NASA: No Martian toilets means no Mars trip

[unhappycamper]

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/nasa-no-martian-toilets-means-no-mars-trip/

NASA: No Martian toilets means no Mars trip
International Business Times
19 Jun 2015 at 11:41 ET

The head of NASA has said that there won’t be any landings on Mars for a while because they don’t know where astronauts will go to the bathroom.

“Our technical abilities are not what we want it to be now. We need better life support systems, we need a toilet that’s not going to break on the way there, then when we get to the Martian surface we need [a toilet] that’s going to work over and over again. Toilets are a big deal,” said Major Charles Bolden.

According to the Telegraph, Major Bolden was speaking to a group of British schoolchildren for the Sky News show "Hotseat." The major said that NASA aimed to send humans to the Red Planet in the 2030s, but that it’ll probably be on an orbital mission without landing.

“We’re not going to send humans down to the surface of Mars to build the habitats, the houses; we’re probably going to use robots,” he said.

--

unhappycamper: No money means no Mars.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. Calling Howard Wollowitz... nt

[SamKnause]

2. Were you reading my mind ???

That is the same thought I had.

[djean111]

3. My first and instant thought, exactly.

Surely NASA has Netflix.

[demwing]

4. prototype :)

[FiveGoodMen]

11. Uh, Houston? This is pretty much an FYI. We're all going to step outside.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

5. Well, they'll just have to go to the bathroom before they leave.

Just like everyone else going on a trip.

[DavidDvorkin]

6. Excellent.

[MisterP]

7. probes are so far ahead of what could be built in the late 60s—and send 160 Curiosity or 847 Spirit/

Opportunity-class probes for $400B for like 12 landings
or take care of actual problems ...

[Moostache]

9. I understand the point, but I reject the idea we cannot do both...

With proper national and international priorities - spending not on weapons to destroy and divide mankind, but rather on projects to unite and inspire mankind - we SHOULD be don't both. Solving problems should never eliminate the drive to expand our collective knowledge or the spirit of adventure and wonder that constantly asks "what's over that next hill?"

[Electric Monk]

13. Ok, help me understand the point then. What can a manned mission do that can't be done otherwise?

The cost for a round trip manned mission dwarfs that of sending one way robots.

[Moostache]

15. Robots do not inspire humanity.

If $$$'s spent is the only metric employed, then the cost-benefit analysis is always in favor of unmanned flights.
The problem with that approach is that it does very little to move people. Spirit and Opportunity were amazing successes, now try to find 10 people at random who can identify them...then ask the same people who was the first man on the moon.

The difference to me is also the benefit of repurposing our tax money from a war-footing and permanent hostility to a more future looking and positive one. Everything about our current spending decisions is hideously short sighted. Its time to change that and I just believe inspiring people is a better route than trying to control the world at the business end of another weapons system.

[Moostache]

8. No bucks....No Buck Rogers...

Hasn't changed a bit since the Mercury 7!

[DetlefK]

10. "Get your ass to Mars!" - "Do they have toilets there?" - "No." - "Then forget it."

[William Seger]

12. My wife is the same way about camping (n/t)

[progressoid]

14. Ha!