Slashdot Mirror
NRC Human Spaceflight Report Says NASA Strategy Can't Get Humans To Mars
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.'
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.'
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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Maybe they could just get a donkey to Mars?
Funding NASA by voluntary payment instead of compulsion is the only ethical way.
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.
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."
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
And this is based on your personal observations?
...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 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 !
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.
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.
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.
... you need rockets to get you to Mars.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
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.
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.
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.
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?!
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.
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. ... lets just say that would be a political nightmare bigger than any technical challenge.
Attempting to move an asteroid into earth orbit
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.