NRC Human Spaceflight Report Says NASA Strategy Can't Get Humans To Mars

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NRC Human Spaceflight Report Says NASA Strategy Can't Get Humans To Mars

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday June 4, 2014 @11:07AM from the not-going-to-happen dept.

MarkWhittington (1084047) writes 'The National Research Council issued its report on the future of space exploration. The report stated that the "horizon goal" for any program of space exploration in the near term (i.e. the next two decades) is a Mars surface expedition. It also stated that the current NASA program, which includes a mission that would snag an asteroid, put it in lunar orbit, and visit it with astronauts is inadequate to meet that goal.

The report gave two reasons for its critique of the current NASA program. First the asteroid redirect mission would not create and test technologies necessary to conduct a crewed Mars mission. Second, NASA projects essentially flat budgets for the foreseeable future. Any space exploration program worthy of the name will cost considerably more money, with five percent increases in NASA funding for a number of years.'

206 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Sorry... by Bruce+Perens · 2014-06-04 11:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

It doesn't work to do this with a democratic government. We need a monarchy :-(
It seems to me that SpaceX is on the path to a solution that might be affordable by a single administration, though.

--
Bruce Perens.
1. Re:Sorry... by The+New+Guy+2.0 · 2014-06-04 11:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  There's no such thing as a Physics Congress... the laws of physics are unrepealable!
2. Re:Sorry... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-04 11:49 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  It doesn't work to do this with a democratic government. We need a monarchy :-(
  It seems to me that SpaceX is on the path to a solution that might be affordable by a single administration, though.
  Why? We already have President who ignores the law.
3. Re:Sorry... by geekoid · 2014-06-04 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, we could never do any space program under a Republic form of government.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
4. Re:Sorry... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-04 12:16 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't work to do this with a democratic government.
  The first human to stand on another solar body was the citizen of a liberal democracy. And liberal democracy isn't a prerequisite either. You need the will, the wealth and technological competence. The rest is political bullshit.
  The nation that build Saturn V's is gone. Of the three above requirements the US can still claim but one; the technological competence. The US forfeited the other two when it became a declining, balkanized welfare state.
  It's up to the Chinese now. Maybe India.
5. Re:Sorry... by savuporo · 2014-06-04 12:17 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  So lets see. This is an NRC report that ONLY considered using SLS as the launch vehicle, and concluded that you cannot get to Mars with that, something has to be done differently.
  How about _trying_ something different then for a change, stop trying to build redundant launch vehicles, we already have plenty, and actually invest in enabling technologies that DO get us to Mars.
  Like, putting spacecraft together from modules like was done with ISS and other stations before that - except without involving costly human ops. How about refuelling the spacecraft on orbit. How about doing research on partial-g environments, and launching a centrifuge. How about sending some rats en route to Mars to study different radiation shielding approach effectiveness. The list is endless. Actually, NRC PRODUCED all the enabling technology roadmaps, they are available here :
  http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oc...
  How about actually fricking following these roadmaps ( SLS is NOT in there ) and getting some stuff done ? Advanced radioisotope stirling generator that was outlined as the CRUCIAL enabling technology piece for future exploration ? Cancelled ! Funds are required to build a monster rocket to nowhere instead ...
  But, if you keep doing the same thing over and over, no reason to expect a different result. Kill the waste, and start investing in future.
  
  --
  http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
6. Re:Sorry... by smittyoneeach · 2014-06-04 12:34 · Score: 1
  
  [sarc]It would work if we gave asteroids a vote, you carbon-based life form chauvinist H8er![/sarc]
  
  --
  Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
7. Re:Sorry... by cascadingstylesheet · 2014-06-04 12:46 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It doesn't work to do this with a democratic government. We need a monarchy :-(
  Well, we're getting close ... one party wants to amend the Constitution so that it can ban the other's speech.
8. Re:Sorry... by msauve · 2014-06-04 13:20 · Score: 1
  
  You should have probably said "classical liberal democracy." In current parlance, the connotation is completely different.
  
  (Sorry if you're non-US, but this is a US site, where "liberal" means something different than it does in the rest of the world.)
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
9. Re:Sorry... by murdocj · 2014-06-04 13:51 · Score: 2
  
  The Chinese. Right. Because they have rovers on Mars... uh... because they have orbiters around Saturn... uh... because they have probes in interstellar space... uh... because they have space telescopes... uh... because they have a mission to Pluto... uh...
  Try again.
10. Re:Sorry... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-04 14:14 · Score: 0
  
  The Chinese. Right. Because they have rovers on Mars... uh... because they have orbiters around Saturn... uh... because they have probes in interstellar space... uh... because they have space telescopes... uh... because they have a mission to Pluto... uh...
  Try again.
  The US of 1960 had none of those, either. Yet in 1969 Neil Armstrong was standing in the Sea of Tranquility.
11. Re:Sorry... by CanadianMacFan · 2014-06-04 14:34 · Score: 1
  
  Of course the report is only about using the SLS as a launch vehicle. That's all NASA is allowed to look into by it's political masters. The SLS isn't being used because it is superior technology. It's used because it maximizes the number of jobs across a number of districts for the politicians.
  And NASA could actually reach a goal if it's goals weren't changed every couple of years by Congress or the President.
12. Re:Sorry... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-04 14:42 · Score: 0
  
  I have a great deal of respect for you and your accomplishments/contributions to the world at large, so I'm going to attempt to be civil instead of quite so frothy at the mouth.
  Hierarchical power structures do goal-oriented functions extremely well. However, we can do this at a lower level (the commercial) than the government level.
13. Re:Sorry... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-04 15:39 · Score: 0
  
  It doesn't work to do this with a democratic government. We need a monarchy :-(
  It seems to me that SpaceX is on the path to a solution that might be affordable by a single administration, though.
  What we 'need' is the Star Kingdom of Manticore.
14. Re:Sorry... by NotSanguine · 2014-06-04 15:51 · Score: 1
  
  How about actually fricking following these roadmaps ( SLS is NOT in there ) and getting some stuff done ? Advanced radioisotope stirling generator that was outlined as the CRUCIAL enabling technology piece for future exploration ? Cancelled ! Funds are required to build a monster rocket to nowhere instead ...
  But, if you keep doing the same thing over and over, no reason to expect a different result. Kill the waste, and start investing in future.
  Sorry. Couldn't resist.
  
  --
  No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
15. Re:Sorry... by Bruce+Perens · 2014-06-04 15:58 · Score: 1
  
  have a great deal of respect for you
  Sorry, I should have made it more obvious that I was writing tongue in cheek about the monarchy. Not about SpaceX though. I'm pretty impressed.
  
  --
  Bruce Perens.
16. Re:Sorry... by sillybilly · 2014-06-04 16:02 · Score: 2
  
  Or we need to include NASA in the military budget, and assuming outer space is gonna get divided up into smallscale Star Trek-like micro quadrants (alpha quadrant, beta quadrant) by whoever occupies it first and sticks a flag down with a rotating space station, with some minimum distance rule by these things, so conquest of areas close to Earth as space territories is important if they are more valuable than the ones farther away, even if there is a lot of room up there. But before anything else comes the Moon, and I say whatever country can go up there and stick a flagpole down and "claim it", they can get it as national territory. You could have something like the United States of America, and Puerto Rico and Sectors 3,5,31,15 on the Moon, and quadrants alpha(all), beta 4, gamma 3. But, indeed, such long titles sound better when appended to monarch's names, such as the oldtime Habsburgs, Emperor of Holy Roman Empire, prince of Bohemia, etc., prince of Lunar sectors 3, 5, 31, 15. Once you show new territory to Monarch's, they are greedy and wanna conquer it, should they have enough science and military power to do so.
17. Re:Sorry... by sg_oneill · 2014-06-04 16:57 · Score: 1
  
  I wish you americans would stop confusing the term republican for democratic.
  You live in a republic AND a democracy.
  Like North Korea you are a republic.
  Like Australia you are a democracy.
  Unlike Australia, you are a republic.
  Unlike North korea, you are a democracy.
  See? Its not that hard to understand. (Republic just means "No king". It doesn't specify what the king is replaced with).
  
  --
  Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
18. Re:Sorry... by captainpanic · 2014-06-04 20:58 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Also, they have a central government capable of making big decisions and capable of running large technical projects.
  They may only have a little rover on the Moon, and very few (if any) space probes that are outside the earth's gravity well, but they can totally claim that they can make a decision, and then commit huge efforts to it. Look at their high speed railways. They have overtaken Europe (all of it combined) already.
  If the Chinese are going for it, they really are going for it... unlike Europe or the US where the decisions are taken by a committee, which eventually will reach some lame compromise to do it only for 50% and only within a set of criteria which must support the almighty Economy, because heaven forsake if we ever waste some money - all the while blowing away money on management and bureaucratic inefficiency.
19. Re:Sorry... by khallow · 2014-06-04 21:05 · Score: 1
  
  And China's current economy is larger than the US's was in 1960.
20. Re:Sorry... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-04 22:00 · Score: 0
  
  North Korea is a poor example, as the ruling dynasty there do inherit power along a patriarchal line.
  They don't call themselves kings, but the effect is exactly the same.
21. Re:Sorry... by Gothmolly · 2014-06-04 23:51 · Score: 2
  
  Seriously? SpaceX on the first post? Can we stop fellating Elon Musk for at least 15 minutes?
  
  --
  I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
22. Re:Sorry... by bigpat · 2014-06-05 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  I have a great deal of respect for you and your accomplishments/contributions to the world at large, so I'm going to attempt to be civil instead of quite so frothy at the mouth.
  I too have a great deal of respect for your work, Mr. Anonymous Coward. With your fervent idealism combined with nonsensical and sometimes hilarious non-sequiturs and even the occasionally great "First Post!" you have molded, reshaped and reshaped again the core of our Slashdot civilization for eons or even hours to come. Here's to you Mr. Anonymous Coward!
23. Re:Sorry... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-05 03:24 · Score: 0
  
  Nope. He just ignores assholes like you. So far, he has done nothing outside of the law, unlike nixon, reagan, and george W. bush.
24. Re:Sorry... by WindBourne · 2014-06-05 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  Not in terms of % of world GDP. In that term, America was MUCH bigger.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
25. Re:Sorry... by WindBourne · 2014-06-05 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  And can you quit fellating McNerney and Gass long enough to look at real facts?
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
26. Re:Sorry... by Shadowmist · 2014-06-05 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  The Chinese. Right. Because they have rovers on Mars... uh... because they have orbiters around Saturn... uh... because they have probes in interstellar space... uh... because they have space telescopes... uh... because they have a mission to Pluto... uh...
  Try again.
  The US of 1960 had none of those, either. Yet in 1969 Neil Armstrong was standing in the Sea of Tranquility.
  The Apollo Mission wasn't driven by the lure of exploration, but by the massive Cold War fear of the Soviet Union getting there first. As bad as Putin might be barking now, we're not nearly as afraid of them as we once were.
27. Re:Sorry... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-05 05:09 · Score: 0
  
  Fuck that. At least the military budget does something respectable for us, like defense. Let's take back these billions of dollars in free taxes from sports teams already making billions of dollars in profits.
28. Re:Sorry... by khallow · 2014-06-05 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  Which is completely irrelevant. One doesn't need a fixed share of global GDP in order to land someone on the Moon.
29. Re:Sorry... by murdocj · 2014-06-05 13:04 · Score: 1
  
  call me back when they do something the USA didn't do 40 years ago
30. Re:Sorry... by murdocj · 2014-06-05 13:07 · Score: 1
  
  Ah yes. The old "central planning" argument. Just like the former Soviet Union. Remember how Khrushchev told us that the USSR would wave as they passed the capitalist USA? How'd that turn out?
31. Re:Sorry... by sillybilly · 2014-06-05 13:39 · Score: 1
  
  Military is also about expansion.
  
  The military has this dilemma about being out of a job, and Obama cutting their funds, sort of, as there are no true arch-enemies around on the scale of Soviet Union communists of the Cold War era, there are no good wars to fight, other than these makebelieve terrorist wars, lucky for them we had a 9/11 or their budget might have been cut long time ago. The USA is a military nation. Kinda like ancient Rome. We love the gladiators in the colosseum, dressed in steel fighting lions and each other to death, and we have this manhood issue of wearing helmets with dick looking spikes, and holy elderly priests preaching brotherly love can get out of the way of our Arrrnold Schwarzenegger pump you full of lead machine guns. (See google image search "arnold schwarzenegger machine gun.") Or even preaching holy jihad against the porn and resource waste of America, like Osama did, we take them mofos out. So we love our guns, we love military stuff, it improves our self worth, self image, like huge pickup trucks and SUV's compared to, say, Arnold being convicted to drive in a tiny "Smart Car". That would not be very manly. But there are no good enemies around, and that's kind of good though, because war is pain and suffering and it sucks, we're men, we can take pain, but it's nice not to have to. Sometimes. So the military's present motto is maintaining peace and avoiding a war, by things such as overwhelming force, is just as, if not more important, as winning a war. Every time China sharpens their tooth for Taiwan, we do a parade with our carriers in the straits between mainland China and Taiwan, to quell the emotions a bit. So now the Chinese are buying a junked Ukrainian (Kuznetsov class "Riga") carrier with the fake excuse of turning it into a casino, when it's really made into a carrier ("Liaoning"), one that could be copied. China has massive economic power, but might be on the edge on resources, and a global economic apocalypse or a collapse of the US govt financially Lehman Bros. style would be devastating to them, so they keep lending us money so we keep buying their stuff and maintaining status quo, funny money, it matters, but not hard core, even if it never gets paid back, keep the status quo, keep production going in China. There is this delicate dance, dependence on each other, common interest, but disagreement too over things like Taiwan. So we got 10 major carriers, each costing money out da ass every second to upkeep and service, and nobody even comes close in number. So what if China copies the one carrier they got, 20 times over, and now it's their 20 vs. our 10, we can no longer do this show of force patrol, kind of like lions vs hyenas of the Serengeti. It all comes down to economic power, as always, back in the day the British Empire had a policy of outdoing in Navy power at least the top two next in line, which pretty much broke the bank. We can't afford 20 carriers to keep up with China, but China can't afford us collapsing economically, or the world economy buying Chinese goods collapsing economically. This interdependence of debt and economy is good for world peace. So where does the military fit in? But I'm rambling now, about military stuff, back to the space stuff, NASA..
  
  Expanding an empire is usually through military, though, traditionally the US has done it through cash purchases, Louisiana purchase, Alaska purchase, some wars with Mexico, and some rounding up of bow and arrow and spear native americans taking them on a "Trail of Tears" and such, relocating them into the Arizona deserts, but most expansion has stopped, because there is nowhere more to go. You can't really occupy Iraq and Afghanistan and claim them as US territory or colonial domain and collect taxes into the treasury from them like you used to back 150 years ago. You can't attack Canada or Mexico without a good excuse, so the only place left to expand the empire is outer space, and places like Venus, but first of all, the Moon. Without the incentive of letting people or countries/sove
32. Re:Sorry... by khallow · 2014-06-05 14:44 · Score: 1
  
  Another thing that is irrelevant since we're not speaking of such stuff. It's wild speculation here, but I bet China has the skilled workers and a large enough economy to do things that the US hasn't done 40 years ago. And they probably could do it inside of ten years, were they so inclined.
  
  Also the US isn't doing what they did 40 years ago either.
33. Re:Sorry... by murdocj · 2014-06-05 15:03 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, we weren't landing SUV sized rovers on Mars 40 years ago.
34. Re:Sorry... by WindBourne · 2014-06-05 16:10 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, it is. Lets say that you have 40B today. That will fund NASA's current budget for 2 years. BUT, we spent less than 40B to build Mercury, Gemini, and Saturn, as well as go to the moon. In fact, we spent less than 60 Billion to do the above AND build 5 shuttles(enterprise was one of the 5).
  What is the big difference? It is that we had loads more spending capabilities back then, then we do now.
  The reason is that we had THE strongest economy, and could easily afford to spend 4% of our US federal budget on doing this. Now, we are fighting over less than .5% of our budget, and even then, we are still running a massive deficit.
  
  So, the real issue is that to put man on the moon back in the 60's was hard because it meant LOADS of R*D. Now, it is not about capabilities, but about economics. That is why we will not get to the moon via the gov. We simply can not afford it. But, businesses like SpaceX and Bigelow CAN afford it. Both are funded by other items. SpaceX is being funded partially by the feds, but mostly by commercial launches. Bigelow is mostly funded by Motel 6.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
35. Re:Sorry... by khallow · 2014-06-06 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, it is.
  WindBourne, are you really going to claim that the world economy hasn't grown even a little bit since 1960? There's also the matter of technology advancing since that time as well.
  
  The reason is that we had THE strongest economy, and could easily afford to spend 4% of our US federal budget on doing this. Now, we are fighting over less than .5% of our budget, and even then, we are still running a massive deficit.
  
  That fight would still go on whether the US had 1% of the world's economic activity or 90%. It's not that the US can't afford to go to the Moon or do other ambitious stuff (even on NASA's current ample budget), it's rather that they choose not to, just as China chooses not to.
36. Re:Sorry... by khallow · 2014-06-06 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  50 years ago we were deploying swarms of probes to the Moon. 21 probes were set to or in orbit around the Moon over an eight year period in the build up to the manned landings. That's what 50 years ago was. Now, the US is satisfied with one oversized and overpriced trinket to Mars. It's remarkable how much our ambitions and expectations have lowered over the decades.
37. Re:Sorry... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-06 09:15 · Score: 0
  
  If case you've forgotten, a lot of those probes "hard-landed" on the moon (e.g. crashed). Are you really going to say that landing a huge, well instrumented rover on Mars is worthless compared to crashing something into the Moon? Really? Wow.
38. Re:Sorry... by khallow · 2014-06-06 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  If case you've forgotten, a lot of those probes "hard-landed" on the moon (e.g. crashed). Are you really going to say that landing a huge, well instrumented rover on Mars is worthless compared to crashing something into the Moon? Really? Wow.
  I think the Mars Science Laboratory is less than worthless - it is actually harmful due to large opportunity costs. It takes resources away from a much more aggressive approach to exploring Mars.
  
  For example, we could have landed around half a dozen MER rovers for the price of one MSL. At this point, I think coverage is much more important than moderately better scientific gear.
39. Re:Sorry... by WindBourne · 2014-06-06 15:29 · Score: 1
  
  huh.
  So, kevin, per your statement, then why is Jamaica not spending 20 B/year on space? Is that due to choices that they make or because they do not have the manufacturing capability, nor the wealth to do so?
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
40. Re:Sorry... by khallow · 2014-06-07 02:08 · Score: 1
  
  So, kevin, per your statement, then why is Jamaica not spending 20 B/year on space? Is that due to choices that they make or because they do not have the manufacturing capability, nor the wealth to do so?
  First, I've heard that Jamaica has anywhere near the economy of a 1969 US. In comparison, 1960s US had a smaller economy, less industry, and a lot fewer people than modern China does.
41. Re:Sorry... by sillybilly · 2014-06-07 15:48 · Score: 1
  
  Oh yeah, how about instead of a rollercoaster in Utah saving some rocket fuel by accelerating the spaceship to 1000 miles/hr and then firing the rockets, how about launching them from the edge of the atmosphere, really high, off the back of some fast airplane going a gazillion miles/hr already, and then firing the rockets. These airplanes take the oxidizer part from the air instead of rocket fuel having to carry it along, and it's a lot cheaper to fly about with just the fuel without having to carry the oxidizer too. So they are expensive to fly anyway, especially if one with a high ceiling of operation. Or they could design rockets that have stages like airplanes, don't carry the oxidizer, take it from the atmosphere while you can, semi-vertical landing ones, but speeding up toward the east (which is the way the Earth already rotates and is the standard encircling way or sending everything into a rotating, encircling space orbit.)
  
  Oh and on the mobile nuclear platform on the Moon with geothermal cooling, lacking ground moisture, or softening from high temperature lava, (i.e. the deeper you go on Earth the hotter it gets, but as the Moon is like 80 times less than (or 0.0123x) Earth, (but because of much smaller radius, and r^2 term in the denomitator for gravitational attraction (spheres behave as if all their mass were gathered in the center, per Gauss' laws), so you're only 6x less weight on the Moon, not 80x) the disperse radioactive decay in rocks does not heat enough to melt the core) there might be lots of leaks in heating and insufficient contact. So you may need cpu-heatsink-like "thermal paste" on the outside, and at first I thought metallic sodium, potassium and calcium might work, but they could locally self heat reacting and corroding away into the rocks. So aluminum, the second most abundant metalloid after silicon, is the choice for outer coating and softness to adapt to the bore hole with good contact, but it probably can't directly carry NaK or molten Na (which are probably the nastiest things ever, watch Nurdrage potassium video for safety, https://www.youtube.com/watch?..., or https://www.youtube.com/watch?... for no safety, I heard a story of a girl unloading sodium from a railcar or tanker truck, and the hose popped, and she got sprayed with liquid (molten) sodium across her body, which usually instantly reacts with moisture containing materials like your body or even clothes.. she asked, am I gonna die now? well let's see, you have no liver, or intestines left after that splash, so what do you think?) into the ground because of alloying/corrosion, so locally made aluminum clad iron tubing (need some minor qty of carbon carried to make steel and strong iron, 100% pure iron is quite soft compared to good steels) is probably the way to go. But I'm no expert on geothermal or oil drilling topics at all,,
  
  Also, a note on ice ages: They might have been because of drop of Solar output. How sure are we that the Sun isn't just like any other planet, just simply bigger - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... pictures, on just how huge the Sun is compared to Jupiter, which in turn is also huge compared to Earth. So the Sun, because of size, would have molten lava surface, just like Earth does, or would if it were bigger. Also because of huge gravity, even hydrogen and helium get retained even at the 6000C temperature. They say the Sun is fueled by fusion. I say it's fueled like any other massive object, as massive objects all contain Th232, U238, K40, U235 and automatically light up. So all the stars you see in the sky are most likely the only massive objects at that scale, besides the strange black hole things we don't really know what to think about. So anyway, assume the Sun is not fusing much H, but it's mostly just heating like lava on Earth is, by that ppb quantity fission fuel material. Then a fission creates ext
42. Re:Sorry... by sillybilly · 2014-06-08 00:36 · Score: 1
  
  Woah, all awake now, that stuff is like I was high or something. Seriously, I couldn't keep my eyes open to hit that post button, and didn't wanna cancel the post either, but I had no energy left to review and correct the mess I typed waking up for 2 minutes, passing out for 5, waking up for 2, etc. Sorry..
  
  So a lot of instabilities in solar output might be due to magnetic and inertia effects, compressing nuclear materials sending them into a high temperature creating reaction, the inertia taking time to accelerate and the heat builds up, the natural hot low density (like hot air balloons) plus expansion inertia making the whole thing light and move up in gravity, as a plasma, in a magnetic field - just watching the Sun's surface, there are lots of instabilities and hot spots and cold spots present, also solar flares, and some instabilities might have a characteristic lifetime of an iceage, especially if a massive object on the size of a few Jupiters falls into the Sun, bringing fresh fuel. If there is actually fusion going on too, in the very center, it must be slow because the hydrogen concentration there is very low (though the force of gravity decays the closer you are to the center and becomes 0 at the center.) Even with all that plasma, and gaseous state, the core of the Sun is probably different than the outer surface, because of gas density of metal vapors compared to hydrogen - is this true? Nope, the wikipedia Sun page says 3/4 hydrogen, 1/4 helium, and minor, less than 2% silicate stuff. Because of all that helium fusion is prevalent. So I'm still thinking and don't have a really good explanation of why solar output would fluctuate on the scale of, with time constants of, a whole ice age or terrestrial extinction event period. Maybe somebody could explain, or displain, proving that no, solar output is stable and ice ages on Earth originate in other causes. By the way Earth's magnetic field has flipped a few times, and that could be due to inertial current flows in lava, carrying strong enough magnetic fields in a certain direction, because of inertia, ending up opposing the main field and having enough inertia juice to fight it down. Similar magnetic-inertial things could be going on in the Sun too, where a flip in the magnetic field might create and ice-age effect. I don't know. It might be possible to dig for rocks/fossils that record the spectrum of solar radiation, as different temperatures have different colors, but this is a far shot, especially if it also causes an ice age, and the fossils demonstrate effect of ice age, not solar spectrum. It's a really difficult topic, but it doesn't really matter, we know ice ages happen, so global warming ages might happen too where you can stick your carbon tax dollars in your anus as they may have little or nothing to do with why global temperatures are rising, the fact is that temperatures fluctuate, and the easiest way to deal with that, if you want to control the temperature to be stable (at least to the point where arctic and antarctic ice doesn't melt flooding much of Russia, the Netherlands, and Florida, including every major city like New York, DC, LA, SF, London, Tokyo, Shanghai, Calcutta, etc, even if Switzerland is safe) you need to provide for decreasing solar input in global warming, i.e. flippable shades, or increasing solar input in an ice-age, i.e. Fresnel lens rings around the circumference of Earth, or mirrors. By the way you have to consider the safety of such a thing, especially if the idiots take over the planet in a democratic voting world, where, for humanitarian reasons nobody is allowed to starve, and it's whoever can breed the fastest (i.e. starting age of hitting puberty for girls, 12-13 yrs, having the most kids by age 15-18, and being a great grandmother by age 50), so if people who can't compute the square root of 2, let alone compute a rocket orbit to fly to and adjust the shades take over the world, you still have to care about them too when you're gone, and you can't leave the world messed up for them, if you can't control t
43. Re:Sorry... by sillybilly · 2014-06-08 00:45 · Score: 1
  
  Forgot about this: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-KI0F... This image is not possible, but it keeps bugging me. As most of the matter in a solar system is stuck in the star, eventually when you run out of materials using up all the planets and debris, you have to get to the star and mine that. The image is not possible because everything vaporizes at the surface temperature of the Sun. But there may be ways to magnetically control plasma and keep it away form the walls, and send enough cooling power from far away, to the walls, also dynamic stabilizing could keep the whole thing upright in a magnetic/gravity field, and you still have to watch for buoyancy effects, and in a 75%H / 35% He ocean you need quite a bit of 100% H balloon, or 100% vacuum balloon with strong enough walls if you can find anything like that, to act like a fishing float, and have a stick like that stick out off the surface of the star. Now you're talking a really huge surface area to keep unvaporized and cool deep under the surface of the star, and it's not possible, not physically possible, but it will be a thought bugging anyone who's greedy for some stuff once all the planets and debris are used to up construct space stations. There may be a long time until that need arises, if ever.
44. Re:Sorry... by sillybilly · 2014-06-08 01:07 · Score: 1
  
  Oh yeah, if the fast breeders can compute the square root of 2, they will take over the world, and could maintain democracy/communism/equality as opposed to monarchy/property/slavery world as a stable situation, such as it happens in China and Japan, (as these folks are good at math and they are also pedophiles - just watch any anime, like http://joyreactor.com/tag/ecch..., they all all 12-13 year old girls (even if the men are 80+ year old grandpas, it doesn't really matter who the men are, the women take 9 months per baby, and under such circumstances, premature born tending mothers might gain an edge, popping kids ever 6 months instead of 9, and the kids survive fine) and even Taro Aso got in some kind of not really trouble, well it was an issue, over being an anime fan) but the fast breeding will put a severe resource strain on the population, even if they dominate the world in a democratic, nonstarvation situation. Monogamy and 80 year old men sticking with their 76 year old wives instead of running off chasing a freshly matured 12 year old may be a thing of the past under such circumstances, because they get drowned out in voting power by the perverts. Neither is slavery/property/monogamy/monarchy starvation enforced world rich on resources such an idyllic situation, so there should be some kind of balance between communism and property, between starvation and nonstarvation, between equality/master-slavery, and monarchy/democracy, though I don't really see a magic answer that strikes such a balance. All I know is I don't want war and apocklipses, or property to the point of slavery, or communism without personal property where nobody has incentive to care.
45. Re:Sorry... by sillybilly · 2014-06-08 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  Oh yeah, and I think I read somewhere that the term for an 80 year old japanese anime fan is chi chi, which means grandfather, daddy, also boobs. Also see https://answers.yahoo.com/ques... There is also this "daddy" term in English, and a custom of men being usually older than women in a relationship, as men don't mature at age 12-14, where women are way ahead in mental powers and world comprehension, also done with height growth, while a lot of boys/men don't finish growing to their full height til age 16-18, and some men mentally don't mature until age 45. So even if they want to, sometimes 12 year old women or even 18 year old women have a hard time finding males on par with their own abilities of world comprehension and seriousness about life in their own age group. Men tend to play video games to later ages compared to women getting busy and serious about babies and jobs and things that matter most at an earlier age. Sometimes they go at it alone, and in single, unwed mothers, sometimes they have to be mothers to their husbands of the same age as themselves too. For women the clock is always ticking and it's too late for a woman to mature in mental capacity and seriousness about life and babies at age 40, as menopause is too close, also a woman can't rape a man if the man is not willing, and has full mental control over his erections/ejaculations, but a man can rape a woman even if she has no desire, mental state, or willingness, and produce a pregnancy, so population control issues are fully the responsibility of the males, not the females, because she's always willing right now (often she don't have time to wait for mr right, she needs a mr right now), the clock is ticking for her, she also loses her 12 year old youth with every second that goes by. It's complicated, because she also needs somebody to stick it out by her to help raise the baby, but in a democracy with a guaranteed welfare safety net this waiting for mr right is not that important because she can rear a brood in absence of mr right on welfare, nobody is allowed to starve. It's also complicated because though men control populations, women can also control it, they can kill a baby (though this is very difficult for a mother) or torture/mis-raise a baby psycho style if they hate the father, or even, in a breeding out of control world, handing down abortion sticks from grandmother to granddaughter, with which you do your own abortions by smashing the fetus. Anal sex is a great contraceptive, but in the heat of the moment in a party world who's got time to contemplate "rules", it also feels nowhere near as good as the normal way. Women control populations too because the father can be very far by the time the 9 months is up, 9 months is a long time, and she holds life and death in her hands, but for a mother it's very difficult not to be a mother. So theoretically the women can do a lot, in practice the men are responsible for watching population levels, which is why most societies are patriarchal around the world, to manage resource availability with population levels in balance, as the woman has no power to make decisions about population levels. A child is born out of the will of the father, not the mother, 99% of the time. In a democracy with a welfare system, the men who are always willing to ask for a back that thang up take over very fast, and the future is people like brazil, everybody neither white, nor black, or asian, everybody brown, looking like white/asian women, and black men. That's a great loss of genetic variability. Ideally you should have white people as white people, black people as black people, asians as asians, and, as neither group should be too inbred, there should be always some mixing at the fringes, to small degrees, not 100% "melting pot." This requires some kind of segregation, that there is a natural tendency for people to do anyway. But then you get issues like job discrimination, you have a black family with 7 kids each of two generations
46. Re:Sorry... by sillybilly · 2014-06-08 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  Back in the day there was a rule that only landholders, property holders could vote, and that rule sucks. However one way to moderate the population explosion effects on voting is to introduce just that, the factor, so whoever votes, they should get the number of votes of not 1, but of 2 generations ago, so a single white kid with 4 grandparents and no other siblings get 4 votes, and also 49 black or latino kids with 4 grandparents get 4 votes, sort of dividing up the inheritance, but after the 3rd and 4th generation they'd still prevail, so this would be a way to make everyone think about this topic and keep it in view, in a democracy, while still allowing the dominant population to decide what they want for themselves, as 1 person deciding the lives of thousands/millions, as in a monarchy/nobility is not optimal either. This rolling average going back 2 generations could be a way to slightly moderate breeding out of control irregardless of resources, and make people at least keep it in direct focus, even if they can't do much about it.
47. Re:Sorry... by sillybilly · 2014-06-08 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, all these replies to myself, cuz I like talking to myself, why should I talk to you when I can have awesome conversations with myself, especially if you have nothing good to add?
  
  PS. If I really wanted to talk to myself I'd be writing a diary, or be on blogspot.com, but on Slashdot sometimes people talk back with very good ideas you would have never come up with yourself, or might have taken forever. Such as smashing comets into Venus.
Settle down, nerds by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-04 11:11 · Score: 0, Flamebait

How about "never" for your horizon goal? That work for you? Well, it's gonna have to.
Get used to it.
Well... by oldhack · 2014-06-04 11:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think it's most people's impression that NASA is just going through the motion, making empty noises wrt Mars human exploration. There simply is no viable plan nor adequate budget to come up with a viable plan.

--
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
1. Re:Well... by Kardos · 2014-06-04 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  That's the point. It can't be done on the current budget levels.
2. Re:Well... by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-06-04 11:51 · Score: 0
  
  I think it's most people's impression that NASA is just going through the motion, making empty noises wrt Mars human exploration. There simply is no viable plan nor adequate budget to come up with a viable plan.
  There WAS, until Obama got hold of it and redirected resources toward asteroid capture instead, 6 years ago.
  
  I'm not sure, but I think Obama is a long-time sufferer from assterhoids.
3. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-04 12:11 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, at this point, we'll NEVER learn ANYTHING about Mars!
  http://www.space.com/12404-mar...
  Thanks, Obama!
4. Re:Well... by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-06-04 12:25 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah, at this point, we'll NEVER learn ANYTHING about Mars!
  
  http://www.space.com/12404-mar...
  
  Thanks, Obama!
  This is 100% irrelevant to the point that was being made: long ago Obama publicly directed NASA to cease any significant efforts toward manned missions to Mars. (Which was the subject under discussion here: human exploration.)
  
  Yes, thanks, Obama! Indeed. /sarcasm
5. Re:Well... by LifesABeach · 2014-06-04 12:57 · Score: 1
  
  What is on Mars, that the Moon is the second best location?
6. Re:Well... by HiThere · 2014-06-04 14:46 · Score: 1
  
  Given what he was getting through congress, even an asteroid capture is probably overly optimistic. Mind you, it's not clear to me that he as actually trying to get to Mars, despite his stated committment.
  OTOH, I also consider that an asteroid capture mission might easily be more valuable than a "lets visit Mars like we did the Moon" mission. I have found the US space program to be a profound disappointment. Most of it isn't NASAs fault. But factories in orbit might just be the way to get people to take space seriously. (Naturally, they mainly, perhaps exclusively,would be for producing goods to be used in space. Transport down isn't cheap either.) But automated factories need to get considerably better before that's a reasonable scenario, even if we hope it would eventually lead to colonies in space.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
7. Re:Well... by HiThere · 2014-06-04 14:48 · Score: 1
  
  Volatiles.
  Given how poorly we can manage a closed ecosystem, permanent habitation on the Moon is currently out of the question. With Mars it might be possible.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
8. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-04 15:53 · Score: 0
  
  Um, no it wouldn't?? The answer you are looking for is "no". Simple.
9. Re:Well... by khallow · 2014-06-04 16:47 · Score: 1
  
  There simply is no viable plan nor adequate budget to come up with a viable plan.
  Maybe the problem is that we need a new organization that can come up with a viable plan on the very ample budget NASA receives. It always amazes me how low expectations are for NASA and similar organizations.
10. Re:Well... by Tablizer · 2014-06-04 18:32 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with Obama: we already went to the moon. But, Mars is too far off (and too expensive) so an asteroid mission is a better intermediate goal.
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
11. Re:Well... by rioki · 2014-06-04 21:09 · Score: 1
  
  I basically agree with you, but the statement "But automated factories need to get considerably better before that's a reasonable scenario" is outdated. Have you been recently in an automobile factory? Up until almost the end of the production line there are no humans involved. The couple humans that run around are only there when something goes wrong and the tolerances for that are awfully low, often the robots will stop in an error condition and the human reviewing the issue can not even see what is wrong. In most factories the end of the line, that is most steps to assemble the interior, are done by humans. This has absolutely nothing to do with technology and only something to do with costs. To do the jobs by a robot you would need a higher degree of tool development and more complicated product designs. This bring the development costs up and in these cases it is simpler to have humans assemble the car. In addition many car companies have additional benefits to retaining humans, they get tax cuts and other incentives to retain humans factory workers. But the current status quo is about economy not technology.
12. Re:Well... by WindBourne · 2014-06-05 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  No, I would say that the sufferer is yourself.
  You neo-con/tea-party type continue to push us towards the SLS as well as going to the moon, while ignoring real facts.
  O has kept private space going. O did NOT come up with the asteroids, but it was NASA that came forward with the Idea. He is simply supporting it.
  And why is he supporting it? Because it accomplishes multiple things. The first is how to move an asteroid that COULD be on a collision course for the earth. BUT, it can also mean moving a small-medium asteroid to earth, to enable processing of various elements.
  And of course, it means surviving in BEO for sometime.
  And what your type ignores is the fact that Bigelow wants to go to the moon in the smart way. Likewise, Musk wants to go to mars in the same smart way. IOW, they are trying to offer up the shovels, homes, and rides to nations, which is where the real money is.
  
  Sadly, you neo-cons continue to destroy private space while pushing your massively expensive nightmare, without a thought of the future.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
13. Re:Well... by WindBourne · 2014-06-05 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  Spoken by somebody that has not a clue about exploration.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
14. Re:Well... by WindBourne · 2014-06-05 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  Then you are NOT paying attention.
  We are making progress in early 90's, when the neo-cons killed off NASA's efforts to go to Mars.
  BUT, Clinton did the smart thing and push for a lot of tech transfer, esp. to Bigelow with transhab.
  Now, for the last 8 years, we have had multiple competitions that are developing private space to make it happen.
  Basically, NASA is transferring information AND helping to create numerous companies. THings are looking up.
  What is needed now, is to stop the GOP's assault on private space.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
15. Re:Well... by WindBourne · 2014-06-05 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  That is NOT really what Obama is saying. He says that to the public. What he is counting on, is that private space will go to the moon and mars. He wants NASA to help them. In fact, once Bigelow builds his space station, the first long-term PAYING astronauts will be 1-2 NASA ppl for 1-2 years. And when Bigelow puts a station on the moon, no doubt, we will pay for 1-2 NASA ppl to be there CONSTANTLY.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
16. Re:Well... by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-06-05 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  Then you are NOT paying attention.
  We are making progress in early 90's, when the neo-cons killed off NASA's efforts to go to Mars.
  No, sorry, that's just wrong.
  
  Congress may have been tight on the budget, but in fact NASA had active manned Mars mission plans ongoing until Obama told them to stop and concentrate on asteroids instead. It's a matter of public record.
17. Re:Well... by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-06-05 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  No, I would say that the sufferer is yourself.
  You neo-con/tea-party type continue to push us towards the SLS as well as going to the moon, while ignoring real facts.
  You put your foot in your mouth the moment you opened it.
  
  I am neither "neo-con" or "tea party". The fact that I disagree with you does not put me in the same camp as those people.
  
  O has kept private space going.
  You can hardly give "O" credit for that. He had no choice, once Congress and NASA dropped the ball.
  
  O did NOT come up with the asteroids, but it was NASA that came forward with the Idea. He is simply supporting it.
  You missed the point. It isn't that he told them to go after the asteroids. There were plans to do that anyway, as you say. The point was that he told them to STOP working on manned Mars missions.
  
  BUT, it can also mean moving a small-medium asteroid to earth, to enable processing of various elements.
  Again, you miss the point. What are you going to do with it, once you get it here?
  
  Working in micro-gravity is just too damned slow and difficult. The best thing to do is drop it on some dark place on the Moon, and work on it there. Getting it back OFF the Moon is easy. Think: how big of a rocket did it take to get the Apollo manned module back up to lunar orbiit? And how big of a rocket did it take to get it off of Earth? (It isn't quite a fair comparison, because the Earth rocket had to carry the command module and its engines, too. But the point is still valid.)
  
  Sadly, you neo-cons continue to destroy private space while pushing your massively expensive nightmare, without a thought of the future.
  Sadly, you're a dumbshit who doesn't even know a neo-con when he sees one. Or a friend of the space program, for that matter.
18. Re:Well... by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-06-05 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  Spoken by somebody that has not a clue about exploration.
  I'm not an "explorer", if that's what you mean. But I would have been, had I the opportunity. More to the point, though: I do have some knowledge about physics that you seem to be lacking.
  
  Considering your prior comment, I think you should be taking a good long look in the mirror.
19. Re:Well... by WindBourne · 2014-06-05 16:25 · Score: 1
  
  Obama has been fighting tooth and nail against the GOP, and some dems to keep private space going. You neo-cons/tea* would have killed it if not for him. Simple as that. And that is DOCUMENTED fact.
  
  O never told them to quit working on a manned mars mission because we NEVER HAD ONE. Total BS on your part. You obviously do not have a grasp of what is going on, or how NASA operates (and yes, I have a little bit; I worked on the MGS). The last time that NASA had any direct plans to go to Mars, was under Clinton. But again, you neo-cons killed it (to be fair, Clinton was opposed to, BUT, he did sign it and allow it).
  
  OTOH, we had a good group for doing mars robotic missions. I know. I WORKED ON IT. Now, I am not wild about what O did, but basically, he gutted it in part to pay for private space. To be honest, I did not like it. However, I also understand that without having CHEAP access to space and mars, then all of our work is moot.
  The Falcon Heavy combined with Red Dragon will allow NASA to put 2-4 orbiters AND red dragon on the planet IN ONE MISSION. One item that is desperately needed there, is a network constellation. With cheap launch and micro/mini sats, it would be possible for us to put say 100 sats around mars, of which most are simple comm sats, with processing capabilities.
  
  And you are a friend of the space program in the same way that you neo-cons are a friend to the poor and middle class.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
20. Re:Well... by WindBourne · 2014-06-05 16:27 · Score: 1
  
  What a fool. You should get past your neo-con BS and actually learn a bit of the history. And as to physics, what the fuck does that have to do with the economics of space? Absolutely NOTHING. It is about economics and engineering.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
21. Re:Well... by WindBourne · 2014-06-05 16:30 · Score: 1
  
  Really? OK, show me the link to the public record that shows our manned mars missions being built and that O killed it. Fuck, I will happily apologize to you if you can do that.
  BUT, in return, if you can not do so, within 48 hours, I ask that you apologize. And yes, I will give you 48 hours to find something that you will NOT FIND. And Constellation was NOT a mars program. Its primary goal was the moon.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Why go to another gravity well? by ubergeek2009 · 2014-06-04 11:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

There's no reason to go to the bottom of another gravity well. We should be travelling to, learn from, and eventually exploit the asteroids. It makes more sense for the long term viability of the human race.
1. Re:Why go to another gravity well? by CRCulver · 2014-06-04 11:28 · Score: 2
  
  Why go anywhere else at all? As the pace of technology accelerates, it may well be that the future of the human race is staying put right here, moving into a virtual reality instead of expanding outward through the cosmos. Defense against asteroids could be automated, and while the sun would eventually expand into a red giant and engulf the Earth, we still have a few billion years, so there's no rush.
  It is curious that this possibility is rarely considered in nerd circles, as it has been proposed by science-fiction writers. In his future history starting with Harvest of Stars , the late Poul Anderson foresaw much of the human race and its AI successors content to remain on Earth and turn their attention to mathematical explorations. Vernor Vinge too speculated in his early musings on the Singularity that it could involve a civilization moving into a computer mind buried deep underneath the planet's surface instead of exploring space.
2. Re:Why go to another gravity well? by KillAllNazis · 2014-06-04 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  If we could digitize our consciousness it would simplify space exploration a lot.
3. Re:Why go to another gravity well? by geekoid · 2014-06-04 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  Because we need resources, and we can get those resource from asteroids. Also, we need to expand for the survival of the species.
  Ironically the tech to make what you speculate to happen will only come about as a spin off from space exploration.
  People in VR? we need to put them some place, we need them to be able to be still for large amounts of time, we need complete automated systems, and so on.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
4. Re:Why go to another gravity well? by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-06-04 11:58 · Score: 1
  
  There's no reason to go to the bottom of another gravity well. We should be travelling to, learn from, and eventually exploit the asteroids. It makes more sense for the long term viability of the human race.
  There are ALL KINDS of legitimate reasons to go to the bottom of another gravity well. Especially the Moon's.
  
  If we can figure out efficient ways to extract them, resources such as minerals, and even oxygen, are abundant. Moon rocks have lots of oxygen... and why do you think Mars is red?
  
  But perhaps more to the point: we have learned that construction in microgravity is intolerably slow and tedious. Precisely because there is no gravity. BUT... in a shallow gravity well, such as Mars and even more so the Moon, most of those problems go away. And so does the difficulty of launching from a deeper gravity well.
  
  So if we ever DO manage to harness resources from space, where should they go to maximize further space exploration? Very obviously to Mars, or to the Moon. Anything else would be just dumb.
5. Re:Why go to another gravity well? by CRCulver · 2014-06-04 12:09 · Score: 1
  
  Because we need resources
  
  A trans-human society may be able to make do with the resources available on Earth. Assuming technology exists to transmute materials, the only thing needed is more energy, and research in fusion is going ahead regardless of the scaling back of space exploration. Even if we went up into orbit to create a system of beamed solar power as is often discussed, that's not the same as moving into space.
  
  Ironically the tech to make what you speculate to happen will only come about as a spin off from space exploration.
  
  What tech? Again, while automated asteroid defenses would necessitate putting some technology into orbit, that is not the same as exploring the solar system. The rapid technological advances of our time are moving ahead just fine without a new space race.
6. Re:Why go to another gravity well? by khallow · 2014-06-04 13:00 · Score: 1
  
  But perhaps more to the point: we have learned that construction in microgravity is intolerably slow and tedious.
  No, we haven't learned that at all. And construction on Earth is tedious too. I suppose stuff can some day magically build itself overnight. But in that case, it'd be able to do that in space as well.
  
  So if we ever DO manage to harness resources from space, where should they go to maximize further space exploration?
  Earth orbit is a more obvious location.
7. Re:Why go to another gravity well? by LifesABeach · 2014-06-04 13:06 · Score: 1
  
  I think I can debate this on point. Why is looking a ball of ice, and nickel more significant than a colony on the Moon? Why not put a telescope on the Moon? Why not pick up the H3 that is litteraly on the ground there and use it for Fusion technologies? ISS works, now put one around the moon, an on the surface of the moon. If you're interested in a Trillion dollar business model, sell Senior Living on the moon, where ones weight is about an eighth, and less phyical demands on an aging angry Tea Party member. That alone should cause whole economies to look upward with hope, and some change.
8. Re:Why go to another gravity well? by techno-vampire · 2014-06-04 13:37 · Score: 1
  
  There's another excellent reason for a Moon colony: we can learn how to build, maintain and live in an environment where there's little or no atmosphere and is close enough to Earth that extra supplies can be shipped there on fairly short notice. Once we know how to build a self-sufficient lunar colony, we can use what we've learned there on Mars, the largest asteroids and possibly some of the Jovian or Saturnian moons.
  
  --
  Good, inexpensive web hosting
9. Re:Why go to another gravity well? by CanadianMacFan · 2014-06-04 14:37 · Score: 2
  
  Don't worry if we wait long enough an asteroid or two will come to us. :)
10. Re:Why go to another gravity well? by flyingsquid · 2014-06-04 23:02 · Score: 2
  
  Because we need resources, and we can get those resource from asteroids.
  
  Let's do the math. Lets say we re can re-equip the Curiosity rover and send it to an asteroid, asteroid 1981 Midas, to mine metal. We luck out, and after scraping off some cometary debris, it turns out that 1981 Midas is SOLID GOLD! Just we assumed it would be, based on the name. The rover then initiates its grizzled 1849 gold prospector protocol and jumps up and down whooping and yelling like crazy. Now it starts mining. How long before it turns a profit, in our scenario- which is at best very unrealistic but doesn't actually violate any laws of physics? The Curiosity rover cost about 2.5 billion dollars. Assuming our prospector rover costs the same, and assuming a gold price of $1250 / pound, it will need to mine two million pounds of gold- a thousand tons, a thousand times its own weight- to break even. That's ignoring the fact that mining metals is far beyond the capabilities of current space probes. That's ignoring that we have no easy way to get a thousand tons of gold back to earth. That's ignoring the fact that 2 million pounds is roughly equivalent to the entire world gold production, so you're going to depress the price and have to mine even more to break even, depressing the price further, putting the price of gold into a downward spiral.
  Even a back-of-the-envelope calculation tells us that to mine anything from space, either (a) the cost of getting things to orbit and moving things through the solar system has to come down by orders of magnitude, (b) the price of the stuff being mined has to be very, very high- we're talking about gold, platinum, or Unobtanium, or (c) both. Anything you want for an asteroid, you can get cheaper right here on earth, because you don't need to travel to space and back. Dig deeper mines. Go to some godforsaken place like Alaska or Afghanistan. Develop undersea mining. And even if some substance, like gold, ever did become scarce on earth, it would be cheaper to develop substitutes or technologies that didn't depend on gold, or to improve recycling of resources, than to go into space for gold. Another way of looking at things: to send something into space requires an expensive machine sitting on top of an expensive rocket, supported by a small army of scientists, technicians, and aerospace contractors. Whatever you bring back has to be more valuable than everything you expended getting there. Right now, there's nothing in the known universe whose economic cost will justify the expense of going out and getting it.
11. Re:Why go to another gravity well? by bruce_the_loon · 2014-06-04 23:22 · Score: 1
  
  I, for one, would happily spend 2.5 billion dollars to destroy the gold fetish.
  
  --
  Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
12. Re:Why go to another gravity well? by AmiMoJo · 2014-06-05 00:41 · Score: 1
  
  Not being dependent on one planet, and ultimately on one sun, makes a lot of sense for the long term viability of the human race.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
13. Re:Why go to another gravity well? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-05 01:07 · Score: 0
  
  Because obviously, we need to stay on Earth because we have extinction solved, have successfully averted asteroids to date, and need to keep financing gladitorial games with as many tax dollars as possible. Moron.
14. Re:Why go to another gravity well? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-05 01:10 · Score: 0
  
  That's $1,250 an OUNCE dumbass. Not pound. You're a factor of 16 off. P.S. If osmodium and platinum can be mined in space, conduct the fusion experiments in space. Duh!
15. Re:Why go to another gravity well? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-05 03:52 · Score: 0
  
  assuming a gold price of $1250 / pound
  I think you mean per troy ounce.
16. Re:Why go to another gravity well? by ubergeek2009 · 2014-06-05 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  I"m not suggesting that we stay Earthbound. I'm suggesting that we don't land on another planet. The asteroids will have most, if not all of the available resources on planets with the added benefit of not sitting at the bottom of a gravity well. Getting out of and returning to the gravity well is the most costly and most dangerous part of any space mission. If we can get out to the asteroid belt then travel to and from nearby asteroids will be cheap if we use ion drives or VASMIR engines. Additionally sending raw materials to anywhere in the solar system would be cheap with the great giant Jupiter sitting nearby to give us gravity assists. The only problems left are health related. We'll need radiation shielding which would be available either by digging into an asteroid or layering materials on the exterior of stations. Then comes the issue of needing a downward force to prevent atrophy. We can spin up an asteroid or a space station to solve that problem.
17. Re:Why go to another gravity well? by Shadowmist · 2014-06-05 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  Because we need resources, and we can get those resource from asteroids. Also, we need to expand for the survival of the species.
  Ironically the tech to make what you speculate to happen will only come about as a spin off from space exploration. People in VR? we need to put them some place, we need them to be able to be still for large amounts of time, we need complete automated systems, and so on.
  Technical spinoffs occur when you have any major effort in research and applied technology. There's a popular myth that the space program is the major, perhaps only source of "spinoffs". That's simply not true.
18. Re:Why go to another gravity well? by david_thornley · 2014-06-05 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  Factor of 12 off, actually, but the pounds are different. In countries like the US, precious metals like gold, silver, and platinum use different (Troy) pounds and ounces*, in contrast to more backward countries that use grams and kilograms to measure everything to avoid confusion.. Damn AC probably doesn't even know how many Troy pounds are in a firkin of gold.
  *The common unit between Troy and avoirdupois is that widely-used unit, the grain.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
19. Re:Why go to another gravity well? by david_thornley · 2014-06-05 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  I still think we should start somewhere more hospitable, like Antarctica.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
20. Re:Why go to another gravity well? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-05 11:00 · Score: 0
  
  First we need to build self sustained colony on earth, under the water or in a cave, I am sure we can learn a lot from it.
NRC by Fallen+Kell · 2014-06-04 11:15 · Score: 2

Am I the only one that saw NRC and was wondering why in the world was the Nuclear Regulator Commission talking about human spaceflight?

--
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
1. Re:NRC by SumDog · 2014-06-04 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  YES! That's exactly what I thought (my dad worked in nuclear power for my entire life, and one of my good friends works for the NRC)
2. Re:NRC by oldhack · 2014-06-04 11:31 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I thought maybe they were considering nuking them astronauts from Earth to Mars. You know, just to be sure.
  
  --
  Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
B U T by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-04 11:18 · Score: 0

It can spend billions trying anyway.
get your ass to Mars by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-04 11:18 · Score: 0

get your ass to Marsget your ass to Marsget your ass to Marsget your ass to Marsget your ass to Marsget your ass to Marsget your ass to Marsget your ass to Marsget your ass to Marsget your ass to Marsget your ass to Marsget your ass to Marsget your ass to Marsget your ass to Marsget your ass to Marsget your ass to Marsget your ass to Marsget your ass to Mars
Lameness filter encountered.
Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition.
Simple Solution by l0ungeb0y · 2014-06-04 11:19 · Score: 1, Insightful

Militarize NASA and make the liberation of the Solar System from the enemies of FREEDOM priorities of National Security. At that point Congress will be tripping over themselves put the US an additional 15 Trillion in debt in order to invade Mars and install a puppet dictatorship that is friendly to US and Israeli interests.
1. Re:Simple Solution by SumDog · 2014-06-04 11:25 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  If one rover discovered a massive reserved of oil on mars, we would be there yesterday.
2. Re:Simple Solution by Narcocide · 2014-06-04 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  Along these lines of thinking, all someone would need to do is convince the government that there is a drug trade or nuclear refinement program going on on Mars, and the money to get there would materialize nearly instantly.
3. Re:Simple Solution by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-04 11:43 · Score: 0
  
  Militarize NASA and ...
  That's the problem, not the solution. NASA has always been a branch of the military. This administration is taking all available cash to fund socialized medicine and green energy.
4. Re: Simple Solution by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-04 12:09 · Score: 0
  
  There's a massive natural gas reservoir on Titan. Let's go there.
5. Re:Simple Solution by LifesABeach · 2014-06-04 13:09 · Score: 1
  
  I believe that Chevron already has the oil rights, they're just waiting until oil is $10,000 a barrel. Maybe in 6 years from now.
6. Re:Simple Solution by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-04 17:55 · Score: 0
  
  We've discovered massive oil reserves on Titan. Literal oceans of the stuff. So why weren't we there yesterday? Oh yeah, it's because you are a product of the US education system and are incapable of critical though. Carry on with your tired memes, it's likely all you'll have in life.
Snagging an asteroid is cooler anyway! by Dr.+Spork · 2014-06-04 11:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

Seriously, forget Mars. It's like Utah, but cold, and even more boring. We know Mars.
Now, rearranging big chunks of our solar system to get our grubby hand on some sweet sweet platinum, that's the sort of crazy shit that our parents hoped we'd be doing by now. In any case, that's what we should be doing, imo.
1. Re:Snagging an asteroid is cooler anyway! by joe_frisch · 2014-06-04 11:49 · Score: 1
  
  Its not really an "asteroid", its a rock and not a very big one. We are talking about moving something the size of your living room, not a dinosaur-killer certainly not Ceres. . We have lots of fragments from meteors already.
  Its OK, but it seems like a lot of work to move the entire rock here rather than just collect interesting samples and bring them back.
  As the article said, it doesn't seem to really develop much interesting technology.
  There is some Pt in asteroids, but no where near enough to pay for this type of effort.
2. Re:Snagging an asteroid is cooler anyway! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-04 11:56 · Score: 0
  
  Why is it important what your parents thought? In the 19th century your parents would have thought of bigger and better steam locomotives.
  It's a stunning lack of imagination and insight to cling to the delusions of your parents.
3. Re:Snagging an asteroid is cooler anyway! by geekoid · 2014-06-04 12:00 · Score: 1
  
  "We know Mars."
  no we don't.
  "sweet sweet platinum,"
  I agree, but lets not forget it would loose value as a commodity immediately after bring one of these back. So it needs to be a government mission
  And it's not that crazy and completely do able. In fact we should do a few, some to gather resource for earth, and others to gather resource for mars.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
4. Re:Snagging an asteroid is cooler anyway! by geekoid · 2014-06-04 12:03 · Score: 1
  
  It develops the a lot of tech. Creating a machine that has to make decisions and course correcting the 3d is a great challenge. Plus, we learn how to do it better so we can move up to big rocks.
  The more we understand that, them better a solution we will \have when a big one is headed are way.
  "There is some Pt in asteroids, but no where near enough to pay for this type of effort."
  and there never will be. they more you get, the bigger the drop in value. Still, there is a lot of use for platinum, so it being cheap is a good thing for industry.(except Pt commodity people, but too damn bad)
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
5. Re:Snagging an asteroid is cooler anyway! by LifesABeach · 2014-06-04 13:11 · Score: 1
  
  Well, maybe not as boring. The drinking laws on Mars are more favorable to exploration.
6. Re:Snagging an asteroid is cooler anyway! by the+eric+conspiracy · 2014-06-04 14:08 · Score: 1
  
  All it needs is some greehouse gases.
  As Elon Musk noted it's a fixer-upper planet.
7. Re:Snagging an asteroid is cooler anyway! by Tablizer · 2014-06-04 15:46 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously, forget Mars. It's like Utah, but cold, and even more boring.
  Hell no! On Mars you can drink on Sundays.
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
8. Re:Snagging an asteroid is cooler anyway! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-04 16:30 · Score: 0
  
  Seriously, forget Mars. It's like Utah, but cold, and even more boring.
  Our ship went off course, landing in Utah. The Mormons greeted us a Kolobians.
Humans unnecessary by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-04 11:22 · Score: 0

Currently there is no real reason to be sending humans to Mars, especially considering the cost. Robots can do the same job at vastly cheaper rates.
This is a America, we believe in capitalism, what we really need to be doing is figuring out a way to commercialize the area beyond LEO and Geosynchronous orbit. Asteroid mining is probably the best bet there, so it seems like NASA is probably on the right track.
1. Re:Humans unnecessary by The+New+Guy+2.0 · 2014-06-04 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  While Mars data is currently interesting... why are we still gathering the data and what does it lead to? A new human habitat, or habitat for anything that exists on Earth doesn't work.
2. Re:Humans unnecessary by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-04 12:54 · Score: 0
  
  There's no real reason to mine asteroids either, bud. It's a non-starter.
3. Re:Humans unnecessary by LifesABeach · 2014-06-04 13:13 · Score: 1
  
  And this is based on your personal observations?
Just give the NASA budget to Elon Musk by Ecuador · 2014-06-04 11:23 · Score: 1

or his clone and watch it produce 100x the results it would otherwise. Ok, if you can't how about diverting a little of the defense budget to NASA? Just 1% is enough. It will still be rather wasted compared to what the likes of SpaceX could do, but compared to the complete waste of warfare it is still great...

--
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
1. Re:Just give the NASA budget to Elon Musk by Kardos · 2014-06-04 11:27 · Score: 2
  
  SpaceX doesn't have the R&D hurdle that NASA had to achieve LEO. SpaceX first to mars? That seems unlikely. Perhaps if we gave them a sustained budget comparable to mid-60s NASA levels for a couple decades. Or, we could just fund NASA, they are quite competent.
2. Re:Just give the NASA budget to Elon Musk by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-04 11:50 · Score: 0
  
  You'll notice that Tesla and SpaceX build everything themselves from the ground up. For example, when most other companies at most copy old Soviet rocket engines (or just refurbish existing stock), SpaceX built their own very competitive engine, which is not a knock-off of a 60's engine model. Same with Tesla, after building their first car on a Lotus chassis, they built everything for their second gen, from engine to driving train, to battery controller they made a lot of advancements in the way. SpaceX first to mars does not sound like a bad bet. No, they would not need mid-60s NASA budget, but NASA would need that to get there first.
3. Re:Just give the NASA budget to Elon Musk by geekoid · 2014-06-04 12:06 · Score: 1
  
  So you think 177 million is enough for Elon Musk to get people to mars?
  Please, Elon Musk hasn't done anything that hasn't been done before.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
4. Re:Just give the NASA budget to Elon Musk by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-04 12:13 · Score: 0
  
  Or you could write him a check yourself. Free market, dude!
5. Re: Just give the NASA budget to Elon Musk by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-04 12:42 · Score: 1
  
  SpaceX and NASA are not in competition. NASA pays SpaceX to move stuff up to the ISS, just like they'll be more than happy to for Mars. The issue is NASA doesn't have enough money to pay SpaceX (or lockheed etc.) to go to Mars.
  SpaceX has done well with LEO launches because that's a 50 year old problem. Ferrying people to mars is a new problem that SpaceX doesn't currently have a business model for that can make a profit.
  People have this strange idea that NASA hates private businesses and doesn't want to compete with them, when in fact they've been contracting with private firms (Lockheed, Northrup Grumman, etc.) since the Apollo days.
6. Re:Just give the NASA budget to Elon Musk by khallow · 2014-06-04 13:03 · Score: 1
  
  Or, we could just fund NASA, they are quite competent.
  Yea, their successor to the Space Shuttle is quite the amazing vehicle, especially for being made of paper.
7. Re:Just give the NASA budget to Elon Musk by khallow · 2014-06-04 13:05 · Score: 1
  
  So you really think that 17.7 billion is enough for NASA to fly anyone to Mars? Seriously?
8. Re:Just give the NASA budget to Elon Musk by the+eric+conspiracy · 2014-06-04 14:14 · Score: 1
  
  NASA to Mars under any circumstances seems unlikely. They haven't made any progress since what 1969?
  Give the money to Musk. NASA and their contractors are mostly a pile of bureaucrats milking the public teat.
9. Re:Just give the NASA budget to Elon Musk by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-04 14:46 · Score: 0
  
  I am sure that 100x was an exaggeration, but it is more than 10x+ if you think about it: 17 billion/year on NASA won't get us to Mars, but just 1.7 billion/year to SpaceX would probably get us there in a decade or two.
10. Re:Just give the NASA budget to Elon Musk by Earthquake+Retrofit · 2014-06-04 14:47 · Score: 1
  
  I'm going to go out on a limb and say we will NEVER be able to explore/exploit/colonize space unless we do away with war. It's dangerous out there. Very dangerous. Even just a fistfight in the ISS could destroy the whole thing.
  Steve
  
  --
  Fifty years of Yippie! 1968-2018
11. Re: Just give the NASA budget to Elon Musk by khallow · 2014-06-04 15:07 · Score: 1
  
  People have this strange idea that NASA hates private businesses and doesn't want to compete with them,
  This "strange idea" is called "experience". For example, prior to the days of contracting with private firms for launch services, it was illegal for US payloads to go up on anything other than a Shuttle. Even afterward, NASA would still price their launches well below cost. NASA isn't the only cause of such problems (for example, the aerospace businesses are not above using US regulation and bogus safety concerns to mess each other up), but they haven't helped.
  
  SpaceX has done well with LEO launches because that's a 50 year old problem.
  No, SpaceX has done well because they have a very good solution to that 50 year old problem. NASA doesn't have and never had a good solution that same problem.
12. Re: Just give the NASA budget to Elon Musk by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-04 18:08 · Score: 0
  
  Yes. SpaceX is a classic example of privatising profits and socialising costs. All the tech was essentially hard won through government spending, 'big science', and 'big engineering'. The efficiencies of privatisation are religious dogma, not borne out in fact. It's the tragedy of the commons, over and over again.
13. Re: Just give the NASA budget to Elon Musk by khallow · 2014-06-04 20:28 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. SpaceX is a classic example of privatising profits and socialising costs.
  And your post is a good example of speaking before thinking.
  
  All the tech was essentially hard won through government spending, 'big science', and 'big engineering'.
  
  We don't have to take an anonymous coward's word for it. When NASA studied what SpaceX had done through November 2010, including access to SpaceX's internal records, and asked "How much would it have cost?" for NASA to contract out the same effort (here, developing the Falcon 9 and two initial launches of that platform, plus development of several rocket engines), they found that they would have required a contract of almost $4 billion dollars (revising it to $1.4 billion after access to internal SpaceX information) while SpaceX actually did it for $300 million.
  
  It is NASA's own determination that they would have taken at least ten times as much money (not counting cost overruns!) by the usual means that NASA employs (contracts of cost plus fees) to match the feat of SpaceX's development of Falcon 9. That's the facts which you ought to learn about.
  
  The real tragedy of the commons here is that we continue to burn huge sums of public money in known, deeply flawed approaches to doing anything. SpaceX didn't "privatize profits and socialize costs" here. It make gold out of stuff that the US had discarded and ignored. SpaceX made somewhat more useful those many decades of vast squandering of resources and people.
14. Re:Just give the NASA budget to Elon Musk by khallow · 2014-06-04 21:12 · Score: 1
  
  Rereading your post, I realize that you are actually claiming that SpaceX would be unable to get to Mars on $177 million per year indefinitely given to them just for that purpose. That's a lot of money for a company that developed their current launch workhorse, the Falcon 9 from scratch for a bit under two years of such funding.
15. Re:Just give the NASA budget to Elon Musk by rioki · 2014-06-04 21:41 · Score: 1
  
  You mean like a powered landing? Ok that thing is a prototype, but it looks like it will be in service within this decade. Elon Musk is a genius when it comes to reducing operational costs. Sure they build on top of existing technologies, but they have surpassed them and are stepping into unknown territory. With the combination of the Dragon 2 and the grasshopper we may see launch vehicles and space ships that are fully reusable, similar to how planes are today. Refuel them, maybe spay on a new layer to the heat shield and off you go again.
16. Re:Just give the NASA budget to Elon Musk by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-05 01:18 · Score: 0
  
  Then I suggest you start murdering everyone. Next!
17. Re: Just give the NASA budget to Elon Musk by NotSanguine · 2014-06-05 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. SpaceX is a classic example of privatising profits and socialising costs.
  And your post is a good example of speaking before thinking.
  Err...No. What OP meant was that all the R&D done by and for NASA from 1945 through 2006 or so gave SpaceX the knowledge, technology and expertise to improve the exercise of going to LEO. I am going to assume you didn't realize that, rather than assume that you are an idiot. That may be a mistake, but that happens sometimes.
  
  --
  No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
18. Re: Just give the NASA budget to Elon Musk by khallow · 2014-06-05 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  What OP meant was that all the R&D done by and for NASA from 1945 through 2006 or so gave SpaceX the knowledge, technology and expertise to improve the exercise of going to LEO.
  And we're all dumber for him saying that. I realize that the trillion dollars or so squandered by NASA and similar projects is an impressive sunk cost. But we can still choose to recognize that just because a lot of money was spent, doesn't mean that the result is a significant contribution to the modern world or to SpaceX in particular.
  
  The problem here is that as some people have noted elsewhere, this is a fifty year old problem. But it's a fifty year problem with almost no progress made by NASA over that entire period. All that money, effort, and fancy vehicle development just didn't help.
  
  SpaceX has taken that remarkably weak start and turned it into a viable business. But rather than recognize their efforts, I see a variation of the "spinoff" myth. NASA money taints the history of research of rocketry and hence, it's all due to NASA. There's a meatball in the woodpile.
19. Re:Just give the NASA budget to Elon Musk by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-05 03:48 · Score: 0
  
  Yea, their successor to the Space Shuttle is quite the amazing vehicle, especially for being made of paper.
  The Space Shuttle was a huge waster of resources. We don't need to send humans to space at all. We don't need astronauts pretending to fly a rocket, except for PR. I'd argue a theoretical successor to the Space Shuttle that is never built is a vast improvement. However, it won't get the votes because there's no pork in that.
20. Re: Just give the NASA budget to Elon Musk by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-05 05:14 · Score: 0
  
  The depth of your moronic answer makes me wish I hadn't used my mod points up.
21. Re:Just give the NASA budget to Elon Musk by david_thornley · 2014-06-05 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  NASA needs to get out of the rocket and spacecraft business. Either that, or Congress needs to give them some money and let them do something intelligent with it. Or an advanced alien race needs to come by and give us the technology. Of those three possibilities, I rate the first as likeliest, and the second as least likely.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
22. Re: Just give the NASA budget to Elon Musk by david_thornley · 2014-06-05 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  That's what the OP meant. What the OP failed to explain is how this is different from other industries, which also draw on publicly funded basic research and early technological development.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
23. Re:Just give the NASA budget to Elon Musk by khallow · 2014-06-05 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  We don't need to send humans to space at all.
  That all depends on what "we" need. From a different viewpoint, we don't need anything including the resources for existence.
  
  However, if among your "needs" is a want for people to be permanently living in space, then we do need to send humans into space in order for that to happen.
  
  I'd argue a theoretical successor to the Space Shuttle that is never built is a vast improvement.
  That's what has happened so far. I don't think SLS will break that trend either.
ice cream sandwich in my anus by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-04 11:23 · Score: 0

i'd have sex with a johnny cab character
get your ass to Mars get your ass to Mars get your ass to Mars get your ass to Mars get your ass to Mars get your ass to Mars get your ass to Mars get your ass to Mars get your ass to Mars
You are not logged in. You can log in now using the convenient form below, or create an account, or post as Anonymous Coward.
1. Re:ice cream sandwich in my anus by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-04 11:46 · Score: 0
  
  That's cool I'd take the chick with three boobs.
2. Re:ice cream sandwich in my anus by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-04 13:44 · Score: 0
  
  That's her belly Beavis.
Late-breaking news: PATHWAYS TO VICTORY! by Tackhead · 2014-06-04 11:44 · Score: 4, Funny

It doesn't work to do this with a democratic government. We need a monarchy :-(
Or perhaps a font of sage wisdom? You know, like a Council? Composed of wise people, you know, like one's Elders? Something any sentient species ought to be able to figure out. Speaking of which, I feel another press release coming on...
K'Breel, Speaker for the Council, addresses the publication of the new report thusly:
"WE HAVE TRIUMPHED! Our skilled operatives from the Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Propaganda; Planetary Research Council have successfully infiltrated the blueworlders' technological and informational systems. One notable document, Pathways to Exploration makes clear the disarray in which the blueworlders' long-term invasion plans lie, drawing on the history of meat-controlled spaceflight to justify future programs in organic space exploitation. Although the report promotes the invasion of our world as the horizon goal for the program, it takes into account funding levels necessary to maintain a robust tempo of execution, current research and exploration projects and the time/resources needed to continue them, and intertribal cooperation that would be required to further oppress the citizens of our fair red world."
"And its conclusion? Although the mechanized threat remains, and we salute those still fighting pitched battles with the two active land-based invaders, Pathways to Exploration makes it clear that it is not possible for the blueworlders' organic-based self-replicators to invade our world, at least not without a sustained commitment to funding at a higher level than their own tribal leaders are currently providing."
When an intern from the defense engineering board suggested that improving the capabilities of the blueworlders' EDL systems, radshielding, and propulsion and power systems were ultimately matters of engineering and not physics, and could ultimately be addressed if the tribals of the blue world ever get it into their oxygen-addled brains to work together to achieve a common goal (as, the intern suggested, the way any sentient species does), K'Breel had the intern's gelsacs addled by immersing them in a suitably-merciful quantity of liquid oxygen.
Thus spake K'Breel, Speaker for the Council of Elders, Committee on Native Spaceflight; Arenautics and Defense Engineering Board; Defense Studies Board; Division of Blueworlder Social and Physical Sciences; Committee on Gelsacular Statistics.
Slightly misleading.... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-04 11:46 · Score: 0

They suggested 3 roadmaps to mars, one of which included the ARM roadmap currently being pursued. The other 2 roadmaps add a few other goals to mars, one is a lagrange outpost and another is a moon base, with additional goals of possible bases on demos of phobos.
The undertone is we should be pursuing all 3 roadmaps if we want a successful/reasonably sustainable mars base to work. Not that one roadmap is better than the other.
Maybe they'll get some traction... by confused+one · 2014-06-04 11:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm glad the National Research Council has published this... maybe now it will get some traction. Having said that, it does not take a rocket scientist to see that the program is underfunded and will not be able to meet any of its goals. Frankly, this is true of not just NASA, but science in general. Too many in Congress talk about the importance of STEM; but, when push comes to shove are unwilling to fund R&D and large scale engineering programs.
1. Re:Maybe they'll get some traction... by khallow · 2014-06-04 21:14 · Score: 1
  
  There's huge sums shoveled at STEM today. It's not funding that's the problem here, but the remarkably poor returns on that funding.
2. Re:Maybe they'll get some traction... by NotSanguine · 2014-06-05 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  There's huge sums shoveled at STEM today. It's not funding that's the problem here, but the remarkably poor returns on that funding.
  Eh, not so much. US Science Funding only represents 20% (~$90 Billion) of total R&D (~$450 Billion) in the US. That means that government spending on R&D is only 0.56% of US GDP
  .
  
  --
  No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
3. Re:Maybe they'll get some traction... by khallow · 2014-06-05 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  Which is a lot of money. Savvy?
  
  My view is that by putting that money through public funding, we drop its effectiveness by at least a factor of ten. It's like burning $80 billion each year.
Kickstarter? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-04 11:51 · Score: 0

maybe NASA needs to do a kickstarter?
1. Re:Kickstarter? by agm · 2014-06-04 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  Funding NASA by voluntary payment instead of compulsion is the only ethical way.
2. Re:Kickstarter? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-05 05:22 · Score: 0
  
  Simply cancel all tax breaks for sports teams. Seriously, why do billion dollar businesses need tax breaks?
Ok, maybe not the whole human ... by Krishnoid · 2014-06-04 11:53 · Score: 2

Maybe they could just get a donkey to Mars?
1. Re:Ok, maybe not the whole human ... by LifesABeach · 2014-06-04 13:23 · Score: 1
  
  I'm thinking of the use of mice, and or rats. Just to see what's in store for humanities future?
Currently there are too many distractions by mrflash818 · 2014-06-04 11:58 · Score: 4, Interesting

I do not think humans will get into expanding our civilization past Earth's atmosphere until there is a single global government. Currently the nation-states divert too many resources against each other (arms, trade wars), that instead could be used into expanding us beyond Earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K...

--
Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
1. Re:Currently there are too many distractions by LifesABeach · 2014-06-04 13:25 · Score: 2
  
  The "Space Race" between the USSR, and USA would be a difinitive choke point to your logic. But a world government would be useful for Parking tickets.
2. Re:Currently there are too many distractions by khallow · 2014-06-04 15:10 · Score: 1
  
  I do not think humans will get into expanding our civilization past Earth's atmosphere until there is a single global government. Currently the nation-states divert too many resources against each other (arms, trade wars), that instead could be used into expanding us beyond Earth.
  That point of view only makes sense, if governments are the only source of industry and innovation. They aren't.
3. Re:Currently there are too many distractions by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-04 16:02 · Score: 0
  
  I do not think humans will get into expanding our civilization past Earth's atmosphere until there is a single global government.
  
  Because a single world government would never be co-opted by corporations, lobbyists or power-hungry groups or individuals like our current nation-states are.
4. Re:Currently there are too many distractions by DNS-and-BIND · 2014-06-04 16:38 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Ah, yes, one world government. Because there isn't nearly enough tyranny on this planet already. Surely, a global government would concentrate resources on space and advancing the cause of humanity instead of large-scale theft for their own tribe and armed response to anyone who disagreed.
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
5. Re:Currently there are too many distractions by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-05 02:48 · Score: 0
  
  Any rational world government would outright ban space exploration as a huge waste of resources.
6. Re:Currently there are too many distractions by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-05 07:03 · Score: 0
  
  Because they need the gravity well to enslave and exploit people to the fullest extent.
Why should we care? by SoftwareArtist · 2014-06-04 12:11 · Score: 4, Interesting

Why is sending humans to Mars supposed to be such a great thing? It's incredibly expensive, incredibly dangerous, and doesn't accomplish much of anything useful. Once you've sent them, the next trip will be almost as expensive as the first one.
I'm much more interested in building up a meaningful, sustainable space program. That means building up an industrial base in space. We need to be able to manufacture things in space out of raw materials that were mined in space. That's the only way that human space travel will ever be economically sustainable. So that asteroid mission sounds like exactly the right approach to be taking.

--
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
1. Re:Why should we care? by slew · 2014-06-04 12:37 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Why is sending humans to Mars supposed to be such a great thing? It's incredibly expensive, incredibly dangerous, and doesn't accomplish much of anything useful. Once you've sent them, the next trip will be almost as expensive as the first one.
  Well, since you asked...
  
  "Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation may never come again. But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas? We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."
  Of course if the challenge of sending humans to Mars is something we are unwilling to accept, or willing to postpone, or intend to lose...
  Industrializing space may sound like a meaningful thing, but industrializing areas of our own earth hasn't been the most ecological of pursuits. Nothing like the chants of "drill-baby-drill" being replaced by "launch-and-mine-baby-launch-and-mine"... It seems like it was also meaningful thing Yellowstone was the first national park, although I'm sure there's someone out that could make an argument that exploiting sustainable geo-thermal energy in old-faithful will help build up our oil independence...
2. Re:Why should we care? by Dzimas · 2014-06-04 12:57 · Score: 1
  
  A politician's speech is the best you can come up with to explain why we need to reach Mars? Oh, my. JFK was all hot and bothered to reach the moon because it would upstage the Soviets, not because it was a noble or even sensible endeavor. There are a number of good reasons why a mission to mars would be desirable: (1) it requires the development of long-range manned spacecraft, (2) it gets us out of low earth orbit, (3) (in the long term) it encourages the development of new forms of long-range propulsion and an important emphasis on interplanetary life support systems. I could scrawl down a few dozen more, but the *important* bit is that it encourages us to make tentative steps into the larger solar system. And -- once we can reach other planets and moons -- perhaps there's an economic opportunity to be found that drives further advances.
3. Re:Why should we care? by LifesABeach · 2014-06-04 13:28 · Score: 1
  
  Good point, but after a few moments of considering to your logic; "Where do I sign up to be the first to go?"
4. Re:Why should we care? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-04 13:56 · Score: 0
  
  Seriously? The answer is why not? Comments are such a joke when it comes to space topics. Can't you say anything meaningful? What's NASA's take? If they don't want to unless there are good SCIENTIFIC reasons to do so, would you be open to replacing them with one that takes needless risks to help idiots live their fantasies? If they don't want to do it, someone else will have to. Tough titties, move on. BTW NASA plans to have capabilities to begin leaving the solar system in about 100 years. Is that why you're so feverish to do dumb things now? Because you just want to live to see it?
5. Re:Why should we care? by khallow · 2014-06-04 15:14 · Score: 1
  
  Industrializing space may sound like a meaningful thing, but industrializing areas of our own earth hasn't been the most ecological of pursuits.
  OTOH, what sounds to me to be a particularly meaningless thing is ecologizing sterile space. Completely taking apart an asteroid for its resources is just as ecological as leaving it alone.
6. Re:Why should we care? by SoftwareArtist · 2014-06-04 15:46 · Score: 1
  
  (2) it gets us out of low earth orbit
  But that's exactly the problem: it doesn't get us out of low earth orbit. Or rather, it gets precisely one ship out of low earth orbit, but the next one we send out will have to start all over from ground level. Sending anything from the earth's surface into space is incredibly expensive. As long as we have to rely on that, we will never be able to do more than a handful of one-off missions involving a handful of people.
  I want to see humans colonizing space. I want to see permanent habitats where people live for years at a time. And not just a few people, but millions. Sending a few people to Mars doesn't get us closer to that. Developing asteroid mining facilities does get us closer.
  
  --
  "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
7. Re:Why should we care? by slew · 2014-06-04 18:19 · Score: 1
  
  FWIW, Ecology isn't just "fuzzy" animals and although space is not likely to be completely sterile (e.g., space faring bacteria diaspora?), you can still have ecological impact w/o native organizing. However, it could affect *our* future
  Say capturing an asteroid and mining it isn't going to kill and fuzzy animals, but there is likely going to be unexpected collateral pollution issues (e.g, space debris in orbit of the moon, etc). Nascent industrial operations often ignore any such collateral pollution issue (it's usually expensive to bootstrap operations, and since initial operations are small, people don't care as much and corners are cut).
  Once industrial operations gain inertia, they tend to resist reform measures until forced to by political pressure. Examples of this kind of crap are near my own backyard. During early silicon valley years, industrial solvents like TCE spilled into the soil by AMD and TRW resulted in a sub-surface toxic contaminated plume which became superfund site near a neighborhood elementary school (San Miguel).
  Okay, humans aren't likely to be living near asteroids captured for mining near the moon, but given that we've had direct experience with orbital pollution before (e.g., Project West Ford), we should at least think about pausing before releasing unrestrained industrial forces in an area...
8. Re:Why should we care? by khallow · 2014-06-04 20:38 · Score: 1
  
  Again, no ecological issues have been mentioned here.
  
  And there is no such thing as "unrestrained industrial forces" in space. Space treaty already constrains the activities you discuss. If debris from my mining operation wipes out your satellite, then I and my backing government are already financially responsible for that damage.
9. Re:Why should we care? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-05 01:40 · Score: 0
  
  A politician's speech is the best you can come up with to explain why we need to reach Mars?
  I suppose you missed the other 10k posts about adventure,extinction, technological advances, medical advances, etc. to follow the conversation. How about you stop masturbating to the NFL channel and think beyond your next beer pong party.
10. Re:Why should we care? by painandgreed · 2014-06-05 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  I'm much more interested in building up a meaningful, sustainable space program.
  Well, the thing is that we'll realistically need a meaningful sustainable space program to get to Mars. That's why we're not getting to Mars. The work ahead of us to have a successful mission to Mars currently means a lot more than just building a ship and going. The intervening steps pretty much require the space program you want. Nobody wants to pay for it, thus we're not going to Mars either.
Who said we should go to Mars? by fma · 2014-06-04 12:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

Setting up shop at a Lagrange point is a whole lot more interesting and likely profitable. Unless you really want little green men.

--
F=ma
1. Re:Who said we should go to Mars? by Shadowmist · 2014-06-05 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  Setting up shop at a Lagrange point is a whole lot more interesting and likely profitable. Unless you really want little green men.
  Profitable in what sense? What exactly is waiting to be mined at a Lagrange Point? It may be a good place to anchor a space telescope, but what beyond that?
2. Re:Who said we should go to Mars? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-05 09:41 · Score: 0
  
  Do we *really* have to spell it for you? Geez...
  
  1. Langrage point.
  2. ???????
  3. Profit!
Just build spaceships and forget "Muslim outreach" by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-04 12:24 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Charles Bolden
The Nasa administrator and astronaut in conversation with Al Jazeera's Imran Garda.

Mr Bolden said: "When I became the Nasa administrator, he [Mr Obama] charged me with three things.
"One, he wanted me to help reinspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering."

Oh, goodie. NASA's job under Obama - explore space? Nope, make " Muslim nations ... feel good".
Guess that explains why Obama traded five top Taliban leaders for one weasel deserter.
Why Sputnik? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-04 13:47 · Score: 0

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-schneider/why-sputnik_b_814967.html

President Obama was doing what politicians do all the time. He was trying to create a mood of crisis in the country. And for a reason: That's the only way we get things done.
A Damning Appraisal of NASA by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-04 14:27 · Score: 0

The NRC report is STUNNING in its damning of NASA and Washington D.C. group think and policy.
In essence the NRC report finds:
1) The chemists, engineers and physicists needed to design and build a Mission to Mars have not been born.
2) The educational system to educate the chemists, engineers and physicists needed does NOT exist now nor will in 30 years.
1. Re:A Damning Appraisal of NASA by khallow · 2014-06-04 21:20 · Score: 1
  
  I think we can solve problem 1 right now. I suggest having lots of sex. I'm sure someone here has worked out the necessary procedures.
  
  As to point 2, I believe we need to create and maintain an international network of education facilities - I'll call these "colleges" - to carry the educational load needed for your second imaginary problem.
2. Re:A Damning Appraisal of NASA by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-05 02:14 · Score: 0
  
  I think we can solve problem 1 right now. I suggest having lots of sex. I'm sure someone here has worked out the necessary procedures.
  Horrible idea. Having lots of (reproductive) sex is what 3rd worlders or 1st world welfare queens do. Those folks don't produce many scientists or engineers. They're more likely to be a net drain as they clog up the welfare and prison system.
  If you need kids to become scientists or engineers, there's plenty of kids here already in the US, and the world at large. Instead of having more kids, a better idea is to focus on helping the existing kids.
  Would they all become scientists or engineers? No, but if they stop becoming net drains on society (not clogging up the welfare and/or prison system) that would free up a lot of money to do other things, including pursue science and engineering.
3. Re:A Damning Appraisal of NASA by khallow · 2014-06-05 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  Well, the thing is, if your scientists and engineers haven't been born yet, then keeping them unborn is a huge obstacle to having them make that Mars mission work. Getting born is in the critical path here. I'm merely fixing the problems as they come.
4. Re:A Damning Appraisal of NASA by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-05 05:34 · Score: 0
  
  Well, the thing is, if your scientists and engineers haven't been born yet, then keeping them unborn is a huge obstacle to having them make that Mars mission work
  A bigger obstacle is being able to afford those kids.
  Another bigger obstacle is being able to provide the proper nurturing and education to those kids. We can't even do that for lots of kids that are already born.
Maybe you're right but... by EzInKy · 2014-06-04 17:08 · Score: 1

...to say we did it just to prove that we could is a pretty big motivator in itself. Suprisingly enough to the 1%, profit is not the only motivation in life.

--
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
If only ... by Taco+Cowboy · 2014-06-04 18:29 · Score: 2

If only we can divert the amount of money that is allocated to NSA for NASA ...
If only we do not have so many brainfucks in Washington D.C. ...
If only ...

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
1. Re:If only ... by Captain+Hook · 2014-06-04 22:23 · Score: 2
  
  The number of brainfucks in Washington could be turned to our advantage.
  We only need to introduce a single letter typo into a funding bill and for the brainfucks to not notice.
  
  --
  These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
Yeah, like THAT will go over with the taxpayers... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-04 20:25 · Score: 0

Presidential Candidate X: "I want to spend billions of dollars sending crews to orbit an imaginary mathematical point in space"
Interviewer: "Why? What's there?"
Candidate: "Well... nothing, really."
Interviewer: "No planet, no moon, no star, no rocks, no clouds, no aliens, ummmm nothing?"
Candidate: "Absolutely nothing. Nothing to examine, nothing to study, nothing to sample, nothing to see, nothing to bring home... just a black emptiness"
Interviewer: "I seeeee, well..... don't you THINK that money MIGHT be better spent feeding homeliss kids right here on Earth?"
Candidate: "Well, there's plenty of money for that too, but we NEED space. we benefit from all the spin-offs from the research we do there!"
Interviewer: "Ok, well what will we learn and what technology will we develop going to a mathematical spot in space where there is nothing?"
Candidate: "Let me get back to you after I fire my science advisor"
Those anti-science Republicans caused this by... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-04 20:49 · Score: 1

their crazy plan to give NASA more money than President Obama wants it to have. They just keep doing this over and over - it must be some sort of evil anti-sciency plot thingy. It's a magical Koch Brothers (TM) back-handed super-over-double-think TRICK to somehow destoy the Earth. EVERYBODY who gets Democrat talking points KNOWS to ignore reality and instead claim that Republicans HATE science or are too stupid to understand it, and Democrats like Barack Obama and Al Gore are geniuses who embrace and push to fund things like NASA as much as they can.
Extreme Sarcasm aside, however...
This would be NO PROBLEM if only President Obama would change his policies and get the US Economy working again. This has been the worst economic "recovery" in modern history. After President Obama took office and implemented his first budget (AFTER most job losses of the 2008 recession hit) the food stamp program was $40 Billion dollars per year. Obama has now doubled that to $80 Billion dollars per year (event though unemployment has NOT doubled since his 1st budget). NASA has an annual budget of under $20 Billion dollars. If Obama could simply get the economy to be as healthy as it was when he was sworn in (which was PRETTY BAD) he could reduce food stamps by $40 Billion per year and triple NASA's budget (making moon and Mars colonies quite affordable) without increasing the deficit or raising taxes. If he could actually run the economy BETTER than Bush, he could save even more from the extremely bloated social welfare programs that are eating the economy alive.
NASA's time has gone by jwhyche · 2014-06-05 01:23 · Score: 1

What I'm going to say will probably not be very popular but I believe that NASA is an organization that has out lived its usefulness. Back in the 50' and 60' when NASA was first formed it had a goal, to get us to the moon. An it did that goal very well.
But since then it hasn't really had a goal. It has had projects of which most of them it has pulled off spectacularly. The hunt for extra solar planets, probes to the outer planets, and rovers on Mars. But it hasn't had an organized goal for the whole organization. With out a clear and visible goal nobody cares. People lose interest, and without the people having interest congress starts looking for other places to send money.
I believe its time for NASA to be repuposed from a active research and exploration to a regulatory agency. Much like the FAA They set the regulations for safety in manned space craft like the FAA does. Nasa should also be in charge of tracking satellites and setting orbits for them.
Most of its former duties for space exploration could be handed over to private industry now. NASA could keep a small hand in exploration I believe but most of that could be handed over to private universities.

--
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Of course strategy can't get you to Mars... by nitehawk214 · 2014-06-05 01:28 · Score: 1

... you need rockets to get you to Mars.

--
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Any knows that NASA is just STUPID! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-05 01:30 · Score: 0

NASA needs to be buried. Just read the rubish that these fools are publishing and you can see that they are a group
of sorry ass fools that are in need of attention. They really need to get back to reality and stop smoking that Obama Gold Crack Cocaine!
"sweet sweet platinum," by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-05 02:05 · Score: 0

"sweet sweet platinum,"
I agree, but lets not forget it would loose value as a commodity immediately after bring one of these back. So it needs to be a government mission
I can't imagine QVC selling platinum rings for a large premium over regular platinum
Re:Yeah, like THAT will go over with the taxpayers by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-05 02:55 · Score: 0

Or Mars? You mean you want to let homeless kids suffer to send a few people to Mars where they can look around and say how much Mars looks like the most desolate and uninhabitable places on Earth? I don't think Mars is any better sell than a random point in space. Or the space station for that matter... I mean what the hell is it doing up there except proving the point again and again and again that .... umm ya we can send people into orbit for no good reason.
I support robotic space exploration, but human space exploration is dumb and extremely wasteful. Now find someplace with 72 degree temperatures, nice beaches and lots of arable land then we can talk about human space exploration.
PLEASE HELP by WindBourne · 2014-06-05 03:03 · Score: 1

Not just SpaceX, but Bigelow and Blue Origin.
The fact is, that to get to the moon and mars, we need multiple companies that can compete but also provide redunancy.
Sadly, the GOP is intent on killing off private space. Even the tea* are allowing the neo-cons to pull this shit.

For example, Shelby is DESPERATE to kill private space. He and othe rest of the GOP would rather spend 3-4 billion / year for the next 20 years building the SLS AND SEND ANOTHER 2B TO PUTIN then invest less than 2B into American businesses to get this going.

For those of you who live in these states with these senators, please write them and tell them to stop this BS.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Just build spaceships and forget "Muslim outrea by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-05 03:41 · Score: 0

And yet, you forget that reagan/neo-cons was treasonous by promising Iranians that held American hostages to hold them longer and the GOP would later sell them weapons and help their worst leaders (the ones that we deal with today).
Then you gutless neo-cons turned your yellow belly and ran from libya.
IOW, it is you neo-cons that put all Americans at risk by your original treason.
It is that treason and yellow bellys that have created the nightmare that we are in.
And yet, you do nothing but scream about others and defend such trash.
The Hand of the Market (tm) will fix this! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-05 04:51 · Score: 0

All the libertarians will assure you that government can't do anything right (other than picking wars to fight, and fighting them), (and we never got to the Moon, or Mars, or....), and we need to cut taxes and not waste more on a governement agency, when Corporations (#insert angellic music) will pick up the entire space program, and we'll be flying on private spaceships to the moon before 2020.
What? Where's the profitibility for thist quarter in that? Everyone knows corporations always take the long view.....
mark "time for the Defenestration of the Tea Party"
The report is stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-05 04:52 · Score: 0

Sending astronauts back to the moon? Waste without benefits.
Wrong to go to an asteroid? Chap, you've no idea.
Putting an astronaut on Mars' surface is impossible on the near future. I am at the middle point of my life, and frankly, I don't think I will get to witness it. There are three challenges to overcome - challenges so difficult that even having unlimited resources there would be no guarantee to overcome them. These are:
1) Life support. Keeping alive and fit the astronauts crew on such a long mission.
2) Surface expedition. Landing at, and taking off from, Mars' surface. Mars' gravity is much stronger than the Moon's - the expeditionary module needs a really big rocket to return to Mars' orbit, which means it needs to be really big.
3) Transportation. Deliver to Mars' orbit, and bring back to Earths orbit, such a ship to be capable of overcome challenges 1 and 2 - which means it needs to carry a big life support environment and a big expeditionary module, so it needs to be a huge ship with really powerful rockets.
Bottom line: Going to an asteroid, and returning from it, shares two of the three challenges (1 and 3). Until an asteroid mission is successfully achieved proving these two challenges can be overcome, no mission to Mars plans can be taken seriously.-Ignacio Agulló
1. Re:The report is stupid by Shadowmist · 2014-06-05 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  2) Surface expedition. Landing at, and taking off from, Mars' surface. Mars' gravity is much stronger than the Moon's - the expeditionary module needs a really big rocket to return to Mars' orbit, which means it needs to be really big.
  Don't forget there's also the atmosphere to contend with. Not thick enough to breathe or shield you against anything space throws at the surface, but enough to contend with when it comes to landing AND liftoff.
Re:Just build spaceships and forget "Muslim outrea by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-05 05:06 · Score: 0

Is that you Al Gore Jr? Don't you have enough fucking money from your father's blood money he laundered for Armand Hammer, the outright tens of millions of dollars in bribes to your family, and the billions of dollars in cap and trade ponzie schemes you ran through Europe?
Exactly! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-05 06:37 · Score: 0

The internet is doing great under the leadership of the Elders! It's even wireless!
1. Re:Exactly! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-05 18:26 · Score: 0
  
  The internet is doing great under the leadership of the Elders! It's even wireless!
  
  It's been a long time since TripMasterMonkey came up with K'Breel, and I've enjoyed being His voice in the years since then.
  K'Breel came about during the dark days of faster/better/cheaper, when the politics were that you could get any three, the idea was to choose any two, and the reality was that you got only one. If the Martian air defense force didn't exist, /. would have had to invent it to account for the failures. And so, we did.
  We've gotten a lot better since those days, but humanity has yet to demonstrate the political will to demand that you get the required funding, and so until that day, K'Breel exists as a goad, a reminder, that it's not really the "triumphs" of the Martian defences, but our own frailties.
  Any NASA types reading this, or even any Europeans or Chinese or Russians working on a Mars mission? Speaking on behalf of the Council, I know you're doing your best, and its my sincerest hope that I live to see the day that K'Breel's announcements of setbacks in the Mars programmes can be regarded as achronisms.
  But to any humans make it there? Watch your gelsacs anyways :)
NRC ... NASA Strategy Can't get Humans to Mars by hinckeljn · 2014-06-05 07:33 · Score: 1

In the short term of two decades there is no meaningful purpose in sending humans to Mars. The way robotic and human exploration of the solar system is: 1. Start an OPEN Foundation Model of exploration: open to all (government institutions, enterprises, institutes, individuals). 2. Start with the Moon surface. 3. Define a road-map for explorations: locate suitable sites on the Moon surface. Land (Selenize) a robotic colony on site. 4. Have the robotic colony establish energy grid and communications infra-structure on site. (Practice on a remote Earth environment with a reality show environment for entertainment, collect funds, and generate visibility to the project. 5. Have robots assemble a shirt sleeve human environment on the Moon surface. May in underground caves or inflatable tents. 6. Send people to live on the Moon. 7. Then ... on to Mars?!
On a related note by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-05 11:12 · Score: 0

Is there any logic to the way NASA allocates the funds of their Commercial Crew Development program? It is a rather underfunded effort, given the fact that it is the best option for NASA to have manned missions, but how are even those limited funds allocated? I mean, I see that Boeing has the biggest chunk of the money, and yet their capsule has not even flown. SpaceX has been sending and retrieving capsules already, yet they get less and other companies that are still testing concepts like Boeing get almost no funding. So it is just another creative way of funneling money to Boeing?
1. Re:On a related note by WindBourne · 2014-06-05 15:55 · Score: 1
  
  NASA does not allocate the funds. In fact, they have tried hard to shift funds from different areas, to private space (for both COTS and now CCD).
  
  CONgress allocates the money and then the president vetoes it or not.
  Obama has kept the money flowing to CCD, while the GOP, along with some of the dems, have worked hard to gut private space. You will note that for the last 5 years, Obama has requested a great deal more for private space, the Senate has voted closer to the president, but always less, and finally, ever since the GOP took control of the house, they have gutted the budget for private space. They have pushed for less than 1/2 of what NASA and Obama have suggested. At the same time, these group has push for loads more money to the Russians, as well as massive spending on the constellation (though they gutted it under W), and then on SLS.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Helium 3 by Keybounce · 2014-06-06 05:08 · Score: 1

Someone several posts back mentioned that even getting gold from space was too expensive to be worth it. Well, there's one very good resource out there, in space, worth getting. Helium 3. Produced by the sun. Found in tiny quantities on the earth. Found in large quantities on the moon, but the cost of shipping back from the moon -- all return fuel must be carried to the moon -- makes it unprofitable.
But on mars? The return fuel from mars can be harvested on mars. So you don't need the fuel to ship fuel. That is the key difference, that makes mars worth using as a base.
Mars has Helium 3. How much does it have? I don't know.
What's involved in sending people to mars? Well, you need a habitat for them to live in, and you need return vehicles.
We've got plans for that already. Unmanned modules sent out to mars, that can set up mining / fuel production, a return vehicle, and a habitat. Send them off to mars; check out a location. Every two years, send something off to a different place on mars.
What happens eventually? You find a place with resources worth sending people to. And, you've got a fueled return ship. What? Something went wrong? Ok, send another set of survival/return resources to that same place.
Eventually, you have living space, and return trip, and fuel production, all ready to go. You can now send people and another return ship, just in case. And, some rovers -- you've got resupply points on mars, and now you can have people sent to do their own driving.
This is how you get people to mars -- every two years, a care package, until you've got something sufficient.
The why of mars? Two good reasons:
1. Helium 3.
2. You cannot mine an asteroid in the asteroid belt profitably. You have to move an asteroid someplace where you can mine it. There are four choices:
A: Earth orbit
B: Moon orbit
C: Mars orbit
D: Lagrange point.
We don't have the technology for D yet.
Attempting to move an asteroid into earth orbit ... lets just say that would be a political nightmare bigger than any technical challenge.
That leaves moon orbit -- with all the fueling problems -- or mars orbit, with much easier fueling/working conditions.
So the bottom line: Sending people to mars is not out of our technology. There are reasons to do so. It is the only currently known stepping stone to the next stage, and the first way we can get off this rock and prevent a single-point of failure that wipes out humans.