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: 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]