SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Science and Technology Policy Institute (STPI) has found that NASA is unlikely to send humans on a mission near Mars (not including a landing on the surface of Mars) any sooner than 2037:
An independent report concluded that NASA has no chance of sending humans to Mars by 2033, with the earliest such a mission could be flown being the late 2030s.
[...] STPI, at NASA's direction, used the strategy the agency had laid out in its "Exploration Campaign" report, which projects the continued use of the Space Launch System and Orion and development of the lunar Gateway in the 2020s. That would be followed by the Deep Space Transport (DST), a crewed spacecraft that would travel from cislunar space to Mars and back. NASA would also develop lunar landers are related system to support crewed missions to the lunar surface, while also working on systems for later missions to the surface of Mars.
That work, the STPI report concluded, will take too long to complete in time to support a 2033 mission. "We find that even without budget constraints, a Mars 2033 orbital mission cannot be realistically scheduled under NASA's current and notional plans," the report states. "Our analysis suggests that a Mars orbital mission could be carried out no earlier than the 2037 orbital window without accepting large technology development, schedule delay, cost overrun, and budget shortfall risks."
That schedule is driven by the technology risks associated in particular with the Deep Space Transport, including life support systems and propulsion, that require long lead times. A mission to Mars launching in 2033, the report concluded, would need to have critical technologies tested by 2022, which is unlikely. Moving ahead without completing those technologies first, the report stated, will "dramatically increase technology and schedule risks for the DST and could force the DST design to be revised if any one of these technology testing programs reveals problems."
(Score: 3, Touché) by snufu on Monday April 22 2019, @09:34PM (19 children)
We need the extra time to think of a valid scientific reason to send humans to a barren toxic, frozen planet that will never be able to support human life.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday April 22 2019, @09:36PM (9 children)
As Elon Musk says. We need to have humans on more than one planet, in case something happens to one.
If something happens to the population on Mars, oh, well, we can just send more.
If something happens to the population on Earth, the people on Mars surely would be able to get along on their own without a major continuous ongoing supply line from Earth, wouldn't they?
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 22 2019, @09:50PM (2 children)
The thing is, Mars makes for a *really* crappy backup.
It is more than 1,000,000 times more likely that human life will cease completely on Mars before it does on Earth.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday April 23 2019, @12:08AM
At our current tech level, a Mars colony is like making a drive backup on RAM.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday April 23 2019, @01:35PM
That was my sarcastic cynical point.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 22 2019, @09:53PM
Ok, same AC here.
I re-read Danny's post and detect his skepticism better than the first time.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 22 2019, @09:56PM (1 child)
Actually, Elon says we should send the Moslems to Mars. They will be happier there.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 22 2019, @10:50PM
Sorry, Donald, you cannot do that. And take off that silly pointy white hat.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by takyon on Monday April 22 2019, @10:01PM
I'm fine with both premises.
If going to Mars is for national prestige, then there's no rush. Russia, China, India, Japan [japan-forward.com], etc. do not seem poised to send astronauts to Mars before the 2040s. SpaceX has an ambitious mid-2020s target for manned missions to the surface of Mars that will probably slip by at least 5 years. SpaceX landing there would probably be counted as an "American" achievement.
We are doing pretty awful here on Earth if we require ourselves to become multi-planetary within the next 50 years. Awful as in nuclear war imminent. We're not going to have an asteroid wipe out more than possibly a large city during that timeframe. We are good, for now.
The Moon First approach is nice because it's easier and limits the amount of money Beltway Bandits can extract from Congress. Mars First? Spend $200 billion to continue. In the meantime, SpaceX will get us what we need to go to Mars. In fact, SpaceX will get us what we need to get anything serious done in space: fully reusable rockets. These will severely undercut ULA and friends, forcing them to adapt or die. Once we have SpaceX, ULA, Blue Origin, et al. all touting fully reusable rockets, we can talk about building a permanent human presence on the Moon, Mars, space (w/ rotating artificial gravity), or wherever. Permanent without the need for resupply outside of some complicated parts like state-of-the-art computer chips. Add 50 years and ideally anything the colony needs could be made locally.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 22 2019, @10:21PM (1 child)
Why is extending humanities existence necessary?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 22 2019, @10:38PM
You are a cockroach waiting in the wings, admit it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 22 2019, @10:44PM (7 children)
"Never" is too extreme. Underground caverns may be in the distant future.
But a more important question is whether it's worth the "prestige", because bots can explore far cheaper. (Some will disagree, but I've debated this many times and bots keep winning. Sorry.)
Suppose China started a serious effort. Would the US public get into a "we too" mood, or will they say, "Meh, let 'em be first"?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday April 22 2019, @10:51PM (3 children)
They already have. Except having the Moon as the target. Its South Pole [wikipedia.org] more precisely.
Now, the question is: how many South Poles you think the Moon has?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday April 23 2019, @12:44AM (1 child)
I would say one - but this is probably a trick question - I'll go with 1 cubed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 23 2019, @05:40AM
Depends how one defines "south".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24 2019, @01:51PM
None. All Poles live on Earth, including those from the South of Poland. ;-)
(Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Monday April 22 2019, @11:28PM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 23 2019, @05:38AM
If it keeps those people busy on something mundane so they don't mess with important stuff, let 'em at it.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday April 23 2019, @12:37AM
Whiny bots call home collect, to tell us how dark it is, and that they are cold. We need women to do what men and bots cannot accomplish. The men and the bots will follow the women.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Tuesday April 23 2019, @04:44PM
"Why did you want to climb Mount Everest?"
"Because it's there."
Not a scientific reason, but then again people have never needed a better reason to do something.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.