Print 55 comment(s) - last by KOOLTIME.. on Nov 30 at 7:58 PM

He wanted to use NASA's new Space Launch System (SLS) and get some federal aid, too

An ambitious billionaire was hoping to take a trip to Mars with some help from the feds, but it looks like happiness isn't the only thing money can't buy. 

Billionaire Dennis Tito is no stranger to space. In 2001, he became the first space tourist who paid a nice sum to get to the International Space Station (ISS). His latest request was a little more complex, though.  

Tito stood before the House Science Subcommittee on Space during a Wednesday hearing to lay out his mission to Mars. Tito calls it his nonprofit Inspiration Mars Foundation.

The plan calls for use of NASA's new Space Launch System (SLS), which will lift off from the Kennedy Space Center with a four-part payload to place cargo into Earth's orbit. The four parts include an SLS upper-stage rocket to move the spacecraft from Earth's orbit to Mars; a service module containing electrical power, propulsion and communication systems; a Cygnus-derived habitat module where the astronauts will live for 501 days, and an Earth Reentry Pod derived from Orion.

The second launch will take the crew into orbit aboard a commercial transportation vehicle, and then the crew and Inspiration Mars vehicle stack will travel in orbit using docking procedures. 

Tito during his ISS trip in 2001 [SOURCE:]

From there, the SLS upper-stage rocket then launches the spacecraft toward Mars for a 501-day round-trip. This covers approximately 808 million miles.

Oh, and there's a couple of other minor details Tito threw in: Inspiration Mars will need to launch in late 2017 due to a rare alignment of the planets that would cut the trip's travel time (2021 is another option, but he's pushing for 2017), and Tito wants the federal government to pay for part of the bill. 

So what was the subcommittee's response? You can read the whole statement from NASA spokesman David Weaver here, but the basis of the rejection is this:

"Inspiration Mars' proposed schedule is a significant challenge due to life support systems, space radiation response, habitats, and the human psychology of being in a small spacecraft for over 500 days. The agency is willing to share technical and programmatic expertise with Inspiration Mars, but is unable to commit to sharing expenses with them."

NASA is currently working on a manned mission to Mars in a couple decades. NASA Administrator Charles Bolden has said that the schedule is to send humans to an asteroid by 2025 and Mars by 2030

Source: Space Ref

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Our country is effed
By MrBlastman on 11/22/2013 1:50:56 PM , Rating: 5
So the Federal Reserve will blow 85 billion dollars a month on buying back m0rtg4g3s and d3bt from f1n4nc1al 1nst1tut10ns which in no way provides any benefit for America (it is hurting us way more than helping us) but the stupid Government won't approve a paultry sum (relatively speaking) to support this?


Then again, after the change in Senate voting rules yesterday, nothing surprises me anymore.

There once was a time where the Government sought to inspire us... nowadays it just seeks to repress us.

RE: Our country is effed
By MrBlastman on 11/22/2013 1:51:51 PM , Rating: 2
the numbers above--spam filter. Also, "oppress" is spam?

RE: Our country is effed
By superstition on 11/22/2013 9:47:50 PM , Rating: 2
help! help!

RE: Our country is effed
By tallcool1 on 11/22/2013 3:48:19 PM , Rating: 2
I agree completely.
However it seems to me that Mars would be the prefered first trip. Why do they want to go to an asteroid?

I can see it now...
"Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new Asteroids , to seek out very little chance of life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before."

RE: Our country is effed
By vol7ron on 11/22/2013 4:01:15 PM , Rating: 2
Piggy-backing on an asteroid, or off an asteroid's magnetic field may be the next stage evolutionary stage in long-distance space travel.

Regarding the Fed, I think that's a weak argument, not worth responding to.

Regarding NASA not wanting to do this, it probably has more to do with time than anything else. Preparation, both from Earth and space, requires a lot of planning and allocation of resources.

Regarding the government not wanting to foot the bill, there may be other reasons, but paying for this in the midst of a still-recessed financial state does not bode well for decision making; regardless of how inconsequential the money may be. As things begin to improve I'm curious to see if they wouldn't contribute. -- This is said not having any idea on what the terms were when requesting funding, nor the reasons why it may have been denied.

RE: Our country is effed
By MrBlastman on 11/22/2013 4:12:16 PM , Rating: 2
Piggy-backing on an asteroid, or off an asteroid's magnetic field may be the next stage evolutionary stage in long-distance space travel.

Using gravity to slingshot is hardly evolutionary. We've been doing this since the Voyager spacecraft. There's no more forward progress to be made here. It is simple physics that we have already mastered.

Long-distance space travel can only evolve through our understanding of "nothing" and how to manipulate space-time to our advantage. Even if we discover how to do this, in the meantime, studying prolonged distance travel over time (say a long journey to Mars) would be highly beneficial in creating a true spacecraft with sustainability should the true propulsion needed ever come to fruition.

RE: Our country is effed
By rdhood on 11/22/2013 5:00:04 PM , Rating: 2
Long-distance space travel can only evolve through our understanding of "nothing" and how to manipulate space-time to our advantage.

Wrong. Are we so effed in our thinking that the obvious other possibilities are excluded?

Example: we could figure out how to put living creatures in a slow-aging "sleep", develop interstellar sub-light engines. It would take a while... a long while... but it would work. It seems much more likely that we will be able to manipulate the human body to go into a hibernation state than to be able to manipulate time/space/gravity.

Or, we could build HUGE self contained ships capable of supporting life in space. The nearest likely habitable planet (so far) is about 20 light years away. Folks debate how long it would take to get there, but it would probably be anywhere from 50 years to 200 years... depending on your sub-light engine.

While manipulating space-time is the obvious fast way to get around the universe, its a huge stretch to say it is the "only" way.

Of course, there is always the technology trap, whereby the vehicle that we could make today might go 1/10th as fast as the one we make in 50 years, and the second vehicle would actually overtake the first on their way to their destination.

RE: Our country is effed
By MrBlastman on 11/22/2013 5:11:57 PM , Rating: 2
While manipulating space-time is the obvious fast way to get around the universe, its a huge stretch to say it is the "only" way.

I liken sputtering around the cosmos in a starship for hundreds of years while the passengers sleep within as nothing more than tossing a bottle into the ocean, praying it reaches a destination somewhere, somehow, despite all odds intact.

I refuse to accept this is the only way and view it for what it is: A foolish compromise and lazy way out of a far more elegant and effective solution.

Newsflash: A type-three or type-four civilization most certainly will not be using methods you illustrate above. We have to change how we think to grab hold of the stars.

RE: Our country is effed
By maugrimtr on 11/25/2013 11:56:47 AM , Rating: 2
We need a black hole and fuel. Then a means of generating negative energy. Also, it must be accomplished by first getting to said black hole with the equipment mass. Also, we need to accomplish this before our star turns into a red giant and fries our entire species.

Put that way, a multi-generational ark ship is a Good Idea since it can be feasibly be accomplished today versus a pie in the sky warp drive which doesn't need much energy.

An ark ship is not perfect - over hundreds/thousands of years of travel, even perfect recycling would slowly fail. Hiberbation solves some of that since it minimises consumption and wear/tear on equipment. You could automate supply dumps in advance even.

Like Arthur C. Clark would say, people will take the idea seriously when the Sun decides to die, i.e. when they stop laughing and realise they need off this planet yesterday!

RE: Our country is effed
By Jeffk464 on 11/22/2013 5:42:32 PM , Rating: 2
There is already a company that has figured out how to suspend transplant organs. It seems like we could eventually figure out how to do this for an entire human.

RE: Our country is effed
By Jeffk464 on 11/22/2013 5:49:25 PM , Rating: 2
By the way one of the Arthur C Clarke novels came up with another concept for long duration flights. Instead of sending suspended humans you just send frozen embryos. Near the destination computers and robots thaw out the embryos, raise, and teach them to be useful crew members.

RE: Our country is effed
By MrBlastman on 11/23/2013 10:36:57 AM , Rating: 2
That's a neat concept of his but I've always found it flawed:

What if the ship never reaches the destination due to catastrophe? Mankind will never know because most on Earth alive at launch would be dead by the time it supposedly does.

The longer you are in interstellar space, the greater the chance of a harmful event occurring on a spacecraft. We must seek to minimize exposure in this environment--not just for the people inside but for the craft itself.

This isn't saying other modes of travel will be less dangerous as I expect they will have their own perils; I just believe that as far as Man is concerned, we don't have the time to sit around and wait and see--while building our whole civilization and philosophies around the concept.

RE: Our country is effed
By Reclaimer77 on 11/24/2013 2:31:19 AM , Rating: 2

For that to even remotely have a chance at working, we would need an insanely advanced level of artificial intelligence.

Realistically we would need some type of maintenance robots or droid as well. Something as silly as a loose bolt could doom the entire mission, you cannot realistically plan for EVERY contingency before hand. Gotta have something there actually on the ship capable of analyzing the situation and making the right decisions autonomously.

RE: Our country is effed
By Jeffk464 on 11/25/2013 10:40:20 AM , Rating: 2
If we continue on the same level of computer tech advancement where will AI be in 200 years? When you are talking about interstellar flight you need to think long term.

RE: Our country is effed
By delphinus100 on 11/23/2013 11:19:46 PM , Rating: 2
Piggy-backing on an asteroid, or off an asteroid's magnetic field may be the next stage evolutionary stage in long-distance space travel.

What asteroid do you know with a meaningful (never mind Earth-equivalent) magnetic field? Now, getting inside one might be useful for solar and galactic cosmic radiation shielding, but...

In any case, you can only go where the asteroid is already going (and there's no other 'piggy-back' value, since you have to match its course first, in order to rendezvous with it), and most of them go nowhere interesting. Which is just as well. Unless you're there to deflect it, why would you want to be on an asteroid with any meaningful probability of coming near a planet?

RE: Our country is effed
By MrBlastman on 11/22/2013 4:09:06 PM , Rating: 2
Well, we have to consider who "they" is inclusive of. If we're looking at the fine engineers and scientists in NASA, well, they aren't part of "they." If we're looking at the imbeciles, snakes, sniveling worms and cockroaches in Washington, well, they are "they."

The day we start practicing science without... "science" is the day mankind extinguishes itself. Hmm, come to think of it, we're already far long in that process, socio-intellectually speaking.

I think the fear of Mars is an interesting affliction:

There's one group in our country that doesn't want to believe in extra-terrestrial life. Some assume it is the religious, while I've simultaneously seen evidence from Atheist friends of mine that they don't believe in it either. So it isn't religion or lack of, there are just plenty in our population who don't believe, refuse to believe or don't want to accept the prospect of Alien life and origins. Mars to them is a scary prospect.

To the common scientist, however, it is not assumed or expected to find any sort of life on Mars. It is a planet, close to our own, which at some point in time possibly shared an atmosphere and water similar to our own. Scientists want to learn more about it to relate to our own world and perhaps the rest of the Galaxy.

Most of society doesn't understand science of the scientific method. So a rock... well, why not? There's nothing scary on a rock that could dramatically change mankind. It is the "safe" bet and our politicians still stand to make a killing in kickbacks, donations and other under the cuff ventures.

These are the only reasons I can think of. Well, without disparaging all of mankind and the consequences of repeated, ever-increasing rates of breeding among the "average."

RE: Our country is effed
By jamdev12 on 11/22/2013 5:44:31 PM , Rating: 2
MrBlastman, I'm an Atheist and I don't think your assumption of many of us thinking there aren't any extra-terrestrials is correct. You are correct that many believe that we haven't encountered any and I can bet my entire fortune on it. This doesn't mean we don't believe in them. It would be an incorrect statement for us to assume that we are the only ones out there in the Cosmos. The basic elements that make up living organisms is so prevalent in space, that I would loose my hide if I ever proposed that they don't exist. The probability is too great, the odds are against it are so high, you can call it utter ignorance.

RE: Our country is effed
By Reclaimer77 on 11/23/2013 9:40:15 AM , Rating: 2
Science has no answers to explain how we are here. We cannot reproduce the conditions that began life on this planet in any experiment. We cannot produce in a lab how simple organic molecules formed a proto-cell. We don't even have a standard model for the origin of life yet, much less understand even a tenth of what would be required.

On the other hand, I don't find Creationism to be very appealing. It's kind of...well - ridiculous.

Point is, I see nothing wrong or ignorant with viewing Earth as a singular isolated case, until the time more evidence to the contrary presents itself. For whatever reason. I hope one day we find these answers, but they certainly aren't waiting for us on Mars.

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

RE: Our country is effed
By Reclaimer77 on 11/23/2013 8:58:16 AM , Rating: 2
Then again, after the change in Senate voting rules yesterday, nothing surprises me anymore.

Ugh tell me about it. Majority rule.

When the majority can make the rules, you HAVE no rules.

Gotta love it when Reid and Obama publicly claim the Republicans wont engage in Democracy, then change 100+ years of Senate rule tradition to effectively eliminate the Republican voters entirely. How Democratic of them...

RE: Our country is effed
By room200 on 11/24/2013 8:38:12 AM , Rating: 2
So, I'm sure you were just as outraged by the little rules change the republicans made in October that went against many, many, years of house rule where any member could bring a bill to the floor? He changed that so that a clean CR could not be brought to the floor because he knew it would pass. It guaranteed a gov. shutdown. Changed in the middle of the game. I'll be waiting for your outrage that'll never come.

RE: Our country is effed
By JediJeb on 11/25/2013 2:09:55 PM , Rating: 2
I am more than a little upset that either side can changer the rules under which our legislatures operate. What needs to be done is the States need to set the rules for congress once than pass a Constitutional amendment that keeps the US Congress and Senate from changing them at their whim. I believe this is one of the reasons why the Founding Fathers put that ability into the Constitution in the first place, they knew at some time the central government would overstep its bounds and need to be reigned in.

RE: Our country is effed
By Reclaimer77 on 11/25/2013 4:11:16 PM , Rating: 2
The Republicans did it to try and save the country.

The Senate does it so Obama can get his way.

If you look at how the Founders set up the Senate and Congress in general, their intention was clear: gridlock is GOOD. They wanted gridlock, they wanted checks and balances, they wanted to put as many reasonable hurdles to pure Democracy as possible.

The end result of Democracy is tyranny.

Now the ironically named Democrats ever since Obama was elected are operating on the belief that they won the election, so they deserve to get EVERYTHING they and the President want.

That's tyranny. Those rules were set up so the President couldn't appoint radicals to every position just because he likes them. Which is exactly what he's been doing since day one, much to the determent of all of us.

RE: Our country is effed
By Piiman on 11/23/2013 9:16:10 AM , Rating: 2
And how does sending a billionaire on a trip to Mars benefit America? Oh I see you just want to use silly spelling and make this a political story. Never Mind

RE: Our country is effed
By MrBlastman on 11/23/2013 10:33:01 AM , Rating: 2
It benefits America in two ways:

1. The taxpayer doesn't foot the whole bill.
2. The subsequent journey and telecast of the event with contiguous periodicals and later books on the event will serve as inspiration for young and old to look towards the stars again and strive for accomplishment.

#2 is a huge benefit and something our nation hasn't had in decades. The hippies threw all of it into the trash and we're now left with this craptown USA that we have left. We need that inner fire inside all of us lit again.

RE: Our country is effed
By ritualm on 11/23/2013 7:53:42 PM , Rating: 2
If Dennis Tito is a billionaire, why can't he fund the entire trip himself, instead of attaching this condition to his proposal:
Tito wants the federal government to pay for part of the bill.

It's a very, very expensive partially state-sponsored one-time, multi-year vacation for one man to set foot on a faraway planet just to say "Yes, I landed on Mars, what do you want to ask me?"

It's not about creating a livable outpost. It's not even about having humans colonize other viable planets. The whole thing is a publicity stunt.

RE: Our country is effed
By Reclaimer77 on 11/23/2013 8:28:51 PM , Rating: 2
I imagine people making similar arguments against Columbus going to this "new world"...

It's not even about having humans colonize other viable planets.

How can you colonize a planet if you aren't willing to prove you can GET there first? The Government isn't willing to take that risk, he is.

They say they are going to Mars in two thousand whenever, I say that's BS. They have no serious plans to make the trip, and who knows what the political landscape could be before then? The entire budget could be eliminated, and probably will, given our economy.

Traditionally private enterprise explorers backed by Government capital are responsible for nearly every meaningful discovery and exploratory breakthrough in mankind's history. Motivated individuals take risks. Government's make everything political, and talk it to death in committees, sub-committees, and hearings.

I see space as being no different. This isn't the 1960's anymore. If Kennedy were alive today, and tried making that promise, it would take us 40 years to reach the Moon. If ever.

If Dennis Tito is a billionaire, why can't he fund the entire trip himself

Musk is a billionaire too, but we helped fund SpaceX and provide him logistics on our dime.

RE: Our country is effed
By delphinus100 on 11/23/2013 11:28:45 PM , Rating: 2
And how does sending a billionaire on a trip to Mars benefit America

Which billionaire would that be?

They need two people. Preferably a couple. Personal wealth not a factor.

Tito isn't going himself, if that's what you mean.

RE: Our country is effed
By Bad-Karma on 11/23/2013 4:06:40 PM , Rating: 2
Best ever explanation about our Government's inherent lack of interest in space, I present Neil Degrasse Tyson (director of the Hayden Planetarium).

He offers some very good insight into the issue.

RE: Our country is effed
By MrBlastman on 11/24/2013 12:53:45 AM , Rating: 2
He couldn't have said it any better.

RE: Our country is effed
By room200 on 11/24/2013 8:34:09 AM , Rating: 2
Oooohhhh, so you actually DO believe in socialism...except for rich people. You guys are such hypocrites that it's unbelievable. If that @sshole wants to have fun in space, let him pay for it himself.

RE: Our country is effed
By sleepeeg3 on 11/25/2013 2:09:54 AM , Rating: 2
That kind of thinking is the whole reason the national debt is so high. Where are joyrides to Mars and giving away homes in the Constitution? All of these expenses need to be cut.

solitary confinement
By daboom06 on 11/22/2013 1:01:18 PM , Rating: 2
i wonder if any of the human psychology findings were from the people we keep in solitary confinement. for decades.

RE: solitary confinement
By SoCalBoomer on 11/22/2013 1:54:07 PM , Rating: 3
I think more benefit would be from studying submariner behavior or those who do long distance sailing.

In solitary, you're, well, solitary. In these cases you need to study human interaction at close quarters. Solitary is kind of the opposite of that.

On the other hand, submariners and long distance sailors are in constant close quarters; privacy is illusory at best; and they are in that environment for significant amounts of time.

(and yes, I assume you were being sarcastic and probably political in your statement. I ignored that and just answered you literally. Cheers)

RE: solitary confinement
By maven81 on 11/22/2013 2:39:30 PM , Rating: 2
You have to remember that submarine crews are still pretty substantial though. I believe his goal was to send a crew of two, and preference would be given to a husband/wife team.
There are decades worth of actual data from space stations though so it's not like it's a complete unknown.

RE: solitary confinement
By MrBlastman on 11/22/2013 3:19:29 PM , Rating: 2
As long as they don't put an AI on the spacecraft, I fail to see the problem...

RE: solitary confinement
By Camikazi on 11/23/2013 2:19:11 AM , Rating: 2
What's wrong Dave?

RE: solitary confinement
By JediJeb on 11/22/2013 6:06:50 PM , Rating: 2
I find it sad how during the times of Columbus and Magellan we had sailors on tiny wooden ships stay at sea for sometimes years at a time and yet now we worry if someone can make it for even months. Heck some of the young people I work with could probably make a trip twice that long so long as the batteries in their iPod/phone didn't die.

But wow, if they lost their ability to listen to music and send texts, there would certainly be a mutiny in the first hours after it happened.

RE: solitary confinement
By ritualm on 11/22/2013 7:14:29 PM , Rating: 2
Not a few hours, less than that, as soon as they find out that the maximum data speed in space is 1Mb/24 hours or some other "high" number.

If Only...
By mmatis on 11/22/2013 4:02:53 PM , Rating: 2
he had been smart enough to propose establishing a mosque on Mars, NASA would have jumped at the chance. After all, it was Administrator Bolden who said NASA's primary job was making Muslims feel good about all the contributions they have made to science and engineering...

RE: If Only...
By Jeffk464 on 11/22/2013 5:54:43 PM , Rating: 3
Mostly they kept alive what was learned during ancient greece and Rome while Europe was going through the dark ages while also adding to it. But this was a very important contribution to the modern world.

RE: If Only...
By Captain Orgazmo on 11/24/2013 9:52:09 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, the accidental historical achievements of Muslims are directly related to the purpose National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Where is the recognition of Christian monasteries all across Europe who for over a thousand years preserved and copied all of the ancient texts and scrolls as well? That's space related too, right?

No surprise there...
By maven81 on 11/22/2013 2:35:55 PM , Rating: 2
Actually the surprising part is that he thought he would get any money from the government. NASA is in the midst of a miniature financial crisis because there are more missions then money. There's even talk of stopping the extended missions of some of their flagship spacecraft (like Cassini at Saturn). In part because of the misguided SLS system that for all we know will never fly. He shouldn't even be banking on something that is essentially a jobs/make work program.
What's really depressing though is that their excuse is basically "too risky and not enough time". This organization is a shell of what it used to be. This is the same agency that sent people around the moon in a rocket that was literally tested only twice before?!

RE: No surprise there...
By JediJeb on 11/25/2013 2:20:06 PM , Rating: 2
We can send men to the moon using little more than pencil, paper and a slide rule, but using super computers we can't even get man out of orbit.

NASA should have said yes
By jimbojimbo on 11/22/2013 3:58:45 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, they should have said yes but with one requirement. He has to will EVERYTHING he owns to NASA in the even of his death and it will be unchangeable until he returns.

RE: NASA should have said yes
By delphinus100 on 11/23/2013 11:35:29 PM , Rating: 2
1. You may be able to simply give assets to the government (specifically the Treasury), but you can't leave your money to any specific government agency.

2. Tito himself isn't going himself, regardless...

Go private...
By wordsworm on 11/22/2013 5:32:34 PM , Rating: 2
This guy should consult with Musk and see if they can't get him to Mars.

RE: Go private...
By delphinus100 on 11/23/2013 11:44:56 PM , Rating: 2
I can't see Musk even slightly thinking about it, before making Falcon Heavy work, having at least one manned flight just to LEO on Dragon, and Bob Bigelow's Bigelow Aerospace would need to be involved, too...

By StrangerGuy on 11/22/2013 11:56:07 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure he can bootstrap himself into Mars with his billions instead of relying on others. But somehow the rich doesn't practice what they preach.

By delphinus100 on 11/23/2013 11:41:53 PM , Rating: 2
Elon Musk has long said that he wants to personally retire on Mars (Tito didn't plan to make the Inspiration Mars trip himself.)

But he realizes that to enable that, he has to create his own technologies, and make money along the way to do so. And, well, making money is 'the rich' practicing what they preach. If you're under the mistaken assumption that everyone who is 'rich,' is of the same Borg-like mind, guess again.

never going to happen
By Bubbacub on 11/22/2013 1:23:33 PM , Rating: 3
the politicians that run nasa would actively hinder anyone who tries to orientate the NASA HSF program towards a mars mission.

they don't know what to do with this ridiculous and ruinously expensive rocket that they are building other than that they definitely don't want to go anywhere near mars!

all they want to do is take the 17 billion $ NASA budget and plough it into the ground to buy votes and attract lobbying money (otherwise known as bribes) from the usual suspects (ATK etc.) - they don't want and will not let the space exploration agency actually do some space exploration.

Mission to Mars
By BobsYourUncle on 11/22/2013 2:15:53 PM , Rating: 3
If NASA wants easy money in obscene quantities, all they need to do is change their name to reflect an additional operational mandate: N ational A eronautic S ecurity A dministration.

Updated Motto: We bring the highest imaginable level of intelligence down to earth & into your living room. (What we pick up from your living room we fiber off to Utah for a little crypto crushing & in-depth analysis.)

Do it!
By Valrandir on 11/22/2013 1:06:27 PM , Rating: 2
Let's do it, even if there are high risks of failure.

Too much care to minimize risks is an obstacle to science.

too risky
By DocScience on 11/22/2013 1:30:59 PM , Rating: 2
An actual mission with REAL goals could get in the way of continued flow of money into the correct Congressional districts, the main purpose of the SLS.

Too risky.

By clarisayjn053 on 11/23/2013 4:45:03 PM , Rating: 2
if you need a job try this site JOBS61 (dot)COM. Dan does it at home and makes $17.91 hourly just sitting and typing stuff all day...No experience needed too

Problem = Gravity
By KOOLTIME on 11/30/2013 7:58:03 PM , Rating: 2
Gravity is the biggest space problem, currently no way to get around it for long term stays. Humans and animals are held together by it. With no gravity pressure, parts expand over time, there is no current habitat system that can maintain a natural human life gravity needs long term.

Unfortunately in space animals cant survive long in no gravity zones the body deteriorates, due to pressure holds things together, naturally, without it parts expand and in our physical forms, some parts expanding is deadly if get to large. As shown in earlier space movies we expand and in space if take space pressurized space suit off.

Even the space shuttle crews many come back very sick after extended times. Notice when they land they cant even walk. A longer time to hit mars they are projecting a almost 2 year time, they would be dead most likely before even getting there, much less returning home, even if they made it alive.


"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki