How To Beat Congress's Ban Of Humans On Mars 447
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."
Congress? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Congress? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Congress? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Congress? (Score:4, Informative)
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? (Score:4, Funny)
Did you really mean that? I read it as:
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, they are free to shoot at.
hmmmmmm
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Congress? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because Congress created NASA and has final say over the purposes and funding of all federal agencies.
Re:Congress? (Score:4, Insightful)
When you go to a restaurant do you order what you want to eat?
Or do you just give them your account number and they bring you whatever the chef wants to cook that day? Then the chef takes the amount of money he feels he needs from your account.
Because chefs know better than customers how to prepare a meal.
Yup! (Score:3, Insightful)
Some old shit...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's worse than that. It's not merely a matter of "who's going to collect my garbage and make me my cheeseburger?" Having unhealthy people around you is hazardous to your health. Seeing the best doctor every day while many people around you can't afford to see a doctor at all creates a situation like having every expert in fire-safety in the world suggest improvements to your house while you live in a neighborhood of fire-traps. I don't care how well you've taken care of your home, when the fire rages a
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Hippocratic oath doesn't come into play; the procedure has typically already been done, and even if the claim is denied, it doesn't mean you're not allowed to have the surgery, just that you may have to find alternate funding. Of course the flip side of this is hospitals / offices performing rando
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The first decision from insurance is not the final one; it can be appealed.
That's making the assumption that the condition isn't life-threatening. Ask how long the appeals process *can* take..
Failing that, its possible to sue if your doctor (and second opinions) agree it was necessary.
...Which does nothing to bring back a dead patient...
...and even if the claim is denied, it doesn't mean you're not allowed to have the surgery, just that you may have to find alternate funding.
And praytell, where does one go to ask to borrow 10k-100k that [because of the potential of death on the table] may never be paid back, other than a loan shark?
Of course the flip side of this is hospitals / offices performing random tests just to be able to bill for something as well.
Considering the staffing situation at most hospitals, the number of "random" tests performed isn't as big as the insurance companies would like you to believe. Many times
Re:Congress? (Score:4, Interesting)
Everyone is up in arms about how there's a lot of programs (like the Hubble and the spacestation) that we are abandoning. The reason we are abandoning them is because of a lack of funding. Why is there a lack of funding? One big reason is because we are spending money on human space-travel projects because of this goal to reach Mars. No, instead, let's keep funding the projects that are actually providing us with all sorts of valuable research.
Re:Congress? (Score:5, Funny)
Only sissies call it "parliament." Its proper reference is "freedom council of freedom and liberty justice."
America. FUCK YEAH.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Second, this doesn't stop anybody from going to Mars, or outlaw trips to Mars. All it does in says that NASA can't use money Congress has appropriated to send humans to mars; ESA or a private American citizen with enough money could still legally go to Mars.
-mcgrew
Re:Congress? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't think there is anything preventing NASA from getting private funding to do it themselves, but frankly, i can't see any private sources coming up with the billions required to research a manned mars mission.
Its Cheapest to simply let commercial interests develop a way. That IS the American way after all, Capitalism [wikipedia.org].
Also i can't honestly see the point on why we need men on m
Re:Congress? (Score:4, Insightful)
Robots are cheap and you can do more science per dollar spent using robots in space than you can using humans in space.
Re:Congress? (Score:5, Insightful)
I really really love the romanticism of humans on Mars. I really love the concept of terraforming, and I really wish it wasn't so damn dangerous to throw larger nuclear powered crafts up into space, as this could really open up possibilities, however it really is a low-return for the money you would throw at a human project.
As lovely as putting people into space is, it's expensive, risky and a hard case to argue. If we were a world all obsessed by expanding to other planets, we might even have had miniature civilisations on Mars by now, but as a whole, the obsession is looking after one self and not the far future...
Re:Congress? (Score:4, Interesting)
This is the kind of stuff that you need to figure out who did it. Then, you need to find out why. Most likely, the reason will be somewhat insane, but at least you know what you are dealing with. Then, after you know who and why, you work to make sure that it does not happen again. Ignorance is a powerful disadvantage.
From the reference, it seems that this is an attempt to keep NASA form being administratively destroyed by a Bushism. Remember the guy Bush put in place that started slashing everything else to make one thing happen. The NASA budget is so tiny compared to so many other budgets, the solution to achieve things is not to slash and burn, but to fund it. OMG! Look at everything we have gotten out of the space race so far. Microwaves (communications and ovens), new materials, better computing, better aircraft, and more!
So, the who is not so important, but the why is very important. To prevent another slash and burn like the last Bush appointee.
Maybe this language is needed. Remember how many things this administration has made happen for short sighted goals that have disastrous mid to long term impacts (yeah, nothing new, but they are very good at it). Would it actually be good to go for Mars at the expense of so many other things?
InnerWeb
That's how I read it. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody please tell congress that they don't have jurisdiction on other planets.
Fortunately they do not. First someone has to land there, put a flag on it and then assume residency. Otherwise it is uncharted and uninhabited up for grabs. Congress has no jurisdiction there.
The real truth however is that they are afraid of what they already know or might find. Maybe they found something with the rover they don't want us to know? Less people who visit, any new discoveries would be easier to hold back
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Could the headline have been more misleading? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe that the people lacking vision are those that want to spend billions of dollars rocketing a team of 8 people to a giant red rock in the sky when we haven't figured out how to fix problems at home first.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I can think of plenty of things that are more motivating and visionary to spend taxpayer money on. Things like AIDS research and cancer research, just to name two off the top of my head.
I believe that the people lacking vision are those that want to spend billions of dollars rocketing a team of 8 people to a giant red rock in the sky when we haven't figured out how to fix problems at home first.
What problems at home do you think Spain should have fixed before dropping huge amounts of gold into the Columbus expeditions? When would those problems have been fixed?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Could the headline have been more misleading? (Score:5, Insightful)
Like the Aztecs did to the other tribes, but without the human sacrifice?
A nation that tries to deal with its social problems completely before tackling expansion and technological progress will be destroyed by the nations that don't.
Mars is stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Its a DISTRACTION, didn't anybody notice how Bush has been trying to slow or stop climate science? He has NASA refocused on mars and neglecting other areas that he doesn't want or care about moving forward. Remember, he stopped a climate science probe that other countries would have paid to launch (it was already built) just because he didn't want any climate science probe backing this vast conspiracy of climate scientists scamming people about global warming. (we know he tried to censor government climate scientists, even after the public woke up.)
I've said it before; won't waste time doing it again even if I'd get mod up like I did before.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
This assumes that spending more money on these things is going to suddenly find cures for said things. Science doesn't work like that.
Re:Could the headline have been more misleading? (Score:4, Insightful)
The members of Congress were duly elected by the general populace of the United States; why NASA should attempt to ignore Congressional opinion is beyond me. If you happen to live in the U.S. and are upset about the situation (one way or the other), I urge you to contact [congress.org] your representative legislator(s) directly.
Re:Could the headline have been more misleading? (Score:4, Interesting)
No, it reveals the great frustration of US lawmakers with NASA for screwing up and mismanaging project after expensive project, year after wearying year. Between the overhyped and overpriced Shuttle program (and two very visible accidents on top of other problems), Hubble, the ongoing disaster that is ISS, and whole string of less visible projects... Congress simply doesn't trust NASA.
Historically, post-Apollo, NASA has tried to spin every project it can into being a precursor for manned Mars missions... Which Congress has historically been uninterested in funding. (This 'ban' isn't the first such, nor even the second...) Worse yet, NASA has also (historically) tried every trick in the book in the book to get around the 'bans', further engendering mistrust of them in Congress.
NASA has been hobbled practically since it's birth by the Shuttle - Station - Mars!! vision laid out by Werner Von Braun and enthusiastically endorsed by early NASA administrators. Yes Virginia - the Shuttle program has been around that long, the earliest studies are contemporary with the Mercury project. Many in NASA (at the time) felt that Max Faget and the STG represented a shortcut to beating the Russians and a way of getting early engineering experience before getting to the real task at hand - developing a shuttle and all the rest of Von Braun's vision.
Except - in real life it didn't happen that way. The Apollo (Lunar) program was an accident of a) the Cold War, and b) the Kennedy assassination. Before he died, Jack Kennedy was already seeking to distance himself from, and minimize the program. When he was killed, Apollo was funded as his memorial. Even so, budget cutbacks started as soon as they could be managed - Apollo landing missions and post Apollo programs were being cancelled or cut back as early as 1966! By the time we actually reached the moon, the program was already running on vapors.
So far as public interest goes - just look at the TV numbers of the various landing missions. The great public interest, much ballyhooed by space fanboys, simply never existed.
Science or propaganda? (Score:3, Insightful)
So telling NASA to use their budget on science rather than propaganda shows "lack of vision"?
And YOU are also misleading (Score:2)
What is interesting on this, is the amount of games that pol
Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If NASA was based in Ron Paul's home district, I'd bet my dollar to your donut he'd be extolling the virtues of pork--errr... I mean--Martian exploration.
You need to dial your Cynacism-O-Meter up a notch and realize Libertarians are not so far from Democrats/Republicans as you may think.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I find this sort of logic tempting. But isn't it setting the bar a bit low if we say, "This activity is not as stupid as the war in Iraq. Therefore, let's do it."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Congress is trying to protect the other projects from being cannibalized to fund the manned Mars mission. And they want Bush to pony up the dollars for it if he's going to give NASA a mandate to put a man on Mars (as opposed to just giving the mandate with no funds, forcing NASA to divert funds from other useful missions).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Really, all Congress seems to be asking is for the Administration to be honest with its funding requests: ask for the money needed to do wh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Politics as usual. Considering that the Mars mission is backed by George Bush (he proposed it with some minor fanfare in early 2004), I'd surmise that it's just another way for Congress to take a swipe at Dubya.
Who cares about science when you can score some cheap political points...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not for real. A real program would have a deadline within the career horizon of most members of Congress, and have a much larger budget tied to achieving substantial milestones every single year.
So, you take money away from real projects, like Earth climate measurement, and you give it to a show program that is not realistically connected to its ostensible ends. The current "Vision" is to establish a lunar base in 2020 -- so far so good, and to launch t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What does Congress have against funding for exploration of Mars?
At the present time Mars exploration is an inefficient method of purchasing voters. The money will instead flow to those interests that leverage the largest constituency of the dominant party [democrats.org]. What those interests are can be found here [aarp.org], here [afge.org], here [nea.org] and here [sierraclub.org], but mostly here [ama-assn.org]. All public proselytizing aside the recent change in US political party dominance has not and will not cause substantial disruption in the flow of funds here [wikipedia.org], because nothing raises the cost of voters for incumbent rulers as rapidly a
Easy (Score:3, Insightful)
Or plan to send a ship the opposite direct then are rotation and plan to meet up with it in 8 months.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure congress knows what they're doing~
Legal speak (Score:2)
That doesn't even make sense. "Provided that..." (i.e. "on the basis that the following is true") makes sense, but not with a comma.
As for the ban, those are some interesting ways to get around it. "Humanoid exploration" could potentially also include a human-shaped robot that has tac
Martian cops patrolling for renegade humans? (Score:2, Funny)
I know how to do this! (Score:2)
To perform non-robotic landings on Mars without violating a ban on human landing, staff the Mars mission with members of the current US administration!
Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week! Try the veal, it's delicious!
Not quite... (Score:5, Informative)
I can see it both ways... (Score:2)
Should NASA be free to spend its own budget without Congressional oversight? Probably.
Perhaps NASA needs to earn back some goodwill by proving that they're still relevant and useful first.
Re: (Score:2)
But the budget is provided by Congress (well directed to them by Congress), and they allocate it for whatever reasons they have - if NASA looks like they might spend it on something Congress doesn't want them to, then such a restriction seems reasonable.
If the head of NASA said "I read on the internet that the price of gold is "going to the moon", since we also want to go to moon I am going to invest 100% of NASA's budget
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Doesn't ban humans on Mars (Score:3, Informative)
Worry not.. (Score:2)
Worthy Goals (Score:2)
Simple (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It won't be until conditions on this planet become so bad that living on Mars
Re: (Score:2)
Not in this case you won't. There's nothing on Mars with a commercial value anywhere near the transportation cost. Nor will it make sense to use any of the very crappy real estate on Mars until after the much better real estate in Antarctica is all used up.
Great (Score:2)
Inevitable (Score:2, Insightful)
As has already been pointed out, the summary is misleading. But you might as well get used to this idea. We will NEVER colonize the planets. As soon as the technology starts to get close, the scientists and environmentalists will stop it, so as to not contaminate a virgin environment. *Particularly* in the case of Mars, because scientists want to see if life already exists there (it doesn't, but they want to find out for sure).
I understand the romance of living on other planets, but it's inevitable that t
Re:Inevitable (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure. And there is a market for maybe 5 computers in the world, 640K is enough for anybody, we don't need telephones because we have good messenger boys, flight of heavier-than-air vehicles is impossible, rail travel at high speed is impossible because humans would be unable to breathe and asphyxiate etc etc. Oh, and just for you:
To place a man in a multi-stage rocket and project him into the controlling gravitational field of the moon where the passengers can make scientific observations, perhaps land alive, and then return to earth - all that constitutes a wild dream worthy of Jules Verne. I am bold enough to say that such a man-made voyage will never occur regardless of all future advances.
--Lee DeForest
Have you learned nothing from past absolute statements?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you learned nothing from past absolute statements?
Sheesh, way to not read my post at all. Where did I say it was technologically impossible?
Ban? (Score:2)
Every dollar spent on Mars... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or defense contracts for companies owned by Nancy Pelosi's husband. [mypetjawa.mu.nu].
Or billions in subsidies to Fortune 500 agribusiness companies. [cbsnews.com]
There can be no funding for frivolities like the human exploration of space when so many of the needs of the Permanent Bipartisan State of Porkistan remain unmet...
Starchild (Score:2)
Should NASA earn a weasel reputation? (Score:4, Insightful)
Regardless of whether one thinks that the "Mars ban" is a good idea, would it be good for NASA to get a reputation of using loopholes and subverting the intent of Congress? Even if NASA complied, space enthusiasts could inadvertently build such a reputation in the public mind.
Then what? Would Congress get more strict the next year, resulting in dozens of started-but-never completed projects? Would the public say, "Those NASA dudes can't be trusted! See how they handled the Mars ban? Let's use that money to subsidize professional football instead!"
Hmm.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What is Mars trying to hide?
Santa Claus [imdb.com], you dope.
Why stop at Mars? (Score:5, Insightful)
What's so wonderful about manned exploration of space anyway?
Transporting humans and all of their environmental requirements is ridiculously expensive. The risk for the travelers is ultimate. Alternatively, unmanned missions can go not only where no one has gone before, but also where no one will ever be able to go (e.g. the Venutian surface), and for a fraction of the cost.
The only upside from a manned mission is that we feel all warm and fuzzy when our heroes return from the voyage. Big deal.
Sounds odd to say, but I'm with Congress on this one. I just wish they'd taken it farther.
Re:When they return.. (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know of any fuel on this planet that will take a large enough payload of fuel to Mars for the return trip. Who said they would ever return? At current tech, it's a one way ticket.
You haven't seen any probes sent with enough fuel to return. You won't see it anytime soon. Fuel that is light enough to take, but has enough mass to provide thrust to escape Mars orbital velocity do
As I understand it, it's all about bang per buck (Score:3, Insightful)
As I understand it, it's all about bang per buck.
Re:As I understand it, it's all about bang per buc (Score:2)
That's not true at all. You can get a lot of data for some specific missions from unmanned missions. SOme missions need to be unmanned by there nature, Voyager, for example.
But humans can do a lot on the fly, respond to changing conditions or mission priorities. Then can even ignore priorities that have become inappropriate do to an unforeseen change.
Why is it robotic OR humans, why not robotics AND humans?
I would want to see the adventurers tha
Loopholes (Score:2)
Isn't the first time (Score:2)
Power of the purse (Score:2)
Easy! (Score:4, Funny)
Space Shuttle? (Score:3, Interesting)
Sending humans to Mars is stupid and pointless (Score:4, Interesting)
Sending humans to Mars is stupid and pointless. It's an idea trotted out by politicians every decade or so to distract voters, not something to really do. Congress is right to pull the plug.
Space travel on chemical fuels is just barely possible, and it's not getting any better. Chemical rockets work about as well as they did forty years ago. Chemical fuels haven't improved, and they're not going to. We've had liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen for forty years, and that's as good as it gets.
Hence the fundamental problem. All spacecraft have to be so weight-reduced that they're fragile and unreliable. If spacecraft could be built with the weight budget of a jetliner, with about 50% of the mass at takeoff being fuel, they'd work fine.
Without fission, fusion, or antimatter power, or new physics, this isn't going to improve. We're stuck without a better power source.
There hasn't been a new power source for half a century now. First time since the Industrial Revolution that's happened. Most of the major problems in the world today, from global warming to the Middle East, come from that fact.
That's the problem. Mars is a sideshow.
"Exclusively" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Has Washington Lost its mind? (Score:4, Insightful)
While I do think that this bill is dumb how do you figure that the us is getting plowed under on the innovation front?
The US still leads the world in Space exploration. There are some very interesting robotic missions going on right now.
The US is still a world leader in ICs And is the world leader in CPUs. Intel's core line, AMDs Barcelona, IBM's Power5, Suns' Sparc T2 are all very cutting edge.
The US still leads in Aircraft. The 787 and the F22 are prime examples of innovation. And then you Burt Rutan.
There is a lot of very innovative work in biology going on in the US.
Then you have Software. Apple, Microsoft, Intel, Google, and IBM, are all doing a lot of interesting research and development work.
I also worry about the future of technology in the US but when you make statements that are just flat out untrue people will dismiss your concerns.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't understand someones reasoning for doing something, how can you make any judgements?
Re: (Score:2)
A fleet of inexpensive robots can do the exploration job for cheaper and doesn't risk the loss of life.
I would love to see humans on Mars, but I think a lot of our space innovation can be done with robots for the time being. As it is, too many probes to Mars get lost (IIRC, a third fail, crash or don't get into orbit properly),
Re:The article forgot to mention another possibili (Score:2)