How To Beat Congress's Ban Of Humans On Mars

An anonymous reader writes "Earlier this year, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would ban humans on Mars at NASA: "Provided, That none of the funds under this heading shall be used for any research, development, or demonstration activities related exclusively to the human exploration of Mars." The bill is held up in Congress and the anti-Mars language may be taken out. But in case the Mars ban becomes law, the Space Review has a handy guide on how NASA can beat the ban and continue its research and development without breaking the law."

Could the headline have been more misleading?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no 'ban' on Mars. It just means that no funds from the current funding bill can be used for funding potential human exploration on Mars. Future bills (every single year) would have to include this 'ban' every time they were passed.

Re:Congress?

[Pantero Blanco]

This is one of the many reasons I don't like sensationally-worded headlines.

Congress did not "ban humans on Mars". They stopped NASA's funding for a human mission to Mars and told it to concentrate on other things. Other nations, or private citizens of the US if I understand correctly, are free to shoot for it.

Not quite...

[igotmybfg]

From the article:

"The House of Representatives version of HR 3093, the bill that determines NASA's funding for 2008, effectively bans the study of an entire planet: Provided, That none of the funds under this heading shall be used for any research, development, or demonstration activities related exclusively to the human exploration of Mars.

As you can clearly see, the language in that bill does NOT "ban the study of an entire planet" - it just says that any research done must have other applications besides the human exploration of Mars. For example, a weather study wouldn't be "banned", because that would also be related to the Mars Rovers. So basically, as long as NASA can show that any R&D activity is related to something else besides humans on Mars, the ban won't apply to it.

Doesn't ban humans on Mars

[MSTCrow5429]

"Provided, That none of the funds under this heading shall be used for any research, development, or demonstration activities related exclusively to the human exploration of Mars."

Re:Congress?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is one of the many reasons I don't like sensationally-worded headlines.

Congress did not "ban humans on Mars". They stopped NASA's funding for a human mission to Mars and told it to concentrate on other things. Other nations, or private citizens of the US if I understand correctly, are free to shoot for it.

The US is allowed to shoot for it as well. They just can't pay for things that apply exclusively for Mars for the next year. This will barely affect anything. Only if NASA was researching human landing sites or actually building the Mars spacecraft could they say that their research was *only* for human exploration of Mars. And this would have to pass every year in the foreseeable future to ban NASA from human exploration of Mars (since it is a funding bill).

Re:Why?

[gEvil (beta)]

Millions? I think you meant billions and trillions.

Re:I can see it both ways...

[Stringer Bell]

Should NASA be free to spend its own budget without Congressional oversight? Probably.

Absolutely not. NASA's budget comes out of my pocket, so I want some say in how it's spent. My congress critters represent me, and without their oversight I've got no say in the matter. Ditto the military, public schools, etc.

And yes, I realize that in practice I haven't got much say anyway, but the current arrangement is set forth by the Constitution.

That's how I read it.

[p4nther2004]

The headline ignores that they upped NASA's budget over what the President asked. (Congress hates NASA...honest). I grimace with each launch of the Shuttle now. I keep expecting another failure. They're running on a shoestring as it is now.

Re:Congress?

[plague3106]

Ahh, so politicians know better than scientists on how to conduct research. I see.

Re:Why?

[Cy Sperling]

There is absolutley no comparison between welfare and education to the literal shipments of billions of dollars in 100 dollar bills to Iraq- to be handed out to anyone with no accountability. They literally flew pallets full of 100 dollar bills that have disappeared. People may disagree about the philosophy behind welfare, or just how we should go about fixing public education, but the monumental waste and clear cut corruption of shipping billions in cash into a warzone and then not paying attention to who is getting it is completely w/o defence, logic or decency. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2008189,00.html [guardian.co.uk]

Re:Congress?

[Chris Burke]

The US is allowed to shoot for it as well. They just can't pay for things that apply exclusively for Mars for the next year. This will barely affect anything. Only if NASA was researching human landing sites or actually building the Mars spacecraft could they say that their research was *only* for human exploration of Mars.

And is my memory failing me, or did I read on Slashdot some time ago that the new director of NASA had already put a hold on all projects that were *only* for human exploration of Mars until such time as additional funding was allocated for that purpose? Since Bush's "Mars, Bitches!" plan didn't actually include any funding and NASA didn't want to get distracted from their other projects for an un-funded attempt at a legacy.

If that's true, then this is just Congress agreeing with the NASA director, saying "Yes, you should focus on other things, because we're not giving you extra money just for a manned mission to Mars for now at least".

Re:Congress?

[UncleTogie]

Health insurance companies employ actual real DOCTORS, which review YOUR doctor's notes, to determine the validity of the claim / procedure.

Sure, and we can see the Hippocratic {hypocritic?} oath at work when they deny a claim 'cause they didn't agree with the ICD-9 code [wikipedia.org] your provider used. It's not that it's miscoded, it's that they think it should fall under a procedure they they don't cover.

Having worked at a medical office for 10 years as their IT guru and assisting with claims definitely opened my eyes to this kind of crap.