NASA Chief Tells the Critics of Exploration Plan: "Get Over It" 216
mknewman (557587) writes "For years, critics have been taking shots at NASA's plans to corral a near-Earth asteroid before moving on to Mars — and now NASA's chief has a message for those critics: 'Get over it, to be blunt.' NASA Administrator Charles Bolden defended the space agency's 20-year timeline for sending astronauts to the Red Planet on Tuesday, during the opening session of this year's Humans 2 Mars Summit at George Washington University in the nation's capital."
On, to Mars! (Score:5, Insightful)
I have one thing to say. Hurry the fuck up.
When I was a kid, there was so much "by the year 2000". Space stations. Moon bases. Mars colonies. Mining asteroids. Deep space missions. Fleets of spacecraft. Hypersonic travel around the earth.
The only thing resembling a real space ship has been retired. 1960s tech is back as the best thing anyone can come up with, and it's totally owned by the Russians.
I am impressed by probes. They are cool toys. But they can't replace a person standing there, making decisions. Asking "what if..." We learn from being and doing. The rover we have on Mars now has a mostly busted wheel. A wheel that a human could have riveted a patch over in a few minutes. Or maybe some duct tape. You know, what the Apollo astronauts did, because they were there. Where humans can improvise, and grab a roll of tape.
If we hadn't given up on the space race, maybe we'd have most of those things. So we slacked for 20 years, lets get back on track.
Radiation... (Score:5, Insightful)
Radiation Rules Exploration [astrobio.net]
Re:Radiation... (Score:4, Insightful)
Hollowing out asteroids was/is one proposed way to solve the shielding problem – no need to launch all mass up. Of course, we're far from being able to do that, but the asteroid redirection mission is a first step in that direction.
Re:Radiation... (Score:5, Insightful)
If I were planning a trip to Mars, solar and cosmic radiation would be one of my main concerns.
Cosmic radiation is only a problem if you aim for zero tolerance.
The data given by Curiosity [63.131.142.246] show that a Mars mission only increases your risk of cancer by 5%. That means that there are plenty of other hurdles far more dangerous when it comes to takeoff and landing.
To put that in perspective 5.5% of former smokers and 15.9% of active smokers get lung cancer. (24.4% for those who smoke more than 5 cigarettes a day.)
Unless you intend to set up a permanent base or have a mission where the astronauts stay more than two years on the surface the radiation can be handled by informing the astronaut of the danger and have them sign a paper.
If people should be allowed to smoke then I think people should be allowed to risk cancer with a Mars-trip too.
Re:What a monstrosity posing as a webpage (Score:2, Insightful)
Who the hell uses the tt tag?!
On that note, why is my browser even interpreting the tt tag...
Re:On, to Mars! (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't take much (Score:5, Insightful)
Provide incentives for private industry, and get the fsck out of the way.
Promise $5 billion to the first company to send the same spaceship to orbit 10 times and return. $10 billion to the first company to send the same spaceship to geo-sync orbit 3 times. $20 billion to the first company to bring an asteroid above size X to a lagrange point. $50 billion to the first company to have people live on the moon for two weeks. Change the goals and figures to suit. Total cost will be a fraction of having the bloated NASA bureaucracy do the same things.
Then get rid of all possible regulations, and eliminate most liability. Space is hazardous - let's assume participants are adults who know what they are getting into.
Then get out of the way.
Re:How the west wasn't won (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet without governments there would be no space technology.
comparison is out of whack (Score:5, Insightful)
Human on mars is only a question of fulfilling a dream, a dream which is completely cut off from the reality of cost. it is nice for you to have a dream, but some of us prefer practical solutions.
Re:comparison is out of whack (Score:5, Insightful)
That's funny that you express that there's no reason to put people on Mars, but you quote Carl Sagan in your tagline.
I ran across this a few days ago.
http://io9.com/5932534/carl-sa... [io9.com]
Re:It doesn't take much (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with "winner takes all" competitions like that is that unless you are fairly certain of winning there isn't much incentive to spend billions trying. The NASA model of creating a spec and then asking for tenders to do it is better, assuming you can resist cancelling or downsizing everything year to year.
Re:It doesn't take much (Score:5, Insightful)
Over here in the real world, "private industry" acts like the United Launch Alliance: an intrenched monopoly with zero incentive to bring down launch costs. The same for the other long time players, like ArianeSpace and the Russians.
The only disruption to this cozy international cartel is SpaceX and the like. Note that these are all privately funded by technocrats who made huge fortunes in software. No one had to go out and raise money for these ventures. The investors are the founders, and they have very deep pockets.
It is impossible to raise money for this kind of business in capital markets because it's easier and more profitable to make money the old fashioned way: steal it.
Just look at the example of the FCC deciding to squash net neutrality. Hire regulators via the revolving door, pay out some bribe/campaign contributions, get legislation that you wrote passed as laws: instant profit!!! Why waste time and money on something as iffy as outer space?
So real innovation and risk taking is not the product of "private industry", it's a hobby of a few individuals who succeeded in the past. They could have as easily bought a major league sports franchise like Mark Cuban.
Is it likely that the next generation of successful entrepreneurs will have the space bug? Because if they don't then the only way we'll get to Mars, or make use of space resources is through governments. Any near term profit in space comes from satellites at synchronous orbit or below. No profit or incentive for long term capital investment any further out.
The only other reason to go is nationalism. That's why the Chinese are going to the moon. The US will opt out because none of the entrenched "private industry" players see sufficient guaranteed profit in their pig trough. It's so much easier to raise prices for Netflicks.
Re:Proposal. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it technically is the gender neutral preposition. It is not, apparently, politically correct but it *is* grammatically correct.
Wikipedia Reference [wikipedia.org]
Also, "Man" and "Mankind" still refer to all humans, not just male humans.
There are two NASA's: 1) Pork 2) Science (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How the west wasn't won (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely we know that.
There was no driving factor for private interest.
NASA never lost it's way. NASA lost it's budget. IN spite of budget reductions, NASA has done amazing things, just without humans sitting in a flight deck.