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?
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(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.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(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.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday April 22 2019, @09:34PM (1 child)
So, you're saying that boosters are not the only technology we need to get to Mars?
And going to Mars is harder than going to the Moon, or to Earth Orbit?
Do these other technologies need to be made economically like SpaceX thinking, or use it once, and if it works, we don't care what it costs, like Apollo thinking?
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday April 23 2019, @12:36AM
What's the point of just getting there?
In extreme, we can launch a human at over 20g acceleration and get it to Mars; sure, s/he will be dead before arrival, but it's certainly cheaper than to try to get that person alive only to kill her/him at destination (achieving the same end result).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 22 2019, @09:59PM (1 child)
Hey Guys Mars sucks! Boeing here and we promise Mars won't work until at least 2037 when we will have the SLS done. It really sucks there and is impossible so don't try until we are ready.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Monday April 22 2019, @10:03PM
When BFR flies, we should see a new round of reports.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Informative) by jelizondo on Monday April 22 2019, @10:18PM
It reminds me of this story, forecasts are forecasts, not crystal balls.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Monday April 22 2019, @10:39PM (4 children)
tells me NASA hasn't been an agency capable of much of anything but wasting a lot of taxpayers' money on the POTUS' space commitment-du-jour since the end of the Apollo program.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 22 2019, @10:47PM (3 children)
Indeed, NASA has to change directions more often than web stacks, which is saying a lot. A political way is needed to settle on a plan and stick with it through multiple administrations.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Monday April 22 2019, @10:52PM (1 child)
Actually it's not quite true: web stacks evolve by piling up more slow shit on top of already slow shit to deliver extremely complicated and wasteful ways of making a document presentation program act as an OS, whereas NASA space programs consist in scrapping whatever study they were wasting monye on under the previous administration to undertake new studies and deliver nothing at all in the end.
(Score: 3, Informative) by MostCynical on Monday April 22 2019, @11:18PM
Sometimes NASA also makes prototypes and models [youtube.com]
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 4, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Monday April 22 2019, @11:55PM
Which is a real shame. It is, of course the politicians fault NASA is so terrible. If they were given a budget and a goal, then left alone to acheive the ghoal I think they'd probably do OK.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday April 23 2019, @12:18AM (17 children)
> An independent report concluded that NASA has no chance of sending humans to Mars by 2033
I'm pretty sure we just sent a dummy in a car, which would only have needed a set of guidance and thrusters to get into orbit (cheap at your local Indian market).
Sending the human is clearly within our reach. It might take a few launches to get the whole Senate, but it's clearly achievable.
For half the cost of SLS, we can even ship them a few extra supply vessels along for the ride. They can use thought and prayers to address the logistics of docking with them.
(Score: 4, Funny) by c0lo on Tuesday April 23 2019, @12:44AM (16 children)
One can think a number of ways to reduce the cost, e.g. mince them first then dry the resulting pulp.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Funny) by bob_super on Tuesday April 23 2019, @12:48AM (6 children)
Most of them look like you can skip the drying step.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday April 23 2019, @01:29AM (5 children)
For engineering purposes, "look like" != "are"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday April 23 2019, @08:15AM (4 children)
Look, we have already spent decades fruitlessly dreaming of Mars, so you should more open-minded and see the possibilities.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday April 23 2019, @08:36AM (2 children)
I'll see possibilities when I hear someone managed to land a functional nuclear powered excavator on Mars.
So far, we have a luxury car in space and one functional rover [wikipedia.org] that was able to drill to the impressive depth of 5cm (that's 2 inches) but now the drilling function is disabled.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday April 23 2019, @09:08AM (1 child)
5 cm ? We have already done better than that [wikipedia.org].
A full Senate Ship would definitely break that record, considering how dense they are.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday April 23 2019, @09:41AM
Problem is the US constitution guarantees a continuous supply of senators.
Without the sustained capability to cover the deliveries in soil, those senators will dissipate in a fine dust - a complete waste of organic matter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday April 23 2019, @01:41PM
I'll see your possibilities, and I'll raise you practicalities.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday April 23 2019, @12:49AM (5 children)
You could just freeze dry them, so they all look like Pelosi.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 23 2019, @01:25AM
Volume and the form factor need to be considered as well - compact them first, make them into a pile of shit, closer to how the current US president looks like.
Then you can dry them by whatever method is appropriate. Just try to use an energy efficient method to minimize the cost.
(Score: 2) by jelizondo on Tuesday April 23 2019, @03:51AM (2 children)
Or Mitch McConnell [wikipedia.org]...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday April 23 2019, @01:18PM (1 child)
The thing about Mitch - he looked like that when he was 20. Depending on your taste, Pelosi at 20 wasn't hard to look at.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Tuesday April 23 2019, @04:50PM
I'll admit to looking up photos of Nancy Pelosi at a younger age, and I will say she was easy on the eyes.
She's remarkably well-preserved for 79.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by DannyB on Tuesday April 23 2019, @01:42PM
I hereby propose that all politicians must henceforth wear face masks created by their opposing party.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday April 23 2019, @12:51AM (1 child)
You guys are going to contaminate Mars at this rate.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday April 23 2019, @01:20AM
Nitrogen source - especially if using bodies full of shit. Also, hot air would be a plus, but one can substitute that with nuclear thermoelectric cells - higher energy density/weight.
Mars is highly deficient in nitrogen [reddit.com], especially the fixed one [newatlas.com] (0.11% in Mars soil, in comparison with Earth (could reach around 5% [unl.edu]). Using hydrazine on Mars is a plus for terraforming.
On the plus side, Mars is richer in phosphorus and potassium [wikipedia.org]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Muad'Dave on Tuesday April 23 2019, @11:39AM
Jerky.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Tuesday April 23 2019, @04:28AM
We're in a race, folks. The race to send the first "people" to Mars. If E.U. is first, if China gets there first, if Russia does it first, very bad for our Country. 2037 is a long time from now. Long time. Hopefully they'll speed that one up. I'm calling on them to do it by 2024. By any means necessary!!!!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by KritonK on Tuesday April 23 2019, @07:23AM
Sounds like one of the requirements for going to Mars is that we can't go there before we fix the 2038 problem [wikipedia.org].