Congress Wants To Kill Human Exploration Of Mars?

[richalex]

The lukewarm attitude towards space exploration by Democrat candidates has been discussed a bit over in Missions & Launches, but now I find that some Democrat Congressmen are outright hostile to man on Mars. Here is an excerpt from Space Review: <br /><br />The House of Representatives version of HR 3093, the bill that determines NASA’s funding for 2008, effectively bans the study of an entire planet:<br /><br /> Provided, That none of the funds under this heading shall be used for any research, development, or demonstration activities related exclusively to the human exploration of Mars.<br /><br />The House committee report mentions the proposed prohibition:<br /><br /> Finally, bill language is included prohibiting funding of any research, development, or demonstration activities related exclusively to the human exploration of Mars.<br /><br />In 2006, there was an attempt to implement a Mars ban by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA):<br /><br /> None of the funds made available by this Act may be used for a manned space mission to Mars.<br /><br />Frank was also arguing against humans and Mars back in 2005:<br /><br /> I agree about what was said about aeronautics; it is so important. I agree with space experimentation, primarily unmanned. But sending human beings to Mars, which this bill unfortunately endorses, is an extravagance…<br /><br />Space Review: How to beat the ban of humans on Mars

 

[MannyPim]

<font color="yellow"> In 2006, there was an attempt to implement a Mars ban by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA): <br /><br />None of the funds made available by this Act may be used for a manned space mission to Mars. <br /><br />Frank was also arguing against humans and Mars back in 2005: <br /><br />I agree about what was said about aeronautics; it is so important. I agree with space experimentation, primarily unmanned. But sending human beings to Mars, which this bill unfortunately endorses, is an extravagance… <br /></font><br /><br />I suspect you might be able to win barney frank to your side if you could convince him that it would be part of an exploration mission to two planets: in addition to Mars, there would also be a manned probe mission to Hisanus.... <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#0000ff"><em>The only way to know what is possible is to attempt the impossible.</em></font> </div>

 

[dragon04]

This topic probably doesn't belong in SS&A, but considering the costs involved, a Manned Mars mission is going to be a tough sell.<br /><br />I don't want to politicize this thread, and it's tough not to, so I'll just make a disclaimer that it's not my intention to do so.<br /><br />I think other than the unique circumstances (the Cold War) that led to Apollo, Democrats traditionally have their interests and agenda inclined towards improvement of more Earth-bound concerns, and the Republicans might be likely to prefer that private enterprise put the boots on Mars.<br /><br />As a space enthusiast, it's easy for me to pick up my pom poms and cheer for Men on Mars. However, I don't have constituents and the American taxpayer in general to answer to.<br /><br />It also wouldn't be on my dime in any meaningful way. Even if you and I, and every other "Spacer" on the planet wanted to pony up a thousand bucks to be put in a "Mars Fund", there's no mechanism by which to do so and make NASA spend the money on Mars.<br /><br />If I look at the "other side" and it's point of view, it's difficult to make a compelling argument for dedicating the money and resources to get to Mars.<br /><br />Bob Zubrin was a Mars Crusader. He worked for a monster Aerospace Contractor, and was even granted audience in front of a Congressional Committee to make his case.<br /><br />And we're still no closer to a manned Mars mission despite the fact that he and his team <b>proved</b> technologies and comparatively "economical" mission profiles to get us to Mars.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[vandivx]

"Even if you and I, and every other "Spacer" on the planet wanted to pony up a thousand bucks to be put in a "Mars Fund", there's no mechanism by which to do so and make NASA spend the money on Mars."<br /><br />and NASA being state organization (socialism anyone?) won't organize such fund raising drive, only private enterprise might do that (like establishing corporations and issuing stock to general public to buy...) but so called private enterprise is not too private for long time now and it has been immasculated by a long drawn process during something like past century and it is not up to challenge as it might have been if it really deserved the label private<br /><br />"If I look at the "other side" and it's point of view, it's difficult to make a compelling argument for dedicating the money and resources to get to Mars."<br /><br />there goes the vision and drive of Americans, like their old 'parents' (British Empire of past whence they originally came) they too will rather fund social programs than space programs, nuff said<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dragon04]

As an individual, I'd financially support a Mars mission. I don't have much, but I'd certainly give something.<br /><br />I've donated to SETI. Not much, but I donated. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">there goes the vision and drive of Americans, like their old 'parents' (British Empire of past whence they originally came) they too will rather fund social programs than space programs, nuff said</font><br /><br />That's a bit of an unfair statement. I'm going to personalize this to explain the complexities involved. You can believe me or not, but it's imperative that you at least take me at my word.<br /><br />I'm a man that deals in reality. I grew up as a "poor" person by American standards.<br /><br />Where I live, you can't get a job before you're 16 years old. At 16, I got a job. But for the two years prior to my 16th birthday, I didn't have a winter coat. My mother couldn't afford to buy me one. Literally could not afford it.<br /><br />I was not then, and am not now unique. So viewing the insistence of the Government (and they do it incorrectly) to fund social programs as opposed to Mars missions, I ask you to step into my shoes to pass judgment.<br /><br />With $1,000, I could make sure that 20 kids like I was would have a winter coat. Or a pair of shoes. DO you see my dilemma? Is it worth letting 20 kids go without a winter coat to get a Mission to Mars?<br /><br />Only with our Government, it's not 20 kids, but hundreds of thousands, or millions. Kids that don't get a winter coat, shoes that fit, a warm home, or meals in their bellies.<br /><br />There are two Americas. There's the Wealthy, opulent, excessive America, and the "Oh my God, how am I going to house, feed, clothe and provide medical care to my kids" America.<br /><br />Having been a "poor kid", your statement about the "vision and drive of Americans" carries a relatively low value, and does nothing to put a winter coat on a poor kid.<br /><br />Not all "Social Programs" in America are the ones that I regu <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[richalex]

Dragon04, I can certainly appreciate your background. Most of the clothes and much of the food I had between the ages of about 8 to 18 came from donations from my church or school. I've lived near or below the poverty level most of my life, until these last few years. It has certainly left a dramatic mark on the course of my life, one whose effects will be with me the rest of my life. <br /><br />As a conservative, I am cautious about government programs. But, one thing history has demonstrated many times is that the public welfare is greatly improved by our expanding frontiers. Where would we be if Thomas Jefferson had not commissioned Lewis and Clark to chart out the new territory of the Louisiana Purchase and beyond to the Pacific Ocean? We had impoverished citizens back then, and other problems, too. The Barbary Pirates were attacking our merchants ships in the Mediterranean, and we did not have a regular navy to repulse them. But, the U.S. has always pushed forward into the frontier, and it has made us a stronger people. <br /><br />I do not know if a manned mission to Mars should be attempted at this time, but I don't believe it would be appropriate to rule it out. We should be able to put a man anywhere he is needed, even if that is Mars.

 

[alokmohan]

We may terrraform mars to be second earth.I admit it willl be costly.

 

[thebigcat]

Someone needs to point out to the Honorable Sen. Frank that the money spent on placing red-blooded Americans on the Moon before the Commies could put their Evil Empire New Communist Men paid for itself hundreds of times over in the new technologies developed and that those developments continue to improve the lives of people the world over.<br /><br />What if, in finding a way to make mission life support vastly lighter and more efficient we find something which can be used to drastically reduce CO2 emissions worldwide? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

Give me just a minute or two to put a look of shock and awe on my face at otherwise unshocking news. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

I too deal in reality and what you stated is essentially true. I too grew up not so much poor but close enough. The problem is, it seems logical, even noble to take money spent or in this case being proposed on a percieved unecessary cause...and diverting it to a noble cause.<br /><br />And what I'm about to say I suspect you will agree with.<br /><br />It is indeed a noble cause to spend money on the well beings of Americans especially children, the poor, etc. I would be the first NASA supporter in the line to kill a human mars mission proposal in favor of benefiting the children, poor etc.<br /><br />Politicians often invoke this idea of cutting NASAs budget to help society because its a soundbite that works and indeed has worked well since 1973 or 74. The soundbite worked well, the idea itself flopped.<br /><br />NASAs budget was cut essentially in half after Apollo ended in large part due to the same arguments. We can better spend the money on ___________. Problem is, when this logic is actually analyzed, where the h*** did all the money saved by cutting NASAs budget in half go?<br /><br />Lets see...Savings and Loan scandal...Deficits year after year to spend more than the government took in...And in recent times, the Iraq mess and resumed deficit spending after a few years of Clintonian surplusses which by the way begs the question...<br /><br />Why didn't those surplusses solve the problems that politicians think can be solved by NASA budget cuts?<br /><br />1998 budget surplus, $70.039. NASA budget, $14,206.<br /><br />1999 budget surplus, $124.360. NASA budget, $13.665.<br /><br />2000 budget surplus, $236.993. NASA budget, $13.442.<br /><br />2001 budget surplus, $127.021. NASA budget, $14.094.<br /><br />Data source: The World Almanac And Book Of Facts.<br /><br />The Zubrin Mars mission scenario was floating around then and NASA even supported it in a modified form. There were no political pushes to send humans to mars despite one surplus that could have financed Zubrins missio <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[PistolPete]

I would be all for it if all of the $1,000 in your analogy actually went to buying those kids coats. The problem is that a good percentage of our tax dollars go to reimbursing our elected leaders campaign financiers in the form of budgetary pork. NASA, for the most part, is still budgetary pork, but it's pork that I can look at and go "Hey, that's kinda cool." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Exactly...so if politicians want people to vote in favor of spending to help people at NASAs expense...if I were the people, I'd be demanding that there be accountability in the form of some kind of annual report that shows where the NASA cuts are going.<br /><br />But like you said, its all about budgetary pork. The wealthiest nation in the world cannot afford less than a percent of total spending to go to a government program that actually does work for the most part? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>