Nasa to send Man to Mars

Photo: Mars, NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Arizona

Barrack Obama has been a busy man, as we all know. He’s had to deal with a country in recession, sliding dollar value and an expensive war overseas.

With all this on his plate, he’s held his head high and accepted the Nobel Peace prize. And like any good politician, made grand promises he has absolutely no intentions of keeping.

But SuperBama has another conquest on his itinerary.

Sending Man to Mars!

No, not a Chimp to mars, but astronauts first.  This has been clarified by NASA Administrator, Charles Bolden during a press conference, Tuesday, Feb. 2, 2010,  where he revealed that NASA has awarded $50 million to further the commercial sector’s capability to support and transport a crew to and from Earth.

The plan on how it’s going to happen has been described by Bolden as “evolutionary” which means “We have no idea at this point in time how it’s going to happen but we will get back to you.”

The good news is NASA’s 2011 fiscal budget has been approved, which means half the battle won. After all no mission into space under NASA’s tutelage is without an astronomical budget.  A few aerospace companies are going to be getting their own type of “bailout.”

NASA is extremely positive about this plan, despite disappearing rovers on the planet’s surface and unmanned craft orbiting and crash landing on Martian territory. Bolden has Obama’s backing. What they don’t have is the Congress senators backing, people who are critical of the mars mission, because they feel the moon is a more realistic and logical option first.

But as far as the moon is concerned there is this “been there, done that” attitude from NASA. And now you know why the Constellation program has been shut down.  On the other hand NASA has agreed to assist commercial companies in the U.S. to build space vehicles (Taxis) to transport astronauts to the Space Station which is being backed by about 6 billion in green backs, which also means we won’t be seeing the Hilton or the Ritz in space anytime soon.

The good news is the budget supports robotic ships launched into deep space to find viable planets for astronauts to explore.

Photo: NASA's Phoenix Mars Lander, NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Arizona

With the Constellation program being scrapped because it was going over budget,  this has hurt a few contractors such as Alliant Techsystems Inc and United Technologies Corp, which according to space shuttle engineer Michael Snyder is a large loss of time and experience.

NASA has the resources at the moment to fork up $50 million to companies for ideas on the astronaut space taxi service.  One wonders why it doesn’t have the resources to hire the right people for a project development cycle like the failed Constellation program – so that billions of tax dollars aren’t squandered without some constructive output.

But apparently the recession has no bearing on NASA.  Metaphorically speaking they do reside “In Space.”


Posted in: Uncategorized

14 Comments

  1. Luka KRAGUJEVAC says:

    I want to go on Mars,please pick me!!

  2. mike says:

    Please send Justin Bieber And leave him ther!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  3. Plutonium says:

    is good to send men on the mars

  4. Yes with the present technology it could take 3 years, but with other technology such as scram jet and others to come in the future the journey could be takdn down to 6 months.

    Remember in 1788 when Captain Phillip first came to Australia from England it took 6-9 months for a sialing ship to get to Australai from the UK, and itw as a 18 month round trip staying only one day in Sydney. You left Portsmith to Ausrlaia you expected to be away for years. Now it is only a 24 hour service.

    Mars is just the same, it might be a 3-4 year round trip now staying only one day, but who knows with new technology happening it could be a one week trip tfhere and one week trip back in only 10years time.

  5. Bruce M says:

    The problem with all these plans to go to Mars is that they require a round trip. They want to send a few people there and bring them back. Don’t they realize that’s a three year mission. The distances are just too great and the time is far too long. The only real solution is to sent a group of people there and colonize. Later, when we have the technology and monetary backing, we can send more people and others can rotate back to Earth. But, for the first five or six years the mission should be a colony. The ship would have to be large and carry a self contained environment. Items such as communication satellites and observation satellites could be brought along to make the colony as advanced as possible. Supply missions could provide the colony with all the consumables and technology it needed to maintain itself. In this way we would be like the British and Portuguese of the seventeenth century. It would be a whole new “Age Of Discovery”. The mission would require all sorts of different people with skills that you don’t normally associate with space travel. In that way everyone would have the potential of going into space.

  6. We are far better positioned to send man to mars than we were when we went to the moon. We have the technology right now, all that’s missing is the will by those in power. Obama’s decision is a step in the right direction and at the very least, gets the idea out to the public where it can accumulate support.

  7. Tom P says:

    Why are so many of you trashing Obama?
    Obama would not be so socialist, if the stupid public voted for the Democrats, instead of Bush, who trashed our country, totally, plus most of the world, for that matter.
    Mankind does have an obligation to take care of our own. I have been to very poor countries where unemployment is 40%. People there eat better than most Americans.
    Shame on Us. We are too selfish and stupid; case closed.
    We will lose our freedoms, very soon; just like the Ancient Greeks did in 1452.
    We better go to Mars; and soon. The way we are trashing our planet, it won’t be long before we all hv to leave Earth to survive!

  8. ryaneaux says:

    “The Republicants are some of the most backward thinking lot of people I think I will ever come across in my entire life. They do not want to go to Mars because they are afraid we will ship them there and be done with them.”

    Before you start criticizing NASA’s programs and their rocket scientists’ you should really learn how to spell republicans, so you don’t look so stupid. Also, Republicans are not the problem. Obama is. He is more concerned with creating a socialist America than anything to do with the space program.

  9. dave says:

    The article makes sense to me, its not rocket science. Bolden did say they will send astronauts to Mars. They do say many things tho, so its up to you how much you want to believe.

  10. carl sagan says:

    When you say there isn’t much new to find on the moon — It just isn’t true. Only recently they’ve discovered frozen water there, as well. But I suppose it’s worth mentioning that Japan and China are both looking at sending a man to the moon. I heard a Japanese proposal to use a solar generator on the moon to beam down a laser to power the entire country — sounds crazy right? But this sort of technology really exists.

    But not doubt that exploration of Mars is more intriguing, given the possibility of life. : )

  11. Hams says:

    This is a fairly awful article. It’s almost like you have no idea what you’re talking about. You complain about problems with current Mars exploration despite the fact that some of the rovers sent have been wildly successful. Some even lasting years beyond their life expectancy.

    You talk like their going to just start loading astronauts into rockets and launching them at Mars en mass tomorrow. When in reality there isn’t so much as a whisper of anything related to a launch date. I’m also baffled at your willingness to complain about the budget and your simultaneous insistence that we waste massive amounts of resources sending a monkey to Mars rather than testing the technology locally.

    Furthermore, it’s not a ‘been there done that’ attitude, it’s a reality. Unless in your ‘vast’ scientific knowledge you have some information they don’t, I’m pretty sure NASA knows there isn’t much new to find on the Moon. On Mars, however, there is evidence that it once had flowing liquid water. There could even be evidence of forms of life from the planets past.

    Ah, you’re probably right, let’s just go get some more moon rocks and maybe start another war or two. Who cares about advancing science.

  12. Smarty Pants says:

    The Republicants are some of the most backward thinking lot of people I think I will ever come across in my entire life. They do not want to go to Mars because they are afraid we will ship them there and be done with them.

  13. Dion says:

    The Constellation program hasn’t failed, and hopefully it will ultimately not be cancelled. It was not NASA that wanted to cancel Constellation, it was Obama’s 2011 budget that gave no money for the Constellation program.

    I wouldn’t say that the Constellation program is squandering our tax dollars- quite the opposite. This year alone the Constellation program will employ over 10,000 well paying jobs here in the United States. Obama’s plan will kill Constellation (the umbrella program to replace the space shuttle, which will retire in September).

    If Obama’s plan goes forward, manned spaceflight beyond low earth orbit will be pushed back indefinitely. From JFK’s challenge to the moon was about eight years. From the last time we went to the moon to when we plan to go back with Constellation will be nearly 50 years. If Constellation is cancelled, will we have to wait another 50 years to return to manned outer space exploration? I hope not. I can only hope that Obama’s option doesn’t happen and that Constellation is saved.

    Also, the budget hasn’t yet been approved, and is actually under debate in Congress today.

Leave a Comment