Obama announces new NASA goal: Mars

[Expatriate]

All the people complaining about him cutting the Moon program should be happy.

We're apparently going to land men on an asteroid first - by 2025, then Mars by the mid-2030s.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/government/leadership/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=224400495
http://www.arirang.co.kr/News/News_View.asp?nseq=102186&code=Ne8&category=1
http://topnews.net.nz/content/23316-obama-sets-daunting-mission-nasa-sending-astronauts-asteroid-2025


US President Barack Obama revealed an ambitious goal to send astronauts to an asteroid and ultimately to Mars by the mid-2030s.
In speech to staff and guests at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida Obama laid out the details of his new space policy.
The plan includes building a new spacecraft by 2025 that is capable of long journeys beyond the Moon and into deep space.


[Interview : Barack Obama, US President] "We will invest more than 3 billion dollars to conduct research on an advanced 'heavy lift rocket' -- a vehicle to efficiently send into orbit the crew capsules, propulsion systems, and large quantities of supplies needed to reach deep space."

NASA will also receive 6 billion US dollars in extra funding over the next five years to address the challenging goals.
Obama has faced sharp criticism for scrapping the costly Constellation project a program to put Americans back on the moon.
But he defended his changes to America's space programs.


[Interview : Barack Obama, US President] "I understand that some believe we should attempt a return to the surface of the moon first as previously planned but I just have to say pretty bluntly -- we've been there before. There's a lot more space to explore and a lot more to learn when we do."

Addressing concerns that changes to US space policy might result in thousands of job losses across Florida Obama assured workers that the new plan would create some 2,500 more jobs than under Constellation.
Kim Seok, Arirang News.

APR 16, 2010


President Barack Obama has proposed a daunting mission for NASA – reaching astronauts to an asteroid by 2025! According to space experts, a voyage to an asteroid, a huge speeding rock, would not only entail even greater dangers than the Moon mission, and would involve the safety of the Earth.

Outlining the new path for NASA, the President said during his Thursday visit to the Kennedy Space Center: “By 2025, we expect new spacecraft designed for long journeys to allow us to begin the first-ever crewed missions beyond the moon into deep space. We'll start by sending astronauts to an asteroid for the first time in history.”

Sending astronauts to an asteroid would not only involve crucial training for the ultimate Mars mission, but will also help unlock the hitherto-unknown secrets of the creation of the solar system. It might also provide mankind with the requisite expertise for saving the Earth from a collision with a killer asteroid.

About Obama’s asteroid goal, NASA chief Charles Bolden told reporters late Thursday that the mission is probably the “hardest” task ahead for the space agency, given the fact that “the asteroid is not coming on a schedule.” Bolden further added that upon the final selection of a particular asteroid, the window for a spaceship launch towards it will be much less forbearing than the windows for space shuttles sent to the International Space Station.

[Depressed Liberator]

Seems that he encouraged private ventures. For those who know of the subject, how possible is that?

[phill4paul]

Yippee-Ky-Yaaaah! Guess people at the cape need jobs. Government jobs are the preferred "job stimulant" recipients.

[awake]

Obama is already there. As are the Democrats, the Republicans and most of the MSM.

[ChaosControl]

What is even the point? Why bother with space when we can't even get things right here on earth.

[Flash]

Didn't Bush already promise something similar a few years ago and nothing came of it?

[Pete_00]

Public Relations...

[SamFisher]

What is even the point? Why bother with space when we can't even get things right here on earth.

That's a great point! 70% of our planet is oceans, I would love to see us figure out how to harness its resources sustainably for energy and fishing. The only thing about space exploration would be finding new resources and establishing a fail safe for humanity. If we figured out how to settle on another planet we wouldn't go extinct if Earth was hit by an asteroid.

[MelissaWV]

That's a great point! 70% of our planet is oceans, I would love to see us figure out how to harness its resources sustainably for energy and fishing. The only thing about space exploration would be finding new resources and establishing a fail safe for humanity. If we figured out how to settle on another planet we wouldn't go extinct if Earth was hit by an asteroid.

A couple of flaws in that, though.

1. If the only other planet we're exploring is Mars, and we're doing so in really expensive, really small rockets (the only vehicles we currently have of going to the Moon or Mars do not have room for large crews at all), then how likely is it we'd save more than a half dozen people if earth was hit by an asteroid? How would we get there, and wouldn't the debris field cause our tiny vehicles distress?

2. Mars is really not that cozy a planet. We already know this via rovers and other research done on the planet.

[phill4paul]

A couple of flaws in that, though.

1. If the only other planet we're exploring is Mars, and we're doing so in really expensive, really small rockets (the only vehicles we currently have of going to the Moon or Mars do not have room for large crews at all), then how likely is it we'd save more than a half dozen people if earth was hit by an asteroid? How would we get there, and wouldn't the debris field cause our tiny vehicles distress?

2. Mars is really not that cozy a planet. We already know this via rovers and other research done on the planet.

"Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids
In fact it's cold as hell
And there's no one there to raise them if you did.." E John

[nobody's_hero]

"Any empire you can build, I can build better. I can build any empire better than you."

The beings on Mars are 'either with us or against us.'

[RideTheDirt]

"Any empire you can build, I can build better. I can build any empire better than you."

The beings on Mars are 'either with us or against us.'

congrats on post # 1776:D

[Vessol]

Lol. Every President for years back has said this. It's just a clever way to get their words in the papers and talk about our future and then education and why state educational is so great and needs to be expanded.

[specsaregood]

2. Mars is really not that cozy a planet. We already know this via rovers and other research done on the planet.

That is where terraforming comes into play. :) I rather enjoyed the 3 book series: red mars, green mars, blue mars on the subject.

[awake]

Hey, lets print a bunch of money and see if we can land on an asteroid.

Think I'm crazy? (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hvDhvPm9l5fHqiHIU5uc6Gpzs-MAD9F4C2NG0)

This is exactly the problem with inflation. Once you condone the act of creating money out of thin air, everything is a good idea.

[torchbearer]

that really makes no sense. with the moon, you can argue helium-3 as a return on investment.
if we can't do the moon base, we cann't stay on mars for two years.

[torchbearer]

i''m thinking barry just picked a goal that can't really be completed.

[Spider-Man]

What is even the point? Why bother with space when we can't even get things right here on earth.

This.

[winston_blade]

Didn't they make fun of going to Mars on the Chappelle Show?

[MelissaWV]

That is where terraforming comes into play. :) I rather enjoyed the 3 book series: red mars, green mars, blue mars on the subject.

And thank goodness we have so many rockets and spare money to send over all the terraforming equipment and personnel...

[Dunedain]

How can the U.S. government engage in the dumbing down of America and still expect to make progress in space exploration? When you endorse a "survival of the weakest" policy don't expect the best and brightest to come to, or even remain in the country. I would be practicing up on my Russian if I was an engineer.

NASA has been all but destroyed due to the affirmative action policies for the last forty years and their efficiency killing "diversity" polices. Now even the private contractors they hire being forced to maintain EEOC quotas.

We have to rid the country first of the disease of egalitarian style communism before we will be able to compete in the space race. We'll be hitching a ride with the Russians into high orbit after that.

[specsaregood]

And thank goodness we have so many rockets and spare money to send over all the terraforming equipment and personnel...

I'm with you. But even then this just points out a flaw in the plan. Sending a "manned" mission to Mars is a waste of money. If the goal was to get to Mars with the eventual goal of making it a liveable planet, the only research and missions planned to mars should be completely unmanned. Sending people up there at this point is a complete waste.

[Peace&Freedom]

If Obama really wanted to promote progress in space exploration and development, he'd talk about privatizing the field and getting rid of the regulations prohibiting private parties from deploying their own spacecraft, terraforming, etc. But some basic questions I have are:

1) What is the warmest spot on Mars, weather wise? Is there any spot on the surface that is not radioactive?

2) If even just 2 people go on the maned mission, where is the 18+ months of water and MREs going to come from to sustain them to and from Mars?

3) Where is this terraforming technology, really? Has anybody heard of a widescale demonstration of it, anywhere?

4) Any answers to the issue of surviving the asteroid debris field between Earth and Mars? How about the high frequency radiation in space (above earth's upper atmosphere, in the debris field, on the surface of Mars, etc.)?

[Andrew-Austin]

Good use of money in troubling times. :rolleyes:

[Expatriate]

If Obama really wanted to promote progress in space exploration and development, he'd talk about privatizing the field and getting rid of the regulations prohibiting private parties from deploying their own spacecraft, terraforming, etc. But some basic questions I have are:

1) What is the warmest spot on Mars, weather wise? Is there any spot on the surface that is not radioactive?
I definitely agree with your first point, it should be pretty obvious that inefficient, coercive government programs are the worst way to colonize other planets. As long as the government programs exist though, contributions to private endeavors will be hamstrung since everyone is forced to pay for NASA anyways, so why would they invest in a private scheme? Additionally, gifted individuals will be encouraged to go into NASA rather than the private sector, and then there's the issue of all the regulations limiting private endeavors but not NASA.

As to your first question, there are parts of Mars (http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/mars/ask/new/Highest_temperature_on_mars.txt) where the temperature of the ground is close to average room temperature on Earth. The average temperature, however, is -53°F.

As to radiation, that could be a slight problem, since Mars has little global magnetic field to speak of. A significant amount of ionizing radiation reaches the surface because of this. However, NASA considers over three years' exposure to the level of radiation experienced in Martian orbit to be safe, and levels on the surface are probably a fair bit lower. Still, it's safe to say any surface habitat would require some radiation shielding to be on the safe side.

2) If even just 2 people go on the maned mission, where is the 18+ months of water and MREs going to come from to sustain them to and from Mars?
That doesn't seem too hard. The longest stay in space so far was 438 days, by Russian Valeri Polyakov, and he didn't starve. Generally, urine is recycled back into drinking water (http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/090520-space-urine.html), so the water supply lastes longer than you'd think.

3) Where is this terraforming technology, really? Has anybody heard of a widescale demonstration of it, anywhere?
It's not something that can be easily tested, but it seems feasible. Paraterraforming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming#Paraterraforming) is a more reachable goal within our lifetimes, and it's been tested to some extent here on Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2) in the form of "biospheres".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Mars


4) Any answers to the issue of surviving the asteroid debris field between Earth and Mars? How about the high frequency radiation in space (above earth's upper atmosphere, in the debris field, on the surface of Mars, etc.)?
There is a theory (http://www.colonyworlds.com/2006/10/travel-to-mars-via-asteroid.html) out there that most radiation can be avoided by traveling INSIDE an asteroid that orbits between Earth an Mars. But a magnetically shielded spacecraft (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/308/1) would be far more convenient than hitching rides on space rocks.

[Brian4Liberty]

3) Where is this terraforming technology, really? Has anybody heard of a widescale demonstration of it, anywhere?



First, we need to nuke Mars. Obama had some excess nukes he wanted to get rid of anyway.

(Nuke Martian volcanoes in an attempt to make them active and create more atmosphere...)

[torchbearer]

I thought CO2 was a greenhouse gas. it must not be working on mars.

and seriously, here is the problem with mars- no magnetic field.
whatever atmosphere you generate will get blown away by the solar wind.

[Badger Paul]

Mars, essentially one big desert at -100 F. And there's nothing there we haven't already seen with Viking and all the Mars probes that are constructed at a fraction of the cost.

Sorry, not very cost effective.