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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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?

[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: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.

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.

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: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).

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.

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: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?

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.