U.S. House Wants 'Sustained Human Presence On the Moon and the Surface of Mars' 285
MarkWhittington writes "Politico reports in a June 18, 2013 story that House Republicans have added a Mars base to its demands for a lunar base in the draft 2013 NASA Authorization bill. Both the Bush-era Constellation program and President Obama space plan envisioned eventual human expeditions to Mars. But if Politico is correct, the new bill will be the first time an official piece of legislation will call for permanent habitation of the Red Planet. The actual legislative language states, 'The [NASA] Administrator shall establish a program to develop a sustained human presence on the Moon and the surface of Mars.'"
Humans cannot survive on Mars (Score:4, Informative)
Since the planet does not have a strong magnetic field, the surface is lethal [wikipedia.org].
As has been discussed elsewhere, at the time of arrival on Mars a person would already have received a lifetime's radiation dose.
The fastest way to Mars... (Score:4, Informative)
The fastest way to get a human on Mars is to launch from Earth.
The fastest way to get a sustainable human presence on Mars is to build a base on the Moon, and use its raw materials for shielding, fuel, etc., and only getting the hi-tech & wet-ware from Earth. Why lift a lot of mass off the Earth when it is is a lot cheaper to do so from the Moon, in the medium to longer term?
It is only cheaper from Earth for a one-off mission, or at most a small number of Mars missions.
For sustainable transport between the Earth and the Moon, you want at least 5 structures, 4 of which would be easy to reuse - in order to minimise cost:
(1) Earth-LEO shuttle - the most difficult to reuse
(2) LEO station - for transfer of men & material
(3) LEO-LMO shuttle
(4) LMO station - for transfer of men & material
(5) Moon-LMO shuttle
LEO: Low Earth Orbit
LMO: Low Moon Orbit
Similar reasoning applies to Moon-Mars transport, as there is no point in landing a craft capable of going between the Moon & Mars on the surface of Mars, or the Moon for that matter - though the Mars landing is the most technically challenging.
Re:Humans cannot survive on Mars (Score:5, Informative)
Since the planet does not have a strong magnetic field, the surface is lethal.
Sure, if you're naked. But that's true anyway since it doesn't have an atmosphere worth mentioning, unless you're mentioning dust storms.
As has been discussed elsewhere, at the time of arrival on Mars a person would already have received a lifetime's radiation dose.
As has been discussed elsewhere, that assumes using an existing space vehicle design, with jack for shielding. But since you'll need to take water with you in order to bootstrap the mission, you can use it for shielding.
Here is the real problem (Score:4, Informative)
Republican Members [house.gov]
Steven Palazzo, MS, Chairman
Ralph M. Hall (R-Texas)
Dana Rohrabacher (R-California)
Frank D. Lucas (R-Oklahoma)
Michael McCaul (R-Texas)
Mo Brooks (R-Alabama)
Larry Bucshon (R-Indiana)
Steve Stockman (R-Texas)
Bill Posey (R-Florida)
David Schweikert (R-Arizona)
Jim Bridenstine (R-Oklahoma)
Chris Stewart (R-Utah)
Democrat Members
Donna F. Edwards, MD, Ranking Member
Suzanne Bonamici (D-Oregon)
Dan Maffei (D-New York)
Joe Kennedy III (D-Massachusetts)
Derek Kilmer (D-Washington)
Ami Bera (D-California)
Marc Veasey (D-Texas)
Julia Brownley (D-California)
Frederica Wilson (D-Florida)
The ONLY one on this group who is NOT trash is Rohrabacher. The rest are seekers of pork.
If a one of them REALLY wanted to go to the mars and/or the moon, they would be allocating money for setting up a base in Antarctica using BA's BA-330 and/or ILC Dover's equipment as well as pushing private space. But, do they? Nope.
In addition, they would kill the SLS and instead push a COTS-SHLV for 2 SHLVs. Do they? Nope.
Re:Unfunded mandate? (Score:5, Informative)
Hubble
Kepler
Cassini-Huygens
COBE
WMAP
Spitzer
MSL
GRACE
GRAIL
Chandra
Galileo
SWIFT
We've been mapping the cosmos. We've studied the cosmic microwave background in great detail and discovered that that crazy inflation idea is basically correct (COBE, WMAP). We've determined the Hubble Constant within 9% - we didn't know it within a factor of 2 when I was in grad school (WMAP). We've mapped the large scale structure of the universe, voids and bubbles. Not to mention the numerous theories that have died in the face of experimental evidence from NASA probes, or crazy ideas that have been confirmed.
We've discovered that almost every star we've looked at has multiple planets (Kepler). When I started in this biz, we literally had no idea what \eta_{planet} might be, and now we're closing in on \eta_{earth}.
We've landed probes on Titan (Huygens) and Mars (Rovers, MSL). We're driving robots around on Mars. We've mapped the gravity fields of two planets (GRACE, GRAIL). We've studied the outer planets in great detail (Cassini, Galileo). We've discovered that we don't know what 96% of the universe is made of (HST/Chandra).
Not to mention mapping out gamma ray bursters (SWIFT), x-ray and infrared cosmology (Chandra, Spitzer), and detailed study of the planet we live on (GRACE, numerous others).
We're living in a golden age of cosmology and earth science. You think no one is going to care about these discoveries in a hundred years? Two of those, dark matter/energy and the discovery of extra-stellar planets are paradigm-shifting.
We have the capability to do much more. Give NASA the price of a couple of B2 bombers or an aircraft carrier (or an ISS) spread out over the next decade, and we'll determine the spectra of the atmosphere of other planets light years away (and perhaps find evidence of life), and study the universe in the gravitational wave spectrum. And a dozen other great ideas that simply aren't going to be funded in my lifetime.
Re:Permanent Mars habitation sounds great (Score:4, Informative)
And what is it like on Mars? COLD. The mean on Mars runs from -87C to -5C. Lots of high speed winds, with cold temps with dust in it, that eats at material. Days that are ~24 hours long. seasons are similar, though 2x as long. Sun is missing in the winter. Shortage of water (though it can be picked up in various amounts). Plenty of local resources. If they want to do well, they should bury down into the frozen ground.
If this can survive at the Antarctica, then it can not survive mars. Something that works on the moon, MAY or MAY NOT work on mars. The ONLY thing that the moon has for testing purpose is life support, and that is available on the ISS.
OTOH, The moon is the worst place for testing. Little to no wind. No atmosphere. Lots of micrometeorites (mars has some, not many). Temperature extremes (mars does not get hot). Radiation galore (far far more than mars gets). In fact, mars surface gets less radiation than does the ISS (which is partially protected by our magnetosphere). The Radiation hitting the moon surface is 4-8x what the Martian surface will get. So, if BA units check out in Antartica for 2 years or longer, AND can check out for several years as a space station, then it is fully tested for Mars.
About the only advantage for the moon is testing a lander. Nothing else. All else should be tested here on earth or at the ISS.
Re:Unfunded mandate? (Score:5, Informative)
The house thought they had the funds already, but it turns out they were looking at the NSA budget, not NASA.