?

[plague3106]

Ahh, so politicians know better than scientists on how to conduct research. I see.

Re:Congress?

[Bazar]

We could develop new techniques related to long distance space flight. Its going to be a long distance space flight regardless of if its a manned mission. I don't see the troubleshooting required to get a man on mars of being any additional benefit for long distance space flight. What we learn traveling to Mars, we might be able to take to Venus. But why travel to Venus.

The future use of such knowledge is going to be valuable I'm sure, but thats the distant future, best left solved with future technology, with future goals in mind.

We could develop a better understanding of the long term effects on humans of space flight Spending billions of dollars NOW, to learn how humans are affected in space, when we don't use manned space travel, is not a practical use of money.

Its like learning how much paper money needs to be burnt per second, to lift a hot-air balloon. There might be *some* value in knowing, but none of it is helpful in the slightest in everyday life, yet its an extremely expensive research to perform.
IE: Its not practical.

Re:Congress?

[Dr. Smoove]

Yea stupid, just like insurance companies know if a patient "needs" medication better than doctors.

Re:Congress?

[SpecTheIntro]

For a moment, we were worried that we didn't have your parliament's permission

Only sissies call it "parliament." Its proper reference is "freedom council of freedom and liberty justice."

America. FUCK YEAH.

Re:Congress?

[Kohath]

Ahh, so politicians know better than scientists on how to conduct research.

When you go to a restaurant do you order what you want to eat?

Or do you just give them your account number and they bring you whatever the chef wants to cook that day? Then the chef takes the amount of money he feels he needs from your account.

Because chefs know better than customers how to prepare a meal.

Re:Congress?

[lgw]

Of course, congress *also* micromanages NASA at that level, though earmarks (if SATA drives were important to the economy of some congresscritter's district, you bet language like that would appear), just not in this particular case. NASA has started and abandoned more cool research projects that were making progress than any rational decision-making process could account for, based on the rise and fall of the people who get to add earmarks. It's the fundamental problem that makes NASA somewhat lacking when it comes to actual results: they don't have any control over their own priorities, or even which project they're allow to complete!

Re:Congress?

[OriginalArlen]

You know, eventually you're going to witness an epidemic of some infectious disease (as opposed to the lifestyle diseases that kill most of us off these days.) I suspect that shortly after people have witnessed mass burials via dumper truck, a la "Necropolis" in 2000AD if I can get a witness here?, there's gonna be a sudden, Damascene conversion to the wisdom of this crazy notion called "public health". You might be able to afford anti-biotics, but you're not going to be very happy when there's no-one to collect your garbage or sell you your cheezburger because you stepped over their rotting corpses on the way out to the ATM. Believe me, once you've got some cadaverine-rich fluids squished onto your trouser leg, that smell will follow you around for days. Don't go there. Nationalise your health care, like the rest of the civilised world.

Re:Congress?

[Chris Burke]

The US is allowed to shoot for it as well. They just can't pay for things that apply exclusively for Mars for the next year. This will barely affect anything. Only if NASA was researching human landing sites or actually building the Mars spacecraft could they say that their research was *only* for human exploration of Mars.

And is my memory failing me, or did I read on Slashdot some time ago that the new director of NASA had already put a hold on all projects that were *only* for human exploration of Mars until such time as additional funding was allocated for that purpose? Since Bush's "Mars, Bitches!" plan didn't actually include any funding and NASA didn't want to get distracted from their other projects for an un-funded attempt at a legacy.

If that's true, then this is just Congress agreeing with the NASA director, saying "Yes, you should focus on other things, because we're not giving you extra money just for a manned mission to Mars for now at least".

Re:Congress?

[osu-neko]

It's worse than that. It's not merely a matter of "who's going to collect my garbage and make me my cheeseburger?" Having unhealthy people around you is hazardous to your health. Seeing the best doctor every day while many people around you can't afford to see a doctor at all creates a situation like having every expert in fire-safety in the world suggest improvements to your house while you live in a neighborhood of fire-traps. I don't care how well you've taken care of your home, when the fire rages across the city, your house will burn with all the rest. The fact that the fire was less likely to *start* there will be of little consolation.

Individual fire protection isn't better than a public fire department because some things, like fire (or disease) can rapidly get out of control when control isn't comprehensive, and then even those who *did* pay for private fire control end up suffering. There are things in life that can't be effectively gone about piecemeal by individuals -- they require coordinated public solutions, or else they're not effectively dealt with at all.

Re:Congress?

[UncleTogie]

Health insurance companies employ actual real DOCTORS, which review YOUR doctor's notes, to determine the validity of the claim / procedure.

Sure, and we can see the Hippocratic {hypocritic?} oath at work when they deny a claim 'cause they didn't agree with the ICD-9 code your provider used. It's not that it's miscoded, it's that they think it should fall under a procedure they they don't cover.

Having worked at a medical office for 10 years as their IT guru and assisting with claims definitely opened my eyes to this kind of crap.

Re:Congress?

[plague3106]

My wife works in this field as well. The first decision from insurance is not the final one; it can be appealed. Failing that, its possible to sue if your doctor (and second opinions) agree it was necessary.

The Hippocratic oath doesn't come into play; the procedure has typically already been done, and even if the claim is denied, it doesn't mean you're not allowed to have the surgery, just that you may have to find alternate funding. Of course the flip side of this is hospitals / offices performing random tests just to be able to bill for something as well. So I wouldn't put blame soley on the insurance companies.

At any rate, all of this is moot, since Congress doesn't have any advisors to tell them other research would be more benefical than a trip to Mars.

Re:Congress?

[Arterion]

1) Their health benefits you.

2)Their in ability to pay for health care also benefits you. The economy needs and prospers on low-wage workers.

Even looking past the idea of helping your fellow man in need, healthy people work better for pennies than sick people. Imagine if everyone made enough money to pay for their own healthcare. You'd either have no one working at groceries, restaurants, or in factories, OR you'd be making less money because costs just went up a whole hell of a lot.

Unless you're just suggesting that if poor people get sick and maybe die, tough shit to them. In that case, you need serious help.

Re:Congress?

[jinxidoru]

And honestly, I am all for stopping the funding of a human mission to Mars. It sounds cool and all, but it isn't worth it right now. Manned missions are so much more expensive than robotic missions. Are they any better? Except for the coolness factor, there isn't much benefit having a human over a robot, especially how robots are improving. We can leave a robot up there indefinitely, we can't do the same (for a while at least) with humans. There are so many reasons why we should be focusing on robotic over human exploration.

Everyone is up in arms about how there's a lot of programs (like the Hubble and the spacestation) that we are abandoning. The reason we are abandoning them is because of a lack of funding. Why is there a lack of funding? One big reason is because we are spending money on human space-travel projects because of this goal to reach Mars. No, instead, let's keep funding the projects that are actually providing us with all sorts of valuable research.

Re:Congress?

[UncleTogie]

The first decision from insurance is not the final one; it can be appealed.

That's making the assumption that the condition isn't life-threatening. Ask how long the appeals process *can* take..

Failing that, its possible to sue if your doctor (and second opinions) agree it was necessary.

...Which does nothing to bring back a dead patient...

...and even if the claim is denied, it doesn't mean you're not allowed to have the surgery, just that you may have to find alternate funding.

And praytell, where does one go to ask to borrow 10k-100k that [because of the potential of death on the table] may never be paid back, other than a loan shark?

Of course the flip side of this is hospitals / offices performing random tests just to be able to bill for something as well.

Considering the staffing situation at most hospitals, the number of "random" tests performed isn't as big as the insurance companies would like you to believe. Many times what they call "unnecessary diagnostics" was a doctor trying to make sure they had the right answer.

I'm not saying the scammers aren't out there at work... they're just not at the levels that'd kill the insurance industry.

At any rate, all of this is moot, since Congress doesn't have any advisors to tell them other research would be more benefical than a trip to Mars.

Mainly because there's no way to prove that a Mars trip might not be as beneficial.

Could the headline have been more misleading?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no 'ban' on Mars. It just means that no funds from the current funding bill can be used for funding potential human exploration on Mars. Future bills (every single year) would have to include this 'ban' every time they were passed.

Re:Could the headline have been more misleading?

[CRCulver]

True, but this reveals a great lack of motivation and vision among U.S. lawmakers. Instead of getting the public fired up about space exploration, as two administrations in the 1960s succeeded in doing, year by year NASA takes another punch in the gut by funding cuts. As I mentioned in the discussion on an earlier article here, it's the height of absurdity that the U.S. is delaying exploration of Mars even further than the late date Kim Stanley Robinson chose for his trilogy beginning with Red Mars , which was originally meant to allow for stalling.

Re:Could the headline have been more misleading?

[Evil Adrian]

I can think of plenty of things that are more motivating and visionary to spend taxpayer money on. Things like AIDS research and cancer research, just to name two off the top of my head.

I believe that the people lacking vision are those that want to spend billions of dollars rocketing a team of 8 people to a giant red rock in the sky when we haven't figured out how to fix problems at home first.

Re:Could the headline have been more misleading?

[PlatyPaul]

What with the additional costs of sending humans anywhere, doesn't it make sense that an already-strapped NASA would pursue human-free missions to stretch its limited budget? I mean, I'm all for pumping up the public view of space exploration, but that problem lies more in making the public aware than in the nature of the missions themselves. Seeing a robot plant an American flag on Mars could be equally awe-inspiring, if widely televised.

The members of Congress were duly elected by the general populace of the United States; why NASA should attempt to ignore Congressional opinion is beyond me. If you happen to live in the U.S. and are upset about the situation (one way or the other), I urge you to contact your representative legislator(s) directly.

Re:Could the headline have been more misleading?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can think of plenty of things that are more motivating and visionary to spend taxpayer money on. Things like AIDS research and cancer research, just to name two off the top of my head.

I believe that the people lacking vision are those that want to spend billions of dollars rocketing a team of 8 people to a giant red rock in the sky when we haven't figured out how to fix problems at home first. What problems at home do you think Spain should have fixed before dropping huge amounts of gold into the Columbus expeditions? When would those problems have been fixed?

Re:Could the headline have been more misleading?

[CRCulver]

What problems at home do you think Spain should have fixed before dropping huge amounts of gold into the Columbus expeditions?

A culture of machismo where the first thing Spanish explorers did when they reached the New World was rape women and steal?

Re:Could the headline have been more misleading?

[Pantero Blanco]

A culture of machismo where the first thing Spanish explorers did when they reached the New World was rape women and steal?

Like the Aztecs did to the other tribes, but without the human sacrifice?

A nation that tries to deal with its social problems completely before tackling expansion and technological progress will be destroyed by the nations that don't.

Re:Could the headline have been more misleading?

[Ruprecht the Monkeyb]

Yeah, how dare they corrupt those poor human-sacrificing, slave-trading innocent peoples.

Re:Could the headline have been more misleading?

[DerekLyons]

True, but this reveals a great lack of motivation and vision among U.S. lawmakers.

No, it reveals the great frustration of US lawmakers with NASA for screwing up and mismanaging project after expensive project, year after wearying year. Between the overhyped and overpriced Shuttle program (and two very visible accidents on top of other problems), Hubble, the ongoing disaster that is ISS, and whole string of less visible projects... Congress simply doesn't trust NASA.
 
Historically, post-Apollo, NASA has tried to spin every project it can into being a precursor for manned Mars missions... Which Congress has historically been uninterested in funding. (This 'ban' isn't the first such, nor even the second...) Worse yet, NASA has also (historically) tried every trick in the book in the book to get around the 'bans', further engendering mistrust of them in Congress.
 
NASA has been hobbled practically since it's birth by the Shuttle - Station - Mars!! vision laid out by Werner Von Braun and enthusiastically endorsed by early NASA administrators. Yes Virginia - the Shuttle program has been around that long, the earliest studies are contemporary with the Mercury project. Many in NASA (at the time) felt that Max Faget and the STG represented a shortcut to beating the Russians and a way of getting early engineering experience before getting to the real task at hand - developing a shuttle and all the rest of Von Braun's vision.
 
 

Instead of getting the public fired up about space exploration, as two administrations in the 1960s succeeded in doing, year by year NASA takes another punch in the gut by funding cuts.

Except - in real life it didn't happen that way. The Apollo (Lunar) program was an accident of a) the Cold War, and b) the Kennedy assassination. Before he died, Jack Kennedy was already seeking to distance himself from, and minimize the program. When he was killed, Apollo was funded as his memorial. Even so, budget cutbacks started as soon as they could be managed - Apollo landing missions and post Apollo programs were being cancelled or cut back as early as 1966! By the time we actually reached the moon, the program was already running on vapors.
 
So far as public interest goes - just look at the TV numbers of the various landing missions. The great public interest, much ballyhooed by space fanboys, simply never existed.

Re:Could the headline have been more misleading?

[Creepyguywithastick]

"If men had postponed the search for knowledge and beauty until they were secure, the search would never have begun." ---C. S. Lewis

Re:Could the headline have been more misleading?

[outcast3d]

I can think of plenty of things that are more motivating and visionary to spend taxpayer money on. Things like AIDS research and cancer research, just to name two off the top of my head.
It's interesting that you mention research in medicine. In fact a lot of NASA's research goes into medicine, most notably osteoporosis. There is a much better understanding of the disease because of studying the effects of bone density loss on long term spaceflights. The ill-fated Columbia mission was mostly dedicated to medical research, cancer included. Just because you don't understand what they are doing with our money and is easily dismissed, doesn't make it useless.

More info on NASA's contributions and spin-offs:
A searchable database, and bit technical, http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/
A practical list of contributions, http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

I believe that the people lacking vision are those that want to spend billions of dollars rocketing a team of 8 people to a giant red rock in the sky when we haven't figured out how to fix problems at home first. And spending $475 BILLION on an illegitimate war is visionary? With what NASA is able to accomplish on $16 Billion per year is the ultimate in visionary and resourcefulness. Not only does it create jobs but gives us a better understanding of so many things that have previously been mentioned. And that's my $.02.

Re:Could the headline have been more misleading?

[m0ng0l]

Seeing a robot plant an American flag on Mars could be equally awe-inspiring, if widely televised.

Frankly, no, it wouldn't be. I feel part of the problem with any sort of interest in the space program right now, is we're not *going* anywhere. Back when NASA was getting men into space, and heading for the moon, large numbers of kids wanted to be astronauts, and go into space. Now, NASA is spinning their wheels, sending robots everywhere, and kids all want to be sports stars or music stars.

If / when the space program (private or NASA) starts going *somewhere,* people will start to become interested again. I would expect that watching a robot plant a flag on Mars would attract a lot fewer viewers than seeing a person (male or female) stepping foot on Mars, and the heck with the flag planting. Seeing people do such a thing is *far* more awe-inspiring simply *because* it is people. Robots can get sent anywhere, but you can't look at a robot and think "that could be me!" when you're a kid. Seeing a person step foot on another planet (even our Moon again), you can see yourself doing the same thing.

For myself, I really want to see mankind get back on the move. Get a moon base started, get men to Mars, start *going somewhere.*

When I was a kid, the shuttle was going to get us out into space, and make space travel possible for the every-man. Then, the "1 month" turn-around became "12+ months," and then we had Challenger. Now, we've got private industry looking at getting into space without waiting for NASA, we've got Virgin Galactic, we've got Hyatt (I think?) looking at putting up somewhere for Virgin Galactic to *go*

Let's get this candle re-lit, and get *going*

Why?

[RandoX]

What does Congress have against funding for exploration of Mars? What's the purpose for that?

Re:Why?

[Cy Sperling]

They, more than likely, see it as a colossal waste of taxpayers money. Unlike, say..., sending millions of dollars in cash into a warzone with no accountability whatsoever.

Re:Why?

[gEvil (beta)]

Millions? I think you meant billions and trillions.

Re:Why?

[Solandri]

NASA has two factions - manned and unmanned missions - who both compete internally for the same money. Big-name manned NASA projects like Apollo, the shuttle, ISS, and this manned Mars mission have a history of expanding until they consume almost the entirety of NASA's budget. Many, maybe even most, would say most of the useful science comes from NASA's unmanned missions. On a bang-for-the-buck basis, I think almost everyone agrees the unmanned missions yield much greater returns. But of course there's an allure, a romance with sending a man out there.

Congress is trying to protect the other projects from being cannibalized to fund the manned Mars mission. And they want Bush to pony up the dollars for it if he's going to give NASA a mandate to put a man on Mars (as opposed to just giving the mandate with no funds, forcing NASA to divert funds from other useful missions).

Re:Why?

[oahazmatt]

What's that you say? Oil deposits on Mars???

Re:Why?

[halivar]

And all Ron's people said, "Paul-men."

If NASA was based in Ron Paul's home district, I'd bet my dollar to your donut he'd be extolling the virtues of pork--errr... I mean--Martian exploration.

You need to dial your Cynacism-O-Meter up a notch and realize Libertarians are not so far from Democrats/Republicans as you may think.

Re:Why?

[hey!]

Well, I'll tell you the problem I have with it.

It's not for real. A real program would have a deadline within the career horizon of most members of Congress, and have a much larger budget tied to achieving substantial milestones every single year.

So, you take money away from real projects, like Earth climate measurement, and you give it to a show program that is not realistically connected to its ostensible ends. The current "Vision" is to establish a lunar base in 2020 -- so far so good, and to launch the manned mission in 2037.

It's just not worth sacrificing our other space exploration goals for a goal deliberately set so far in the future it is doubtful it will ever be attained.

Re:Why?

[CheshireCatCO]

Precisely. It's an old trick to give an agency more to do than you know its funding will carry. You look like a visionary *and* and a fiscal conservative and force someone else to make the painful cuts and to be the bad guy. In the case of NASA, it's almost invariably the manned program or engineering side that is supported and the unmanned and/or science that is cut.

Really, all Congress seems to be asking is for the Administration to be honest with its funding requests: ask for the money needed to do what you want, or stop claiming to be visionary in sending people to Mars. Congress is actually doing its job, in that case.

Re:Why?

[TopSpin]

What does Congress have against funding for exploration of Mars? At the present time Mars exploration is an inefficient method of purchasing voters. The money will instead flow to those interests that leverage the largest constituency of the dominant party. What those interests are can be found here, here, here and here, but mostly here. All public proselytizing aside the recent change in US political party dominance has not and will not cause substantial disruption in the flow of funds here, because nothing raises the cost of voters for incumbent rulers as rapidly as martial humiliation.

The good news is that inevitably a rivalry will develop between the US mob and some other nation's mob and NASA will once again be an efficient vote purchasing mechanism. With any luck the US will have a solid launch platform ready for that eventuality despite current shifts in political priorities. We'll have the wisdom of an engineer (in not coupling the fate of launch platform development to Mars exploration,) to thank for this when it comes to pass.

The fact that launch platform development is not coupled directly to Mars Exploration makes this anti-Mars Exploration language from Congress largely symbolic anyhow; NASA will go right on developing the necessary rockets. That fact is the single best argument I can think of against this naive and now very dead notion.

Re:Why?

[General Fault]

This goes way beyond the "allure" of big missions. Sure, the short term return per dollar spent on the purely scientific missions are high, but we completely miss out on the long term returns. Almost every single rocket scientist, physicist, engineer, and even computer programmer working in the U.S. today was motivated and influenced in some way by the Apollo missions. What does todays generation have to awe at? Where is the "you could do this" factor of sending a robot to one of the several dozen outer solar system moons come in? This is something that is very expensive to create, but the returns are measured in the trillions of dollars and in the millions of new scientific and engineering professionals.

Re:Why?

[Cy Sperling]

There is absolutley no comparison between welfare and education to the literal shipments of billions of dollars in 100 dollar bills to Iraq- to be handed out to anyone with no accountability. They literally flew pallets full of 100 dollar bills that have disappeared. People may disagree about the philosophy behind welfare, or just how we should go about fixing public education, but the monumental waste and clear cut corruption of shipping billions in cash into a warzone and then not paying attention to who is getting it is completely w/o defence, logic or decency. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2008189,00.html

Easy

[geekoid]

Plan to go to Pluto. When a congress more favorable to a mars mission is in place, have them remove the ban. Funny enough, developing technologies to get us to Pluto would be very handy in getting us to Mars as well.

Or plan to send a ship the opposite direct then are rotation and plan to meet up with it in 8 months.

Not quite...

[igotmybfg]

From the article:

"The House of Representatives version of HR 3093, the bill that determines NASA's funding for 2008, effectively bans the study of an entire planet: Provided, That none of the funds under this heading shall be used for any research, development, or demonstration activities related exclusively to the human exploration of Mars.

As you can clearly see, the language in that bill does NOT "ban the study of an entire planet" - it just says that any research done must have other applications besides the human exploration of Mars. For example, a weather study wouldn't be "banned", because that would also be related to the Mars Rovers. So basically, as long as NASA can show that any R&D activity is related to something else besides humans on Mars, the ban won't apply to it.

Doesn't ban humans on Mars

[MSTCrow5429]

"Provided, That none of the funds under this heading shall be used for any research, development, or demonstration activities related exclusively to the human exploration of Mars."

Inevitable

[Reality Master 101]

As has already been pointed out, the summary is misleading. But you might as well get used to this idea. We will NEVER colonize the planets. As soon as the technology starts to get close, the scientists and environmentalists will stop it, so as to not contaminate a virgin environment. *Particularly* in the case of Mars, because scientists want to see if life already exists there (it doesn't, but they want to find out for sure).

I understand the romance of living on other planets, but it's inevitable that these will become permanent bans, because once it starts, it'll never end. The future of humans in space are spinning habitats.

And yes, Earth can stop it happening. Forget the idea of a Heinlein-style hero taking off and say f-you to the Earth. There is no way a colony can survive without assistance from Earth, probably for centuries before it could be self-sustaining.

I could also talk about the fact that very, very few will want to live on Mars because it's lifeless dead rock, but that's another subject. :) [hint: how many people try and live in Antarctica? And that's a hell of a lot more hospitable.]

Re:Inevitable

[teslar]

We will NEVER colonize the planets.

Sure. And there is a market for maybe 5 computers in the world, 640K is enough for anybody, we don't need telephones because we have good messenger boys, flight of heavier-than-air vehicles is impossible, rail travel at high speed is impossible because humans would be unable to breathe and asphyxiate etc etc. Oh, and just for you:

To place a man in a multi-stage rocket and project him into the controlling gravitational field of the moon where the passengers can make scientific observations, perhaps land alive, and then return to earth - all that constitutes a wild dream worthy of Jules Verne. I am bold enough to say that such a man-made voyage will never occur regardless of all future advances.
--Lee DeForest

Have you learned nothing from past absolute statements?

Re:Inevitable

[Reality Master 101]

Have you learned nothing from past absolute statements?

Sheesh, way to not read my post at all. Where did I say it was technologically impossible?

Every dollar spent on Mars...

[Nova Express]

...is a dollar that can't be used to provide pork for John Murtha's district.

Or defense contracts for companies owned by Nancy Pelosi's husband..

Or billions in subsidies to Fortune 500 agribusiness companies.

There can be no funding for frivolities like the human exploration of space when so many of the needs of the Permanent Bipartisan State of Porkistan remain unmet...

Re:I can see it both ways...

[Stringer Bell]

Should NASA be free to spend its own budget without Congressional oversight? Probably.

Absolutely not. NASA's budget comes out of my pocket, so I want some say in how it's spent. My congress critters represent me, and without their oversight I've got no say in the matter. Ditto the military, public schools, etc.

And yes, I realize that in practice I haven't got much say anyway, but the current arrangement is set forth by the Constitution.

Re:Has Washington Lost its mind?

[LWATCDR]

"No wonder we as a country are getting plowed under by the rest of the world on the innovation front. "
While I do think that this bill is dumb how do you figure that the us is getting plowed under on the innovation front?
The US still leads the world in Space exploration. There are some very interesting robotic missions going on right now.
The US is still a world leader in ICs And is the world leader in CPUs. Intel's core line, AMDs Barcelona, IBM's Power5, Suns' Sparc T2 are all very cutting edge.
The US still leads in Aircraft. The 787 and the F22 are prime examples of innovation. And then you Burt Rutan.
There is a lot of very innovative work in biology going on in the US.
Then you have Software. Apple, Microsoft, Intel, Google, and IBM, are all doing a lot of interesting research and development work.

I also worry about the future of technology in the US but when you make statements that are just flat out untrue people will dismiss your concerns.

Should NASA earn a weasel reputation?

[ColoradoAuthor]

Regardless of whether one thinks that the "Mars ban" is a good idea, would it be good for NASA to get a reputation of using loopholes and subverting the intent of Congress? Even if NASA complied, space enthusiasts could inadvertently build such a reputation in the public mind.

Then what? Would Congress get more strict the next year, resulting in dozens of started-but-never completed projects? Would the public say, "Those NASA dudes can't be trusted! See how they handled the Mars ban? Let's use that money to subsidize professional football instead!"

Why stop at Mars?

[Anonymous Meoward]

What's so wonderful about manned exploration of space anyway?

Transporting humans and all of their environmental requirements is ridiculously expensive. The risk for the travelers is ultimate. Alternatively, unmanned missions can go not only where no one has gone before, but also where no one will ever be able to go (e.g. the Venutian surface), and for a fraction of the cost.

The only upside from a manned mission is that we feel all warm and fuzzy when our heroes return from the voyage. Big deal.

Sounds odd to say, but I'm with Congress on this one. I just wish they'd taken it farther.

As I understand it, it's all about bang per buck

[threaded]

Manned missions look cool, but you get more science out of the unmanned missions. Trying to get NASA to concentrate on the unmanned stuff is what they're trying to do.

As I understand it, it's all about bang per buck.

That's how I read it.

[p4nther2004]

The headline ignores that they upped NASA's budget over what the President asked. (Congress hates NASA...honest). I grimace with each launch of the Shuttle now. I keep expecting another failure. They're running on a shoestring as it is now.

Re:Hmm....

[Anonymous Meoward]

What is Mars trying to hide?

Santa Claus, you dope.

Easy!

[jav1231]

How To Beat Congress's Ban Of Humans On Mars and NASA's Funding Thereof: 1. Get private donations to build your own spaceship! 2. Goto Mars! 3. Congress gets mad! 4. Fund NASA's manned mission to Mars to arrest you! 5. Congress 0WNED!

HAL (via monolith) says no!

[RamblinLonghorn]

All these worlds are yours, except Europa. Attempt no landing there. Use them together. Use them in peace.

NASA geeks need a how-to guide at last?

[barocco]

Here is how you can beat the ban of humans on Mars:

Just go lobby the Congress into believing that the arid, Afghanistan-looking planet is a socialist state that painted itself all red, supplies illegal immigrants and exports products that could cause severe health problems. You don't even need to suggest it is in development of nuclear weaponry, once Mars gets the attention, any journalist looking for quick fame will release a "breaking news" that our spy satellites have found bomb testing sites. Not to mention the famous "they'll follow us home" scenario study with countless versions of simulations that can be slipped into the appendix section.

Then in no time you will see some 250,000 men up on the planet automatically without NASA having to spend/ask for a dime.

Space Shuttle?

[Enrique1218]

I support temporarily banning NASA from making any efforts toward sending any manned mission to Mars. Modern spaceflight is just to damn primitive. For one, we need a new space shuttle. One that is design for 21st century space flight because there is a lot more hazards up there than were in 1970's. Second, we need better propulsion systems. It takes to much effort to get humans into orbit much less sending them to the moon or any planets. Moreover, modern spaceflight is still a complex precise pagent that does not forgive error. There is no room for improvisation if something goes wrong on the trip to Mars.

Sending humans to Mars is stupid and pointless

[Animats]

Sending humans to Mars is stupid and pointless. It's an idea trotted out by politicians every decade or so to distract voters, not something to really do. Congress is right to pull the plug.

Space travel on chemical fuels is just barely possible, and it's not getting any better. Chemical rockets work about as well as they did forty years ago. Chemical fuels haven't improved, and they're not going to. We've had liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen for forty years, and that's as good as it gets.

Hence the fundamental problem. All spacecraft have to be so weight-reduced that they're fragile and unreliable. If spacecraft could be built with the weight budget of a jetliner, with about 50% of the mass at takeoff being fuel, they'd work fine.

Without fission, fusion, or antimatter power, or new physics, this isn't going to improve. We're stuck without a better power source.

There hasn't been a new power source for half a century now. First time since the Industrial Revolution that's happened. Most of the major problems in the world today, from global warming to the Middle East, come from that fact.

That's the problem. Mars is a sideshow.

Re:When they return..

[Technician]

The only upside from a manned mission is that we feel all warm and fuzzy when our heroes return from the voyage. Big deal.

I don't know of any fuel on this planet that will take a large enough payload of fuel to Mars for the return trip. Who said they would ever return? At current tech, it's a one way ticket.

You haven't seen any probes sent with enough fuel to return. You won't see it anytime soon. Fuel that is light enough to take, but has enough mass to provide thrust to escape Mars orbital velocity doesn't exist. Nuke has a limitation, as you use the fuel, it drops below critical mass. Shielding the travelers is a problem. Getting enough initial thrust to launch off Mars, then reaching escape velocity without overheating is a problem.

Got any working ideas. Before you post, check the physics involved. A quick crash course in the basics is here.
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details.php?seriesid=1906978373 Watch or listen to Gravity and Satellites 1 & 2. When you understand the amount of energy required to take enough energy and mass to Mars for the return trip with passengers, then feel free to post. Don't forget you need more than just enough fuel to escape Mars, but also enough to slow down to reach Earth. Earth is in a lower orbit. To reach this orbit, you need to slow down.

Deceleration to orbital speeds is required for survivable re-entry. Leaving Mars to return to Earth does include going from an higher solar orbit to a lower orbit and the requirement to reduce kinetic energy to reach the lower orbit. In other words, you will expend fuel just to slow down.

The Moon mission had the advantage of the Moon and Earth are in the same Solar Orbit and return from the moon required only a little energy because of the low lunar gravity. To get to the Moon, there was not the requirement to leave Earths orbit. Going to Mars has none of these advantages. Mars does have lower gravity than Earth, but the requirement to leave Earth Orbit, increase kinetic energy to reach the outer orbit of Mars, land, and relaunch (with atmospheric resistance), reduce kinetic energy, to reach Earth orbit, and reduce kinetic energy for re-entry is simply a physics problem for energy of magnitudes greater proportion than visiting the Moon and returning. The Mars mission can not be done like the Moon mission. They carry way too little fuel.

http://www.muller.lbl.gov/teaching/Physics10/PffP.html

You might make it to Mars, but I doubt you will be returning in my lifetime.

Science or propaganda?

[Per Abrahamsen]

> True, but this reveals a great lack of motivation and vision among U.S. lawmakers

So telling NASA to use their budget on science rather than propaganda shows "lack of vision"?

Mars is stupid

[bussdriver]

Man on Mars timelines are so long that robots will be much better at that time. We can out perform human exploration NOW! Its only a waste of money to do it before it gets cheap. We can send dozens of robots for the cost of 1 human. Its not cost effective and will not be for sometime (if ever.) When we are ready to build bases to live on then we can send humans (not exactly exploration at that point.) We NEED advances in robotics on earth more than methods for space travel. Everybody keeps neglecting how cold and O2 free mars is and the traveling problems; which are best saved for solving later.

Its a DISTRACTION, didn't anybody notice how Bush has been trying to slow or stop climate science? He has NASA refocused on mars and neglecting other areas that he doesn't want or care about moving forward. Remember, he stopped a climate science probe that other countries would have paid to launch (it was already built) just because he didn't want any climate science probe backing this vast conspiracy of climate scientists scamming people about global warming. (we know he tried to censor government climate scientists, even after the public woke up.)

I've said it before; won't waste time doing it again even if I'd get mod up like I did before.

"Exclusively"

[DynaSoar]

That's a key word in the proposal. It'd be damn silly to put money into R&D that couldn't translate to another domain. The intent is to be able to use (frinstance) the Constellation lifters for both lunar and Mars flights. There was never any plan to ban people from Mars.

Yup!

[FatSean]

Just like politicians know better than intelligence agents on what constitutes a real threat to the USA, and how politicians know better than generals on what constitutes a feasible war plan.

Some old shit...