SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
For the first time in more than six years, both chambers of Congress passed a bill that approves funding for NASA and gives the space agency new mandates [Ed: Link not AdBlock friendly].
The NASA Transition Authorization Act of 2017 is a bill that the Senate and House collaborated on for months, and it appropriates $19.5 billion to the agency. (NASA received $19.3 billion in 2016, or 0.5% of the total federal budget.)
When the Senate brought the bill before the House of Representatives for a vote on March 7, "no members spoke against the bill" and it passed, according to Jeff Foust at Space News.
The document asks NASA to create a roadmap for getting humans "near or on the surface of Mars in the 2030s." It also calls on the space agency to continue developing the Space Launch System (SLS) — a behemoth rocket — and the Orion space capsule in order to eventually go to the moon, Mars, and beyond.
It also cancels a mission to capture an asteroid, and calls on the space agency to search for aliens.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Saturday March 11 2017, @03:09AM (3 children)
If some bonehead has enough money to get himself to Mars and wants to risk his life by doing so, whatever.
If the government wants to send employees to Mars, at great expense and at great risk to its employees' lives, it should only do so after first trying to find less risky alternatives and conducting a careful cost-benefit analysis of the alternatives. It's not ethical for society to pay people to needlessly risk their own lives.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday March 11 2017, @03:44AM
"If the government wants to send e̶m̶p̶l̶o̶y̶e̶e̶s̶ VOLUNTEERS to Mars,"
FTFY I say that it is perfectly ethical for government to enable it's citizens to attain their dreams. This is not the CoDominium, and NASA isn't the Bureau of Relocation, and there is no Bureau of Population. We aren't rounding up undesirables by the tens of thousands and dumping them on unexplored worlds to fend for themselves. Maybe in a couple hundred years, but not today. Everyone who goes to Mars in your lifetime or mine will be VOLUNTEERS.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Saturday March 11 2017, @03:46AM
I think we can do it without them dying immediately. That's not to say that we shouldn't send people to "die on Mars". We should send people with the expectation that they will probably eventually die. But if we do want people to live on Mars permanently or indefinitely, we should create a self-sustaining habitat that can support itself without resupply using either robotic or human labor. It shouldn't be subject to political funding whims, it should be able to sustain itself if some catastrophe prevented Earth from sending supplies to it, and it should be able to expand using Martian materials. Meaning that it should be able to manufacture plastic, chemicals, metal items, usable water, etc. Hopefully, newer and very efficient techniques could be used that might find use back on Earth.
Ethics dilemma? No. Ask potential settlers (or more likely, visitors) whether they would be willing to die for the cause. You will get plenty of "yes" responses. Then do what is necessary to reduce the risk from takeoff and landing. That's where the bulk of the risk is (see Challenger and Columbia). Evaluate the risk of SLS/Orion, which is already being funded billions for the purpose of sending astronauts to various locations in the solar system, not limited to Mars. Once on the ground on Mars, there is risk, but the biggest risk is still takeoff and landing, which is something that is done routinely in the case of the ISS.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Saturday March 11 2017, @07:37AM
it should only do so after first trying to find less risky alternatives and conducting a careful cost-benefit analysis of the alternatives. It's not ethical for society to pay people to needlessly risk their own lives.
You're right [wikipedia.org]! We should never [wikipedia.org] do that [wikipedia.org].
Actually, there are few things I can think of that would be better reasons to risk life and limb than space travel, both for the sake of science and for the simple adventure of exploration. If you're afraid to risk your life, then hide your mom's basement (you spend lots of time there anyway, right?) and let the real men and women [goodreads.com] do the hard stuff.
There's nothing unethical about it, as long as there is informed consent. What's more, when a society has a dearth of people who will take risks like that, that society will likely fail in pretty short order.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr