

Mars and Moon Are Out of NASA's Reach for Now, Review Panel Says - fjabre
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/08/AR2009090802464.html?hpid=sec-nation

======
robryan
If there not willing to give NASA more funds there almost better off pulling
the plug on the thing and instead giving the money to private space companies,
or retaining NASA as a purely research/ robotic exploration company.

------
wallflower
Buzz Aldrin has said that if we send men to Mars and back once - it's an
accomplishment but if we can do it three times, then we've proved that we have
solved the problem. Russia is already training men to live in isolation for
one hundred and five days (the duration of the Mars - Earth flight).

<http://pda.physorg.com/_news157702743.html>

~~~
nwatson
Why do we need to solve the round-trip problem to Mars? Many set out in the
past from the Old World to the New World with no intention of returning. There
are plenty willing in the near future to go one-way to Mars. "Humans in space"
isn't about science ... robots do that. It's about pushing the limits of the
human experience and spirit.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/opinion/01krauss.html> ... send material
and equipment to Mars first, then the first human colonists. To never return.
It's 10% the cost of a round trip we can't afford.

------
DanielBMarkham
I call horse manure.

Mars and the Moon are well within reach. _They are not a priority._

Now you can argue that the priorities are wrong, and I'll agree with you, but
don't spin it that somehow it's a matter of "reach". It's a matter of _will_.

~~~
fjabre
Agreed. It really is a matter of prioritizing.

With the way things are going on this planet one would think this would be a
higher priority.

Increasing our chances of survival as a species _should_ be a high priority
but it seems we can't see the forest through the trees.

We have developed the means to destroy the planet, yet we have no way of
escaping should that ever actually happen. It's not the kind of situation
you'd like to find yourself in considering all the political and religious
strife prevalent across the globe.

~~~
mechanical_fish
_We have developed the means to destroy the planet, yet we have no way of
escaping should that ever actually happen._

I'm not at all sure that we have the means to make the Earth less habitable
than the Moon or Mars. The Moon is pretty darned uninhabitable. Mars likewise.

Assuming the absolute worst of the nuclear winter hypotheses to be true, we
could perhaps destroy most of the higher life on Earth. But even after a
nuclear winter the Earth would still have substantial amounts of water and
oxygen, and almost certainly a functioning biosphere of some sort. [1] Which
is more than can be said for the Moon or even Mars.

Meanwhile, we most certainly _don't_ have the technology to reach an
extrasolar Earth-like planet, and spending tens of billions of dollars to have
humans dork around in near-solar orbit won't change that fact one bit. If you
really do dream of settling other planets, you need to spend far fewer dollars
on far more radical experiments. Or you need to read Charles Stross:

[http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-
static/2007/06/the_high...](http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-
static/2007/06/the_high_frontier_redux.html)

Possibly both.

\--

[1] Bacteria are hard to kill. Many of them thrive on the lightless ocean
floor at extremely high temperatures. And unicellular creatures _built_ our
oxygen atmosphere, so the loss of it probably won't bother them too much.

~~~
fjabre
Excellent. Wish I had more time to respond to this but point well made.

With enough supplies I believe Mars is habitable. There just wouldnt be a
return mission.

I agree with you about the money. We cant afford it right now.

Too bad... I'd much rather be tooling around in space than fighting a war in
Iraq...

------
run4yourlives
Mars and the Moon? In a few months NASA won't even be able to send a man into
space, let alone the moon.

Sad really.

------
onreact-com
The Chinese and the Russians or the Indians will reach Mars.

[http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2009/01/05/China-Russia-
Mars...](http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2009/01/05/China-Russia-Mars-mission-
set-for-takeoff/UPI-11111231173225/)

~~~
wouterinho
I guess these are nations that have something to prove in this area,
especially China and India. Putting a man on Mars will certainly confirm you
to the general world population as a "real" new dominant power.

~~~
joezydeco
Or confirm you as a nation that puts an expensive, small return mission as
priority over more pressing internal problems?

~~~
gtt
Internal problems always will be. By this logic we should cancel almost all
pure research projects.

~~~
fjabre
How do you figure?

If anything space exploration is research intensive. We have done a lot of
research in space and even on the ground before we got there.

I'm curious as to what you mean by pure research.

~~~
jibiki
I don't understand your comment. You're saying that certain research should
take priority over solving internal problems, but space exploration
shouldn't...? Why?

~~~
billswift
Humans in space efforts have nothing to do with research. They are now purely
national prestige efforts. And I am extremely pro-space, I just don't think
current efforts are doing ANYTHING AT ALL about getting us there permanently.

