NASA wants to send humans to Jupiter in the 2040s

[Nibb31]

a second home for humanity so that when (not if, when) something happens to Earth we can survive as a species

That's a red herring.

- There is nothing that can happen to Earth that wouldn't leave more survivors than a potential Mars colony could support.

- We will either eventually go extinct or evolve into something else. It ultimately doesn't matter if we survive as a species.

- You don't save a species with a colony of several hundred people on Mars or the Moon.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Nibb31

[AngelLestat]

I founded, is from the 2004 :s

http://trajectory.grc.nasa.gov/aboutus/papers/STAIF-2003-177.pdf

But as so many said.. if spacex acomplish to low the prices enoght and Space Agencies start to accept a little more risk and become more greedy. Then all this schedule will be almost possible.

The problem that if you want to leave some colonies in mars, or venus or wherever you choose.. that will complicate the fund to different manned missions.

[crazyewok]

NASA should just shut up and finish the projects its working on NOW and get a man to mars.

NASA are like a kid with ADD switching from one goal and project to the next one without the attention span to finish anything.

[Linear]

Unlike the United States, India actually cares about space exploration, so they will eventually put more effort into it than the US. How and why do you think the US would try to 'stop' them. Remember, India and America are currently allies, not rivals.

It is likely that NASA would take a small part in the first pre-colonization SpaceX mars missions, however almost all of the funding, planning, mission design and resources would come from SpaceX. Elon musk's companies are already making enough money to easily fund several mars expeditions.

USA is the rich kid in school with the newest everything, but has let his technology spending spree slip and hasn't bought the newest phone. There's a really poor kid who works super duper hard, saves his money and manages to buy one.

...Wouldn't the rich kid buy one to avoid embarrassment?

I hate analogies, but i felt like it.

[Nibb31]

NASA should just shut up and finish the projects its working on NOW and get a man to mars.

NASA are like a kid with ADD switching from one goal and project to the next one without the attention span to finish anything.

NASA is not a monolithic structure. It's thousands of employees spread out over a dozen centers working on many areas of expertise such as aerodynamics, nano materials, robotics, hypersonic propulsion, air traffic control control software, exobiology, astronomy. Manned spaceflight is just a small part of NASA's budget.

There are people at NASA whose job is to think up prospective papers like this. "A small team at NASA wrote a paper 12 years ago" does not equate "NASA wants to send humans to Jupiter". The title of this topic is misleading.

[Hcube]

Back on topic :

Just like the others, I'm gonna call BS here.

Theres no way a human will get to Jupiter in 25 years ! Heck, space agencies are too broke/greedy to land a man on the Moon !

Jupiter is WAY harder than anything like the Moon or Mars, its VERY far, (and its a giant cyclotron, humans are not rad-hard iirc).

[Pipcard]

(and its a giant cyclotron, humans are not rad-hard iirc).

That's why the plan is to land at Callisto, where it receives only 0.01 rem/day (Ganymede - 8 rem/day, Europa - 540 rem/day)

[_Augustus_]

Wow, guys! I can't believe how many responses I've gotten! By the way, I've decided that I may add some payloads for the Bacon Labs Sarnus VIII/Nova that allow Tylo landings because I want to recreate a Callisto landing.

[AbhChallenger]

By that time period probes will be so advanced and common that I HIGHLY doubt there will be support for a Taxpayer funded manned mission. Given the choice I would rather a manned mission to Pluto over Jupiter.

[ChrisSpace]

USA is the rich kid in school with the newest everything, but has let his technology spending spree slip and hasn't bought the newest phone. There's a really poor kid who works super duper hard, saves his money and manages to buy one.

...Wouldn't the rich kid buy one to avoid embarrassment?

Your analogy is quite off. firstly, the poor kid is gaining wealth and power very fast, and within a few decades will rival the US and China. And the current American regime has little to no interest in space exploration, so the 'newest phone' thing is waaay off.

[crazyewok]

Manned wise its just not going to happen.

I doubt we will even get to mars by 2040.

We need some BIG technology breakthroughs in propulsion for beyond mars manned missions to be feasible or worth it.

Edited April 21, 2015 by crazyewok

[DECQ]

I think space agencies specifically throw these fakes can be to attract the attention of a mass audience ... But even a trip to Mars, even with NASA's budget will not allow them to do it alone, maybe it will be a joint mission with ESA.

[Nibb31]

I think space agencies specifically throw these fakes can be to attract the attention of a mass audience ...

Given that this report is 13 years old and we hadn't heard about it before, that would be a bit of a failure. No, it's just a paper study. NASA does dozens of these every year. Some ideas are applicable, others aren't. The point of these studies is to figure out which ideas are applicable and which aren't, nothing more.

[iliketrains0pwned]

The real question is why the list stops at Callisto? It's a pretty inactive world compared to some of the other Galilean targets, and I'm pretty sure that Europa (or possibly Io) would be more important places to visit. Maybe they're using Callisto as a base of operations to reach the other moons?

[tater]

This is just a mish-mash of obsolete strategy documents (Mostly Bush's VSE) and a few studies. None of it represents a real plan, and there's frankly no realistic prospect of this happening.

Yep, we're about as likely to contact aliens as this happening. Actually, there is a non-zero chance we could contact aliens, so the alien contact is actually far more likely.

[_Augustus_]

The real question is why the list stops at Callisto? It's a pretty inactive world compared to some of the other Galilean targets, and I'm pretty sure that Europa (or possibly Io) would be more important places to visit. Maybe they're using Callisto as a base of operations to reach the other moons?

Nope. Too much radiation, unfortunately. Ganymede might be possible to visit without the astronauts wearing lead suits.

[tater]

That's why the plan is to land at Callisto, where it receives only 0.01 rem/day (Ganymede - 8 rem/day, Europa - 540 rem/day)

Lifetime exposure limits at NASA vary between 1.5 and 4 Sv (150-400 rem) as a reality check.

[Bill Phil]

I just realized within the last week..

The problem isn't necessarily NASA's total amount of money. It's how it's used. During Apollo, a large portion of the budget was dedicated to Apollo. If the budget was increased to about 20 billion USD per year, with a large portion dedicated to a Mars mission, it's very possible within twenty years. Maybe even less.

But that'll never happen.

[Wesreidau]

It's funny how technology that does not yet exist always seems so simple. Get back to me when we actually have closed eco systems that can support a number of astronauts for many years. Then we can discuss how to fit that on a space ship that's too far from the sun to use direct solar energy.

I swear this is 9/10ths of my thought process in this forum.

[Jonboy]

I just realized within the last week..

The problem isn't necessarily NASA's total amount of money. It's how it's used. During Apollo, a large portion of the budget was dedicated to Apollo. If the budget was increased to about 20 billion USD per year, with a large portion dedicated to a Mars mission, it's very possible within twenty years. Maybe even less.

But that'll never happen.

A larger budget will not fix NASA, IMO. NASA can and does do amazing things with its current budget (especially doing scientific research with probes and rovers). Because of its relationship with Congress and the "aerospace-industrial complex", NASA often pursues projects that are highly inefficient and pork-barrel in nature. This is a problem enabled by both sides of Congress, so I'm not blaming any party here. But the modern NASA often researches or builds things that are not productive simply to direct funding into a particular congressperson's home district. And I feel, as many do, that NASA's relationship with traditional aerospace companies is a massive waste of resources, because due to the nature of their contacts, these companies make a profit whether or not the project is completed on time or on budget. The Space Shuttle was a great example of this inefficiency and I have no doubt that the SLS will be plagued by the same issues if it survives the next presidential administration.

Additionally, after the investigation commissions following the two Space Shuttle disasters, NASA's internal safety infrastructure was exposed as dangerous and ineffective. Despite the magnitude of these issues, there seemed to be no real progress made in solving them in the 17 years between Challenger and Columbia. There is no reason to expect that this track record of poor engineering and administration will not continue with Orion/SLS.

So no, I don't agree with you that the issue is more money. But I do agree that change is unlikely to happen in the near future.

[Bill Phil]

A larger budget will not fix NASA, IMO. NASA can and does do amazing things with its current budget (especially doing scientific research with probes and rovers). Because of its relationship with Congress and the "aerospace-industrial complex", NASA often pursues projects that are highly inefficient and pork-barrel in nature. This is a problem enabled by both sides of Congress, so I'm not blaming any party here. But the modern NASA often researches or builds things that are not productive simply to direct funding into a particular congressperson's home district. And I feel, as many do, that NASA's relationship with traditional aerospace companies is a massive waste of resources, because due to the nature of their contacts, these companies make a profit whether or not the project is completed on time or on budget. The Space Shuttle was a great example of this inefficiency and I have no doubt that the SLS will be plagued by the same issues if it survives the next presidential administration.

Additionally, after the investigation commissions following the two Space Shuttle disasters, NASA's internal safety infrastructure was exposed as dangerous and ineffective. Despite the magnitude of these issues, there seemed to be no real progress made in solving them in the 17 years between Challenger and Columbia. There is no reason to expect that this track record of poor engineering and administration will not continue with Orion/SLS.

So no, I don't agree with you that the issue is more money. But I do agree that change is unlikely to happen in the near future.

My point is that if NASA wants to go to Mars, they should allocate more money, out of the budget, to that goal.

I'm saying the problem is how the money is used just as much as it is the lack of money.

[crazyewok]

I doubt they will even get to mars by 2040 let alone Jupiter. Not unless they try some unique propulsion methods and get some extra funding. They would have to go back to NERVA.

This is just some pie in the sky project that will suck millions in before its cancelled.

[Zzabur]

I doubt they will even get to mars by 2040 let alone Jupiter. Not unless they try some unique propulsion methods and get some extra funding. They would have to go back to NERVA.

This is just some pie in the sky project that will suck millions in before its cancelled.

So much unknown factors...Nobody has left Earth SOI since 1972, and it was for the moon, I highly doubt we can reach Jupiter with a manned mission in 25 years while we couldn't send a man more than 6 monthes in space around Earth since the last 40 years.

We had the same discuss about Mars One, the MIT answer far better than me : http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/technical-feasibility-mars-one-1014

Lots of issues : food, water, spare parts, radiations....

I

[Bill Phil]

So much unknown factors...Nobody has left Earth SOI since 1972, and it was for the moon, I highly doubt we can reach Jupiter with a manned mission in 25 years while we couldn't send a man more than 6 monthes in space around Earth since the last 40 years.

We had the same discuss about Mars One, the MIT answer far better than me : http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/technical-feasibility-mars-one-1014

Lots of issues : food, water, spare parts, radiations....

I

We as in America? Or we as in the human race?

Plenty of Cosmonauts have been in space more than 6 months at a time, on Mir.

[lajoswinkler]

"NASA wants" - that's where the story ends. We all want lots of things, but we can't have them.