• Obama says we need to send people to mars by 2030
    45 replies, posted
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/11/opinions/america-will-take-giant-leap-to-mars-barack-obama/index.html[/url] [QUOTE]We have set a clear goal vital to the next chapter of America's story in space: sending humans to Mars by the 2030s and returning them safely to Earth, with the ultimate ambition to one day remain there for an extended time. Getting to Mars will require continued cooperation between government and private innovators, and we're already well on our way. Within the next two years, private companies will for the first time send astronauts to the International Space Station.[/QUOTE]
Why not send Trump there now?
Send me there and don't worry about getting me back.
Not without more funding and missions for the SLS (It's only got 4 missions through 2026). I want to believe him, but I don't see it without some effort from the Government. This isn't going to be a Kennedy speech.
[quote]The next step is to reach beyond the bounds of Earth's orbit. I'm excited to announce that we are working with our commercial partners to build new habitats that can sustain and transport astronauts on long-duration missions in deep space. These missions will teach us how humans can live far from Earth -- something we'll need for the long journey to Mars.[/quote] We could be redirecting an asteroid full of useful resources to low Earth orbit. We could be building propellant depots at the L4/L5 Lagrange points to refuel spacecraft on their way out of Earth orbit. We could be working back towards the Moon and putting a permanent base there. We could be working towards a real long-term presence in space, developing the infrastructure to truly move beyond Earth, but instead we're still pursuing mostly symbolic gestures. Mars is cool and all but we're not going to get anywhere like this.
Maybe we will finally get a space reactor going for a trip to Mars
[QUOTE=catbarf;51195729]We could be redirecting an asteroid full of useful resources to low Earth orbit. We could be building propellant depots at the L4/L5 Lagrange points to refuel spacecraft on their way out of Earth orbit. We could be working back towards the Moon and putting a permanent base there. We could be working towards a real long-term presence in space, developing the infrastructure to truly move beyond Earth, but instead we're still pursuing mostly symbolic gestures. Mars is cool and all but we're not going to get anywhere like this.[/QUOTE] Asteroid redirect is 2 of the 4 missions we currently have slated for the SLS. [editline]12th October 2016[/editline] It's got a crippling problem though, and keeps getting pushed back. (Hint: it's NASA's budget)
[QUOTE=catbarf;51195729]We could be redirecting an asteroid full of useful resources to low Earth orbit.[/QUOTE] We don't have that capability yet. [QUOTE=catbarf;51195729]We could be building propellant depots at the L4/L5 Lagrange points to refuel spacecraft on their way out of Earth orbit.[/QUOTE] We don't have a reason to do that yet. [QUOTE=catbarf;51195729]We could be working back towards the Moon and putting a permanent base there.[/QUOTE] There's no reason to do this. [QUOTE=catbarf;51195729]We could be working towards a real long-term presence in space, developing the infrastructure to truly move beyond Earth, but instead we're still pursuing mostly symbolic gestures. Mars is cool and all but we're not going to get anywhere like this.[/QUOTE] Landing on Mars isn't a symbolic gesture, it's a logical step that will advance the space industry to the point where every other point you brought up is possibly a viable commercial venture.
IMO NASA need's to stop wasting money on launchers and contract out to commercial launch services to do the lifting for their manned science/exploration payloads. This isn't the cold war anymore, the Government doesn't need a rocket when the private sector can do better for less. Throwing away billions for Saturn V symbolic nostalgia.
I mean, yes, I think we could land on Mars NOW with todays technology, but what would be the point? If it's done in a more fantastically expensive manner with more advancement in technology to do it safer, it makes it more viable to do regularly, and that's what matters - not a one time trip just to prove we can do it.
[QUOTE=SeamanStains;51195752]Landing on Mars isn't a symbolic gesture, it's a logical step that will advance the space industry to the point where every other point you brought up is possibly a viable commercial venture.[/QUOTE] I don't really know anything about space, why is getting to Mars more useful than establishing a base on the moon? Mars seems cool but I don't understand what makes it anything more than a milestone.
[QUOTE=srobins;51195778]I don't really know anything about space, why is getting to Mars more useful than establishing a base on the moon? Mars seems cool but I don't understand what makes it anything more than a milestone.[/QUOTE] The thing is, establishing a base on the moon isn't really useful with today's technology. There's not really anything there we could use. The only thing the Moon would be useful for is testing humans, plant life and equipment on a low gravity surface. Most of what a moon base would do, the ISS already provides.
[QUOTE=srobins;51195778]I don't really know anything about space, why is getting to Mars more useful than establishing a base on the moon? Mars seems cool but I don't understand what makes it anything more than a milestone.[/QUOTE] Musk talked about it recently. Moon is cool, but it's empty and has no atmosphere. Mars has actual resources on it and can be terraformed.
I don't think humans should be sent to Mars until the probability of them being able to come back is extremely high. I think it would be more useful to improve AI and robotics so we can send robots first to do all the heavy lifting such as building the infrastructure and everything they, and humans, need to survive there, then we can send humans.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51195681]Why not send Trump there now?[/QUOTE] Because we wouldn't be able to study him or see him, his skin would act as a natural camouflage.
[QUOTE=catbarf;51195729]We could be redirecting an asteroid full of useful resources to low Earth orbit. We could be building propellant depots at the L4/L5 Lagrange points to refuel spacecraft on their way out of Earth orbit. We could be working back towards the Moon and putting a permanent base there. We could be working towards a real long-term presence in space, developing the infrastructure to truly move beyond Earth, but instead we're still pursuing mostly symbolic gestures. Mars is cool and all but we're not going to get anywhere like this.[/QUOTE] NPR had a small segment about Obama and NASA these past 8 years today. According to them, one of the very first things he did once elected in 2008 was to ax to death George Bush's plans to return to the moon, then set up a "long term research" programs for the goal of getting to Mars. Also they said that the NASA plans over the past 8 years have had greater Congressional influence over them as much as presidential than the past few decades has, so it's mostly the whole government shifting focus hard onto going to Mars.
I know nothing about space. With that out of the way, the current ISS is nearing 18 years old right? Maybe a new space station is in order to rekindle interest in the American public.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51195858]NPR had a small segment about Obama and NASA these past 8 years today. According to them, one of the very first things he did once elected in 2008 was to ax to death George Bush's plans to return to the moon, then set up a "long term research" programs for the goal of getting to Mars. Also they said that the NASA plans over the past 8 years have had greater Congressional influence over them as much as presidential than the past few decades has, so it's mostly the whole government shifting focus hard onto going to Mars.[/QUOTE] The Constellation Program had Mars goals in the 2030's as well. Plus it stilled used Orion hardware, which is what the SLS will be lofting. The SLS is better than the Aries I. But still way over-priced for what it can do.
[QUOTE=SeamanStains;51195801]The thing is, establishing a base on the moon isn't really useful with today's technology. There's not really anything there we could use. The only thing the Moon would be useful for is testing humans, plant life and equipment on a low gravity surface. Most of what a moon base would do, the ISS already provides.[/QUOTE] Plenty of titanium there.
Didn't the Obama already have a plan for this and had announce this already? Seems awfully familiar.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51195681]Why not send Trump there now?[/QUOTE] An orange man on an orange planet.
If he had any intention of actually making this a reality, he wouldn't have cut NASA's funding so hard back in 2008. [QUOTE=Dark Swan;51196064]An orange man on an orange planet.[/QUOTE] (Mars is red.)
Personally, at this rate I don't think it's [I]impossible[/I] for this goal to be achieved by NASA, but I personally see the likeliest scenario being NASA with some international support utilizing some of their own unmanned craft and mission planning, but utilizing SpaceX's ITS hardware for the LV and orbital vehicle+landing craft. Why? SLS isn't necessarily a worthless rocket, but it's far more expensive than it ought to be for a heavy-lift vehicle due to how Congress has shaped its procurement process, and the BFR (launcher portion of the ITS) is far, far more powerful and advanced from a technical perspective. Once Musk gets some early test flights of the BFR going, I find it highly likely in my mind that Congress will feel pressured to soft-kill the SLS after a few flights and transition to the BFR, with SLS and Orion perhaps taking over other roles (like Lunar missions, flights to the ISS and any possible successor station(s), etc.) if kept around. Farther down the road, I'm personally wondering what will be NASA's ultimate end-of-life plan for their portion of the ISS, as Roscosmos seems to be leaning towards taking their modules that they can and building a new Russian station.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51195902]I know nothing about space. With that out of the way, the current ISS is nearing 18 years old right? Maybe a new space station is in order to rekindle interest in the American public.[/QUOTE] The ISS isn't an American thing, though. It's an international station (thus the name). Also the Obama administration has green-lit another 10 years of American investment into the station (not sure when this started, could have been at the beginning of his first term). Even if Americans stop funding the ISS, there's plenty of other nations that would probably step up their support to keep it going.
Just scrub the SLS and give SpaceX the money. Will probably get us to Mars way faster.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51195681]Why not send Trump there now?[/QUOTE] [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5TqD5xf0ic[/media]
[QUOTE=SeamanStains;51195801]The thing is, establishing a base on the moon isn't really useful with today's technology. There's not really anything there we could use. The only thing the Moon would be useful for is testing humans, plant life and equipment on a low gravity surface. Most of what a moon base would do, the ISS already provides.[/QUOTE] Yet it would be far cheaper, far easier to expand on, and far more effective at doing what it does on the moon... the ISS was the cheapening out on a full on space dock to supply a large moonbase, not the other way around. it was an outright failure if you take some distance and look at its original intention. [editline]13th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=AK'z;51197248] [/QUOTE] In all honesty you would feel a tingly sensation in your extremities and a general bloatedness and then die of a blood clot a couple hours later... heck if you would go through decompression you would easily walk without a suit and breath through a diving mask on mars. not taking into account the cold etc for a second. but w/e this is way cooler then reality i guess.
[QUOTE=SeamanStains;51195801]There's not really anything there we could use. [/QUOTE] There's not really anything on Mars we could use, either. At least with a Moon base you can make a case for harvesting ice from the lunar regolith, and it's not half an AU away at closest approach. At least with orbital propellant depots you then don't have to worry about hauling all your reaction mass up into orbit, which would make an eventual Mars mission significantly easier. There's no reason why we need to go to Mars to advance the space industry enough to make other ventures practical. Technologies related to living and working in space can be developed more cheaply in orbit while still being reachable in case something goes wrong, while high-Isp propulsion technology suited to a Mars trip is not necessarily going to be useful in Earth's local space. Any resources or terraforming potential with Mars are long-term goals that certainly will not be exploitable by any mission in the foreseeable future. Getting to Mars is another look-at-us-we're-the-first milestone but there's no practical reason to start there versus getting some kind of long-term presence in our own neighborhood.
[QUOTE=spiritlol;51195689]Send me there and don't worry about getting me back.[/QUOTE] Better improve the wifi though
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51195681]Why not send Trump there now?[/QUOTE] We'd probably lose him on the surface considering he'd blend in with his orange surroundings.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.