[Bookish Neptune]

"NASA is developing the capabilities needed to send humans to an asteroid by 2025 and Mars in the 2030s"

Source: https://www.nasa.gov/content/nasas-journey-to-mars

Question:

When is the general public going to get to go?

Can we at least just go to lower earth orbit?

They did it in 1962. 54 YEARS AGO.






I'll take the tin can ride. Seems pretty easy... Just climb on in and enjoy the ride!

500 Billion Dollars spent on NASA and we can't get a little taste?

It's been over 50 years! I can't imagine how long the line of people who would take the risk in the tin can would be.

We should be going for free. We paid for it.

Yet it's explained away by "safety"...

I submit nearly everyone here would take that chance, given its even a possibility.

[Tom Bishop]

It has been admitted that NASA does not even have a plan to go to mars, despite being funded by the government for that effort.

CONGRESSIONAL PANEL TOLD NASA HAS NO PLAN FOR THE JOURNEY TO MARS

[Woody]

It has been admitted that NASA does not even have a plan to go to mars, despite being funded by the government for that effort.

CONGRESSIONAL PANEL TOLD NASA HAS NO PLAN FOR THE JOURNEY TO MARS

Tom is it willful ignorance or confirmation bias?

During a hearing Wednesday of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, promised to support NASA’s funding needs for space exploration but criticized the Obama administration for having lofty goals without concrete plans the next president can follow.

Alexander was particularly concerned that NASA is distracted with too many projects. The agency aims to move an asteroid from beyond Mars and bring it closer to Earth where astronauts can visit it – a plan Alexander called “uninspiring” and “without any connection to a larger exploration roadmap.”

“Without a roadmap to guide the agency, NASA will continue to be subject to indirection and proposed budget cuts by the White House,” Alexander said, alluding to the next administration. “For its part, Congress will continue to ensure that space exploration will receive the funding needed to stay on schedule and on budget.”

Funding space exploration will be a challenge for the next president since NASA’s needs for a Mars mission are not yet defined. The space agency is currently building a rocket and a crew capsule called Orion to transport astronauts to the Red Planet, but more equipment will be needed to make the trip, Tom Young, the former director of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, said during the hearing. NASA does not yet have a specific inventory on what other hardware is needed to travel to Mars, including habitat modules, landing or launch systems, Young added.

"We do not have a planned strategy or architecture with sufficient detail,” he said.

What you referred as no plan is actually referring to a plan that some Congressional members find inadequately laid out and workable to achieve the goal.

I will assume you are capable of typing"NASA plan for mars" into your search engine of choice.

If your comment and link provided does not display willful ignorance or confirmation bias please present your argument as to why not.

Does the link provided demonstrate the level of research and study you use for your hypothesis that the Earth is flat?

[Woody]

"NASA is developing the capabilities needed to send humans to an asteroid by 2025 and Mars in the 2030s"

Source: https://www.nasa.gov/content/nasas-journey-to-mars

Question:

When is the general public going to get to go?

Can we at least just go to lower earth orbit?

They did it in 1962. 54 YEARS AGO.






I'll take the tin can ride. Seems pretty easy... Just climb on in and enjoy the ride!

500 Billion Dollars spent on NASA and we can't get a little taste?

It's been over 50 years! I can't imagine how long the line of people who would take the risk in the tin can would be.

We should be going for free. We paid for it.

Yet it's explained away by "safety"...

I submit nearly everyone here would take that chance, given its even a possibility.

I am going to round up where it benefits your argument and down when it does not.

Space X is considered to most cost efficient right now.

There go to rocket the Falcon 9 cost about 50 million to launch.

The max payload is around 29,000 lbs.

Lets assume they offer a trip for 190 passengers that weigh 150 lbs each.  I am figuring this without taking into consideration life support, capsule or any other things, just the weight of the people with them crammed into the fairing.

The ticket price would be $260,000.

[Bookish Neptune]

The ticket price would be $260,000.

I want my refund then...

Taxpayers have been paying into the system and funding NASA since day one and all we get are arguably a handful of questionable images.

Then, we wait for more than 50 years and still no oppurtunity to visit space.

Space X and Virgin mean nothing. Until they can even claim to be sending paying passengers, I don't find them relevant to the discussion of space travel by the general public.

What has NASA even given us for all this embezzled money?

Weather forecasts? Solar flare warnings?

SOLAR FLARE WARNINGS:

Isn't it strange that NASA traveled to the moon and back several times, explored far reaches of space, launched hundreds of satellites...

All of this WITHOUT having even an understanding what impacts solar flares would have.

Now, today, we have a supposed multi billion dollar satellite to give us an early warning of approaching flares.

What have we ever done with this early warning system, and what did we ever do before it came along?

Please don't try to answer that with "major disruptions in our communications infrastructure". My communications have never been disrupted, nor have yours.

WEATHER FORECASTS:

Don't even get me started. My business is ever dependant upon weather.

I only look at NWS.gov for the forecasts. Not the local news... Because that is their official source anyways.

The expected highs and lows are continually off. The chance for precipitation is always off. The radar system is manipulated.

We don't have accurate weather forecasts at all. Period.

I have literally a 100 times in the past 10 years seen it pouring down rain and not a single blip be on the radar.

And I've seen the radar lit up, yet no precipitation falling.

Yes I know the difference between radar and supposed satellite imagery.

We are given a 30 day forecast, when they can't even get tomorrow's weather correct.

I have to study previous weather patterns and predict what I think will happen. I also rely on the notes section, where amateur meteorologist post their version of the forecast. I find those to be substantially more accurate and undeniably more informative.

Remind me again what the general public is getting for all this money? The world's most comfortable mattress?

[Tom Bishop]

I will assume you are capable of typing"NASA plan for mars" into your search engine of choice.

If your comment and link provided does not display willful ignorance or confirmation bias please present your argument as to why not.

Does the link provided demonstrate the level of research and study you use for your hypothesis that the Earth is flat?

I did as you requested and got the following result towards the top of the page:

[Woody]

I will assume you are capable of typing"NASA plan for mars" into your search engine of choice.

If your comment and link provided does not display willful ignorance or confirmation bias please present your argument as to why not.

Does the link provided demonstrate the level of research and study you use for your hypothesis that the Earth is flat?

I did as you requested and got the following result towards the top of the page:

Again is it that they have no plan or is it people are questioning their plan?

 On Wednesday during a House space subcommittee hearing, legislators signaled that they were not entirely pleased with those plans. Comments from lawmakers, and the three witnesses called to the hearing, indicate NASA’s Journey to Mars may receive some pushback in the next year or two.

Some of the most critical testimony came from John Sommerer:

“While sending humans to Mars, and returning them safely to the Earth, may be technically feasible, it is an extraordinarily challenging goal, from physiological, technical, and programmatic standpoints,” Sommerer testified. “Because of this extreme difficulty, it is only with unprecedented cumulative investment, and, frankly, unprecedented discipline in development, testing, execution, and leadership, that this enterprise is likely to be successful.”

He implied that NASA presently had none of this in sufficient quantities. According to Sommerer, the technical panel found that it would take NASA 20 to 40 years to send humans to the surface of Mars at a staggering cost of approximately half a trillion dollars."

Again it is not saying NASA does not have a plan but that people are questioning their plan and if that plan is going to get people to Mars.  There is a difference between these two statements:

It has been admitted that NASA does not even have a plan to go to mars, despite being funded by the government for that effort.

It has been admitted that NASA's plan to get to Mars may not be the best way to achieve the goal.

Personally I think the plan is not the best and the are using Mars to help justify funding for things like the Asteroid Redirect Mission.

You are presenting yourself as an authority on the FE hypothesis.  You have an experiment officially presented as evidence by FES.  I assume this since it is on the wiki.  You are in a position that I assume people look to you for answers and facts about te world around them.  To me that comes with the responsibility to carefully chose your words and strive to deliver that information in a honest and upfront manner. Even if that information does not conform to your beliefs.


What I saw in your statement was it was attempt to make it seem NASA has no plans to go to Mars but asking for funding to do so. 

[CableDawg]

"When is the general public going to get to go?"

"We should be going for free. We paid for it."

Pay your money and you can go.

Using 2012 numbers here:

Total tax revenue for the entire United States - $2,514,838,095,000

Average tax paid per person - $8,000

Budget for NASA - $18,700,000,000

NASA's budget was around 0.7% of the total tax revenue.  With this it can easily be seen that the average portion of taxes paid, per individual, was $56 (for the entire year).

Using the estimated cost per person, stated elsewhere in this post, of $260,000 it's only going to take you another 4,640 or so years to actually pay for your trip.

[Bookish Neptune]

"We do not have a planned strategy or architecture with sufficient detail," said Tom Young, the former director of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center.

He testified with those comments. We can only go by the source. I imagine it was filmed?

I will have a look and see if I can find it. Or at least documented from a more official source

[Woody]

"We do not have a planned strategy or architecture with sufficient detail," said Tom Young, the former director of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center.

He testified with those comments. We can only go by the source. I imagine it was filmed?

I will have a look and see if I can find it. Or at least documented from a more official source

He starts off his 2010 testimony with:

"My judgement is implementation of the proposed human space flight program will be devastating to NASA human space flight and the United States Space Program."

He goes on to talk about his concern of NASA changing from a proven methodology that has proven successful and developed over decades and gives examples of failures when the methodology was not used.

He goes on to say:

A disappointing truth is the NASA proposed budget in his opinion is not adequate to support the ISS and manned beyond Earth orbit program.

He sums up:

Do not approve commercial crews, continue Aries I and Orion programs, do in-depth analysis and study that was absent from previous budget request to define the program worthy of the nation only then can the program be weighed, do not approve the program without adequate resources. (I paraphrased here and tried to be unbiased)

What is his opinions based on if not NASA's plan? 

The 2016 Congressional Hearing I have already posted about.  If you are interested you can look into the transcripts or watch videos of the testimonies. 

The Asteroid Recovery Mission was questioned and alternatives suggested that could be a better path leading to a manned mission to Mars. A lunar base or testing solar electric propulsion would be a better use of resources.

NASA's Mars Mission strategy is to have a more open and flexible plan that can be evolved as new technologies come available and have no set dates.

So it is not that NASA does not have a plan it is organizations like the ESA, National Academy of Sciences, the House Subcommitte do not think NASA's plan is a good one.

Proof NASA does have a plan:
Testing the Orion capsule
ARM to test the SLS