No plans for Mars mission in near future - sketchy details

Rxke · 2003-11-12 15:04:49

Long article, i know, but there's some behind the scenes info... The part about Mars is under the 'destination' tile, if you can't be bothered to read the whole article.

Looks like NASA won't even try to go to Mars in the near future

Palomar · 2003-11-12 16:08:12

Bush Space Policy: Will America (Finally) Go Somewhere Once Again?
Many have called for a specific destination to be named - one that will pull or push technology development - rather than Sean O'Keefe's currently espoused approach wherein NASA seeks to develop technology and then see what destination opportunities it might provide down the road. Word from knowledgeable sources would suggest that an overt Kennedy-esque commitment to send humans to Mars is simply not in the cards. Indeed, Mars (as an option) is not on the table at the present time.
Ohhhhhhhh

*Well, I'm certainly VERY sorry to read all this.

But it does not surprise me, given the current sociopoliticoeconomical climate.

Hopefully there'll be lots of "gear shifting" over the next 3 to 5 years...like Bush getting booted OUT of the Oval Office (for starters), and the next President more committed to the space program (not to mention America itself), etc.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2003-11-12 17:29:57

Regardless of where the words are finally said and what the backdrop is, I can't imagine that the President will walk away from this opportunity - one framed by tragedy and commitment and inspired by history - and perhaps just a dash of destiny.
Meanwhile, we'll all have to stay tuned and wait for George Bush. It's his call.

Looks like another opinion fluff piece. Too bad war tends to be a bit distracting for GWB right now.

Josh Cryer · 2003-11-12 17:31:36

Bush Space Policy: Will America (Finally) Go Somewhere Once Again?
Many have called for a specific destination to be named - one that will pull or push technology development - rather than Sean O'Keefe's currently espoused approach wherein NASA seeks to develop technology and then see what destination opportunities it might provide down the road. Word from knowledgeable sources would suggest that an overt Kennedy-esque commitment to send humans to Mars is simply not in the cards. Indeed, Mars (as an option) is not on the table at the present time.
Ohhhhhhhh

Yeah, that is definitely an interesting point. Look at the recent news about China. China is focusing on the moon, now, so it's only logical that we do the same.

flashgordon · 2003-11-12 18:02:19

no wonder humanity always goes the round-a-bout way . . .

Rxke · 2003-11-13 06:31:40

Cheer up, people... Though i must admit myself feeling more than a bit disappointed, if the moon-base plan goes forward (we don't know that yet, of course, but the encouraging "the focus seems to be coalescing around sending humans back to the Moon and to the establishment of a inner solar system infrastructure that would allow decisions to where to go next (e.g. Mars, asteroids, etc.) to be made once certain technological and operational unknowns are better understood. " keep a bit of space for hoping.. ) it looks like 'they' *did* listen to Dr Zubrins remarks.
Building hardware to go to the moon, but in the mean time doing a partial shake-down on that hardware for an eventual mission to Mars is still a possibility. Building the OSP in a way so that it can fulfill several operations, not just a glorified life-boat... etc.
Of course, if they start throwing bucketloads of good money to the big companies as they used to do, it'll sizzle out quite fast. But as the article points out, it is conceivable NASA will have to do it in another way, exactly the way Zubrin proposed to the hearings... (start with low-budget, 50mil... planning stage, let the big AND smaller boys compete to come up with a GOOD plan...)
And if there would be a base being built, commercial launches could get a much-needed marketboost, for there'll be more stuff to deliver... Think XCOR and other entrepreneurs that have the low price-rockets in development...
I'm rather pessimistc, frankly, betting they'll go for a bland OSP and call it a day. NASA has become quite a dinosaur, lately.
But you never know, the overall accepted feeling in congress finally looks to be that NASA *really* needs a kick in the pants, so hopefully GWB puts on his steel-tipped-oil rig boots and gives them a smarting kick in the right direction!
Keep hoping. All is no lost, yet.

Ad Astra · 2003-11-13 21:57:56

This really does sound like SEI all over again. A long-term commitment to space in general instead of one specific destination. As a society, we must share this long-term commitment. The downside is that a president's tenure only lasts 4-8 years, and Congress changes every two years. The people who approved a particular space program could get voted out within two years time and the program gets axed.

The big difference between the upcoming space policy and SEI is that the president's allies enjoy a majority in both houses of congress. Furthermore, the need for ANY new space policy has taken new precedence ever since the loss of Columbia on an inconsequential science mission. So I do expect this policy to be implemented, and I hope that we can give Jim Lovell one last shot at the moon.

Wim · 2003-11-16 14:40:05

I found this on the Nasa site. It has been there for a long time ... I didn't read all of it but I think there isn't any timeline mentioned.

~Eternal~ · 2003-11-20 13:38:57

Perhaps buisness with soon be able to send
people to the Moon, Mars, and many other places
to go.
Seriously, the government has no law in space, its invalid
if they do, because space is not theirs to use or control.

clark · 2003-11-20 15:23:27

http://www.nasawatch.com/

i love rumors...

20 November 2003: Mystery Dirt Pile at JSC
Editor's note: from someone@jsc.nasa.gov: "Do you know anything about a Mars simulation being constructed at the back of JSC? It appears that they are building a mountain of dirt, and we heard that it is a Mars simulation for testing suits."
Does anyone down there know what is going on? Send us a note: nasawatch@reston.com

clark · 2003-11-21 13:55:35

update to the rumors....

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=11068

Reply from JSC:

With a lot of "free fill" dirt collected over the past few years resulting from a number of NASA-JSC on-site construction projects and a small amount of funding for terrain detail materials (sand and rock), efforts are underway to add more realistic and representative features to the current NASA-JSC EVA Remote Field Demonstration Test Site (aka; "rock pile").
The current 1/2 acre "rock pile" test site (representative of a Mars-like strewn rock field) has been used over the past three years to support joint teams composed of NASA-JSC, Glenn Research Center, and Ames technical personnel to conduct a series of "dry run" test activites for advanced space suit mobility studies that have included rover vehicle ergonomic studies, human/robotic support system interactive task activities, and advanced communications voice, video and data transmission to mission control science team members. The "dry run" testing of advanced technology development hardware systems that are being investigated for future potential planetary exploration in a realistic (out of the lab) terrestrial analog setting and representative of an extraterrestrial surface, has been extremely helpful in defining and developing engineering design insight towards problems that will be encountered and need to be solved in support of future human planetary surface exploration. The addition of the new "hill" terrain feature which will also incorporate various slopes and obstacles, will further enhance and expand the capability to conduct more realistic "dry run" evaluation activities in order to test the robustness and functionalities of the various candidate advanced technology systems. This outdoor facility has been extremely useful to "shake, rattle, and roll" the various system elements prior to and in preparation for conducting more full-scale testing in actual remote field test locations in the Mojave Desert, northern Arizona, and Utah.
The dream lives on !

Josh Cryer · 2003-11-21 18:38:19

So basically "we made a dirt hill to compliment our dirt pile." :;):

sethmckiness · 2003-11-22 04:04:09

Josh Cryer Posted on Nov. 21 2003, 19:38
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So basically "we made a dirt hill to compliment our dirt pile."

"MOMMMY! CAN I GO OUT AND PLAY TOO!!!!!"

I love to play in the dirt!

mcorley · 2003-11-22 17:50:19

It is no wonder NASA has given up on a Mars mission. They are at last forced to face facts. Liberal democrats leaped at the chance to cut NASA's budget, the minute the moon missions were completed. They couldn't wait to get their hands on every dollar they could. NO, I am not a crazy conservative, I just read budgets. Under the current mentality, human missions are finished. I am surprised the space station has gotten this far. The next shuttle accident will end manned space missions period.

It is a crying shame, and a loss to this country, and the world of uncalculable dimension. Look back over the Apolo missions, and realise the return to world society from that program. The internet, and the entire PC industry can trace it's birth to the early manned missions. Now try to concider where we would be as a nation, and as a world people, if the same level of investment in research had continued. We went to the moon, and stopped. It is a crime to the world that there are no moon bases up and running. Mars should already have been visited many more times than once.

Liberal money wasting programs MUST stop draining away the dollars that should be funding continued space exploration. I won't fuel the argument about manned or robotic missions to planets outside of Mars. But we have got to get back on track. Social improvement will happen by default, if education and research are the focus of society. The return on investment, is incredible, but we have got to get noisy, and force government to get back in the space business. If we don't, manned space flight will be over in less than 10 years, mark my depressed words.

Realize one fact. The federal goverment has spent in excess of six trillion dollars on the war on poverty since Johnson. Poverty statistics have not changed one percent in all of that time. Now if that money had been spent on research and education, society would be worlds ahead socialy as well as scientificly. It is just that simple!

Josh Cryer · 2003-11-22 19:28:05

Carter wanted to build a really cool moon base but it got shot down.

sethmckiness · 2003-11-23 03:58:40

There has been high and low points in Space Flight and I would definitly put us at a trought of the wave of space flight.

What we need to grasp is a vision.

This Vision needs to be agreed upon by a majority of people such that it can turn into something tangible.

We are currently in a defeatist cycle. The only major press given to space is based on disaster. If something good happens it's back page news.

Maybe the culture problem with Nasa is a sampling of a larger problem overall. How can we invigorate the people to want a space program, to make it a major issue?

That is the question...

I think it may stur a chicken egg debate though. Public interest or new program. If you get a new program it may spawn interest. Without interest though it is hard to justify funding a new program.

Gennaro · 2003-11-23 10:05:23

I believe you need to change the government (and by that I don't mean individual presidents but the regime), maybe even your political system. Sorry I said that, but I'm on the outside looking in and I think I should try to be honest.
The great futuristic enthusiasm of the 20's-70's was not least linked to a socio-economical reality of a certain kind. A more or less worldwide consensus was reached that the state had an important task in driving economical progress through a semi-socialist system fit for an integrated mature capitalism. This in turn influenced that sense of "we can do it!", 'everything is possible' and 'we do this together'.
Since the early 70's however, the guiding philosophy has reverted to a neo-classicist ideal of free trade dogmatism and anti-state sentiment in regard to industrial society, which in its pure form probably have never existed anywhere but in Britain during the mid 19th century.
Why? Because without the peculiar historical circumstances of early British industrialism, it doesn't make sense. Even Adam Smith knew that. America? There neither. The Cumberland road connecting the Atlantic coast and the Ohio valley was built with federal funds. Basically, the government printed up money. Why did it not cause inflation? Because the liquid capital got frozen in a solid form of great infrastructural significance, which economical progress could benefit from further. In itself, massive projects like the Cumberland road, the railroads or the Eire canal, caused an increased demand for labour, resulting in increasing wages. Wages that in turn stimulated demand throughout the economy. The latter point is in full accord with the philosophy of Adam Smith. The United States has from its inception also enjoyed a practical autarchy that has made it possible for indigenous market forces to benefit from national demand and it has maintained that system by the very protectionist measures that are such an anathema to free trade believers.
A space program is really nothing but a Cumberland road, driving demand, initiative and technology, provided it can be directed at a productive outcome.
Problem is that the people now running the White House and thus the world, electing the presidents, don't believe in this. They are, apart from their special common backgrounds and interests, formed by the globalist free trade thinking personified by Milton Friedman: the great but logical metamorphosis of their own leftist-rousseauist counterculture generation.
Instinctively in regard to majority society, they scorn things like the collective, nation, state, people - a community of shared values in any form - and have only regard for the "individual" and something called "human rights". For some reason one never hear references to 'civil rights'; there is nothing these people detest as much as the plastic flamingos of a worker done good.
Hence collective progress is not a concern. John Doe is not asked for in this society and he knows it. As his share of demand and contribution of productive labour dwindles, we are slowing down. I believe this a major aspect of the problem. Thus, the world economy lapses into a state of speculation rather than industrial investment, contraction instead of expansion. A certain sense of dystopia settles in, lingering like a low dim mist over everything.
Since the early 70's, when the great turn around in world affairs reached decisive point, we have gone nowhere in space. All that, from the experimental rockets of von Braun to Apollo, took place during that quasi-socialist period of the state interfering with the economy. A worldwide phenomenon of which the United States was not alone.
I believe that one should at least think about that historical coincidence.

Bill White · 2003-11-23 10:47:48

India calls for humans to Mars within 50 years, to be accomplished by the nation of India.

Gennaro · 2003-11-23 10:58:01

Hm, interesting. Those news of the first Indian rocket launch must have been totally blocked out by the murder of JFK, 40 years ago.

Wim · 2003-11-23 11:05:12

Well it seems very promising. Seeing is believing is what I'm thinking right now ...

Shaun Barrett · 2003-11-24 06:27:57

Yeah!
At the very least, it's a more detailed and comprehensive space policy (and social policy) than anyone else has right now!

Rxke · 2003-11-24 06:56:41

At the very least, it's a more detailed and comprehensive space policy (and social policy) than anyone else has right now!

Or, rather: sad but true...

Have to agree, I'm happy to see the social aspect got the limelight, none of that "it's throwing away money, we'd better solve hunger..." Education is the *only* long term solution to India's problems, and a thriving space-industry would be a major boost to their economy, schooling, agrigulture (remote sensing, anyone?)
Good to see a politician backing a long-term plan... It's a rare sight.

Gennaro · 2003-11-24 07:24:15

Education is the *only* long term solution to India's problems, and a thriving space-industry would be a major boost to their economy, schooling, agrigulture (remote sensing, anyone?)

- At which time the United States is putting the screws on public higher education:
http://www.ctheory.net/text_file.asp?pick=402

mcorley · 2003-11-24 23:26:24

We are currently in a defeatist cycle. The only major press given to space is based on disaster. If something good happens it's back page news.

I think it is worse than that. Think back to the 1960's. We lived in an America where ANYTHING was possible. Think it up, work on it, and it can be done. WE WENT TO THE MOON FOR GOD'S SAKE WITH 1950-1960's TECHNOLOGY.

Look at us today, NOTHING is possible. Suggest the least project, and we can afford it, it might eat into "entitlements" budget. This country is petrofied, frozen in place. Terrified to do a damn thing (sorry for the language, but it was needed). I want to go back to living in a country where anything is possible. I want my kids and grandkids to live there. WE can do it, but we all have to work at it. Get out of our easy chairs and as I said already, get noisy!!!

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-11-12 15:04:49

Re: No plans for Mars mission in near future - sketchy details

#2 2003-11-12 16:08:12

Re: No plans for Mars mission in near future - sketchy details

#3 2003-11-12 17:29:57

Re: No plans for Mars mission in near future - sketchy details

#4 2003-11-12 17:31:36

Re: No plans for Mars mission in near future - sketchy details

#5 2003-11-12 18:02:19

Re: No plans for Mars mission in near future - sketchy details

#6 2003-11-13 06:31:40

Re: No plans for Mars mission in near future - sketchy details

#7 2003-11-13 21:57:56

Re: No plans for Mars mission in near future - sketchy details

#8 2003-11-16 14:40:05

Re: No plans for Mars mission in near future - sketchy details

#9 2003-11-20 13:38:57

Re: No plans for Mars mission in near future - sketchy details

#10 2003-11-20 15:23:27

Re: No plans for Mars mission in near future - sketchy details

#11 2003-11-21 13:55:35

Re: No plans for Mars mission in near future - sketchy details

#12 2003-11-21 18:38:19

Re: No plans for Mars mission in near future - sketchy details

#13 2003-11-22 04:04:09

Re: No plans for Mars mission in near future - sketchy details

#14 2003-11-22 17:50:19

Re: No plans for Mars mission in near future - sketchy details

#15 2003-11-22 19:28:05

Re: No plans for Mars mission in near future - sketchy details

#16 2003-11-23 03:58:40

Re: No plans for Mars mission in near future - sketchy details

#17 2003-11-23 10:05:23

Re: No plans for Mars mission in near future - sketchy details

#18 2003-11-23 10:47:48

Re: No plans for Mars mission in near future - sketchy details

#19 2003-11-23 10:58:01

Re: No plans for Mars mission in near future - sketchy details

#20 2003-11-23 11:05:12

Re: No plans for Mars mission in near future - sketchy details

#21 2003-11-24 06:27:57

Re: No plans for Mars mission in near future - sketchy details

#22 2003-11-24 06:56:41

Re: No plans for Mars mission in near future - sketchy details

#23 2003-11-24 07:24:15

Re: No plans for Mars mission in near future - sketchy details

#24 2003-11-24 23:26:24

Re: No plans for Mars mission in near future - sketchy details

Board footer