US Government Issues NASA Demand - ‘Get Humans to Mars By 2033’

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Liquesence

OK, let's try it this way: what precautions do you recommend for such a mission?

TheRedneck

Stay safely at home, pay the russians to do manned launches and start a Muslim outreach program like obama?

originally posted by: redshoes
The only viable possibility in getting a living, functioning human to mars at this point would be to drastically reduce the time it takes to get there. Chemical rockets won't do it without killing the astronauts.

EM drives are yet to be proven and VASMIR technology is only vapour ware at this stage.

After reading the bill, it looks like Congress is looking at the use of "high-performance solar electric propulsion".

originally posted by: Uphill
I agree with Soficrow's reasons why human travel to Mars may not work out. Then there's also some other brutal realities: Mars has no magnetic field ... none ... zero. Therefore, delete all those cute pictures of humans living and working on the surface of Mars. Underground, Mars could be made habitable, given a massive cash infusion. But on the Mars surface? Negatron.

The popular novel The Martian (by Andy Weir) was made into a popular movie by the one and only Ridley Scott:

www.imdb.com...

Mr Scott simplified the technology issues in the novel, which is very wise because of the novel's many technical mistakes. Mr Weir is a NASA programmer, *not* a botanist and certainly not a biologist.

An above ground ice house won the NASA Mars Habitat design competition. It uses ice on Mars to construct, so no need to carry lots of water on the trip.









www.huffingtonpost.com...

originally posted by: UKTruth
An above ground ice house won the NASA Mars Habitat design competition. It uses ice on Mars to construct, so no need to carry lots of water on the trip.

I suppose that's why the bill also mentions "in-situ resource utilization".

PS: did anyone else read the bill?

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: UKTruth
An above ground ice house won the NASA Mars Habitat design competition. It uses ice on Mars to construct, so no need to carry lots of water on the trip.

I suppose that's why the bill also mentions "in-situ resource utilization".

PS: did anyone else read the bill?

Yes, it is imperative that Mars resources are used for construction. There are also a number of 3D printed designs, with the 3D printer brought from earth to then use Mars materials.

It's inevitable and crucial that humans colonise Mars...crucial, that is, for humans. Although we have a window of about a billion years before we need to panic.

And yet, I foresee grave consequences for the vast bulk of humanity still residing on the Earth when the chosen few colonise Mars.

Nuclear war, anyone?

originally posted by: CJCrawley
It's inevitable and crucial that humans colonise Mars...crucial, that is, for humans. Although we have a window of about a billion years before we need to panic.

And yet, I foresee grave consequences for the vast bulk of humanity still residing on the Earth when the chosen few colonise Mars.

Nuclear war, anyone?

Very interesting take... and would make for a superb novel.
I do think it would be somewhat inevitable that elites would migrate to Mars when the conditions were sufficient and, no doubt, their own govt would be formed at some point. The moment the planet was self sustaining and no longer required Earth's help.

a reply to: crazyewok

Considering there has been no reply, I think you're right.

TheRedneck

I personally find this exciting news! Mars is needed to truly innovate our space travel and habitation technologies. I dont believe Mars is meant to be Earths escape planet. If anything, we all escaped here from Mars! If anything, the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, may make better far-future colonies.
Moon base or moon orbit base, then Mars is the next baby step to create another launch point. Perhaps, midway to Jupiter, Ceres can be used for another hop. Though, I imagine NASA will have greatly improved their efficiency of space travel from the slower shuttle methods! Even still my young 7yr old grandson, who wants to explore space, may actually have his chance!

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: redshoes
The only viable possibility in getting a living, functioning human to mars at this point would be to drastically reduce the time it takes to get there. Chemical rockets won't do it without killing the astronauts.

EM drives are yet to be proven and VASMIR technology is only vapour ware at this stage.

After reading the bill ...

Thank you for the link!

Much of interest! Off the top:

...(4) According to the Committee on Human Spaceflight, the rationales include economic benefits, national security, national prestige, inspiring students and other citizens, scientific discovery, human survival, and a sense of shared destiny.

And the medical stuff. Hmm. Clarifies astronauts need private health insurance. No mention of the adverse effects of acceleration or deceleration - acknowledges health effects unknown, then specifies exclusions for unproven unknowns. Especially note: The Act calls for public-private partnerships, then specifies the US government's responsibilities for astronauts' health do not cover "an individual who is an international partner astronaut." [I called this switch and ditch back around 2004, but can't find the thread.]

...(2) As United States government astronauts participate in long-duration and exploration space flight missions they may experience increased health risks, such as vision impairment, bone demineralization, and behavioral health and performance risks, and may be exposed to galactic cosmic radiation. Exposure to high levels of radiation and microgravity can result in acute and long-term health consequences that can increase the risk of cancer and tissue degeneration and have potential effects on the musculoskeletal system, central nervous system, cardiovascular system, immune function, and vision.

...(4) Since the Administration currently provides medical monitoring, diagnosis, and treatment for United States government astronauts during their active employment, given the unknown long-term health consequences of long-duration space exploration, the Administration has requested statutory authority from Congress to provide medical monitoring, diagnosis, and treatment to former United States government astronauts for psychological and medical conditions associated with human space flight.

...(3) the Administration should provide the type of monitoring, diagnosis, and treatment described in subsection (a) only for conditions the Administration considers unique to the training or exposure to the space flight environment of United States government astronauts and should not require any former United States Government astronauts to participate in the Administration’s monitoring;

(4) such monitoring, diagnosis, and treatment should not replace a former United States government astronaut's private health insurance;

.....“(c) Exclusions.—The Administrator may not—

“(1) provide for medical monitoring or diagnosis of a former United States government astronaut or former payload specialist under subsection (a) for any psychological or medical condition that is not potentially associated with human space flight;

“(2) provide for treatment of a former United States government astronaut or former payload specialist under subsection (a) for any psychological or medical condition that is not associated with human space flight; or

“(3) require a former United States government astronaut or former payload specialist to participate in the medical monitoring, diagnosis, or treatment authorized under subsection (a).

“(d) Privacy.—Consistent with applicable provisions of Federal law relating to privacy, the Administrator shall protect the privacy of all medical records generated under subsection (a) and accessible to the Administration.

....“(f) Definition Of United States Government Astronaut.—In this section, the term ‘United States government astronaut’ has the meaning given the term ‘government astronaut’ in section 50902, except it does not include an individual who is an international partner astronaut.

Much more of course, need time.


Thanks again,
~ sofi

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Liquesence

OK, let's try it this way: what precautions do you recommend for such a mission?

TheRedneck

I've already stated what should be taken into account and what precautions should be addressed. Re-read my posts in this thread.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Yup. You got it!

Everything is all about Republicans v/s Democrats. Voting for the winning Party. Being on the the winning side.

There. Is. Nothing. Else. To. Discuss.

So might as well move along now. Nothing to see here.

a reply to: dougie6665

You do realize that today's NASA isn't the NASA of the 1960's?

Rather than throw billions at another bloated, inefficient government agency, it would be better and far cheaper to outsource the project to private industry. The amount of time saved would be enormous as well.

a reply to: TonyS

Yeppers. And don't forget those all important medical provisions that absolve the government of any responsibilities for any known or unknown health impacts. lol

...(2) As United States government astronauts participate in long-duration and exploration space flight missions they may experience increased health risks, such as vision impairment, bone demineralization, and behavioral health and performance risks, and may be exposed to galactic cosmic radiation. Exposure to high levels of radiation and microgravity can result in acute and long-term health consequences that can increase the risk of cancer and tissue degeneration and have potential effects on the musculoskeletal system, central nervous system, cardiovascular system, immune function, and vision.

....“(c) Exclusions.—The Administrator may not—

“(1) provide for medical monitoring or diagnosis of a former United States government astronaut or former payload specialist under subsection (a) for any psychological or medical condition that is not potentially associated with human space flight;

“(3) require a former United States government astronaut or former payload specialist to participate in the medical monitoring, diagnosis, or treatment authorized under subsection (a).

“(d) Privacy.—Consistent with applicable provisions of Federal law relating to privacy, the Administrator shall protect the privacy of all medical records generated under subsection (a) and accessible to the Administration.

....“(f) Definition Of United States Government Astronaut.—In this section, the term ‘United States government astronaut’ has the meaning given the term ‘government astronaut’ in section 50902, except it does not include an individual who is an international partner astronaut.

Ahhh... to actually pull a matt damon and be a martian. Y aknow buge domes made of very high strength material could work OR we live underground instead on mars. Mining towns/mines for martian mountains. If we can find a way to ignite the core of MArs it might be possible to rebuild its atmosphere.

a reply to: yuppa

... If we can find a way to ignite the core of MArs it might be possible to rebuild its atmosphere.

Which begs the questions:

* Why colonize a planet that already died?

* Why did Mars die?

* How can we figure this all out without climate science?

For consideration, here is a 2014 article from a doctor on radiation issues for humans on Mars:

www.space.com...



The main problems I notice with the article are its assumptions:


1. Despite the author herself being female, she does not discuss the much more negative effects of ionizing radiation on women versus men. Hmmm. Will trips to Mars be guys-only for the forseeable future?


2. The ICRP radiation models being used to calculate human radiation risk have many deficiencies. There is a case that can be made for NASA starting from square one on human radiation risk calculation. For example, how can it be to NASA's advantage to use a radiation model that was developed before the discovery of DNA, seriously?



3. Then there's the issue of potential internal human radiation contamination from the recycling of food sources, water sources, and air sources. On a planet with a non-existent magnetic field, as well as in space on the way there and back, how much of an average "body burden" of internal radiation from air/food/water is assumed? None? Based on what? Various worldwide medical reports after many radiation disasters show a variety of ill effects of internal contamination, ranging from moderate to severe to profound, in some cases followed by death. Many experimenters argue that the health risks of internal radiation contamination are orders of magnitude greater than external contamination.

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: yuppa

... If we can find a way to ignite the core of MArs it might be possible to rebuild its atmosphere.

Which begs the questions:

* Why colonize a planet that already died?

* Why did Mars die?

* How can we figure this all out without climate science?

Who says NASA cant do both? Study climates and push the boundaries of space exploration?

a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm all for expanding the space program. I just don't believe any combination of dollars, lawyers or time will ever get us there.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: redshoes
The only viable possibility in getting a living, functioning human to mars at this point would be to drastically reduce the time it takes to get there. Chemical rockets won't do it without killing the astronauts.

EM drives are yet to be proven and VASMIR technology is only vapour ware at this stage.

After reading the bill, it looks like Congress is looking at the use of "high-performance solar electric propulsion".

Given that this is 'under development' at the moment, and that the actual working full-scale prototype does not exist, I think the whole thing poorly thought out. Dictating what technology will be used is a very unwise decision, IMHO, since other things may come along that pan out better.

Plus, NASA is paying for a non-government entity to test and develop this at the moment (and it's not cheap) ... they'll need a lot more dollars in their pocket to be able to get it up and going.