Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NASA admits it doesn’t have the funding to land humans on Mars

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 342 posts

Re: NASA admits it doesn’t have the funding to land humans on Mars

#71

Post by [deleted] »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #56
carsongross wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you'd like to know why NASA is getting less and less funding and can expect this trend to continue, see this chart from Five38/NYT: https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/16fi...

Here's the article from which that graphic is sourced: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-is-driving-growth-i... I'm shocked that they are so brazen as to frame one of the categories as "entitlement spending". The neutral terms for the contents of this category are Medicare and Medicaid, pensions, retirement benefits, Social Security, welfare, and unemployment. You can also call them health insurance, retiremen…

[deleted]

Re: NASA admits it doesn’t have the funding to land humans on Mars

#72

Post by ceejayoz »

computerex wrote: post #49
thearn4 wrote: post #42

I'm a bigger fan of putting a semi-permanent ISS 2.0 on the surface of the moon vs. boots on Mars. I don't work directly in exploration systems, but I'm not the only one at NASA who feels this way. But more than anything I think we and the other executive agencies would take any strong commitment on an exploration and human spaceflight direction from congress that survives across presidential administrations over any…

I am a fan of that too, but I don't know how practical it is. What would we get out of having a manned station around the moon? It's a desolate piece of rock with little to no activity in the core. It's dead by all means, and the probes we have in orbit + instrumentation that was left by Apollo and the tons of moon rock we brought back I think already gave us an abundant amount of data to work with. But alas, I am a…

The Moon has water ice in spots (and its low gravity and lack of atmosphere make that pretty easy to get into orbit) that could potentially be used to stock up a refueling depot for exploration further out in the system.

Re: NASA admits it doesn’t have the funding to land humans on Mars

#73

Post by kuschku »

carsongross wrote: post #46
FiatLuxDave wrote: post #11

I had a conversation a few years ago with Buzz Aldrin. He was talking about his idea for a Mars Cycler which would travel continuously between Earth and Mars. I told him that I thought it was a great idea (especially as it would be investing in 'permanent' space infrastructure instead of a single-shot mission) but that I thought it was unlikely that the government would allocate enough resources to build it. He seeme…

If you'd like to know why NASA is getting less and less funding and can expect this trend to continue, see this chart from Five38/NYT: https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/16fi...

And the issue with this is the health care system, where the private companies get all the healthy individuals who can pay premiums, but the government has to pay the bill for those who can’t.

Single Payer would be less expensive than this.

Re: NASA admits it doesn’t have the funding to land humans on Mars

#74

Post by Quarrelsome »

mannigfaltig wrote: post #69
FiatLuxDave wrote: post #11

I had a conversation a few years ago with Buzz Aldrin. He was talking about his idea for a Mars Cycler which would travel continuously between Earth and Mars. I told him that I thought it was a great idea (especially as it would be investing in 'permanent' space infrastructure instead of a single-shot mission) but that I thought it was unlikely that the government would allocate enough resources to build it. He seeme…

I have trouble understanding the enthusiasm about space. Space hostile and empty. Why not simply send space probes and rovers at a fraction of the cost and spend the money more wisely, for example in projects which research aging, cancer, overpopulation and disaster management in face of global warming. Why do we need to make the exception for space and get drunk with nostalgia and romantic ideas of exploration, when…

because space is more than us and it isn't us. It gives us a non-nation based activity to pursue that is greater than the whole of earth. It represents new frontier, new resources and ways of thinking that transcend this planet. It is a form of evolution and of freedom that isn't shackled so much by our self-made problems of earth. There are new mistakes to make and that's super appealing.

Re: NASA admits it doesn’t have the funding to land humans on Mars

#75

Post by euyyn »

indigo0086 wrote: post #59
ncallaway wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The private sector can only make significant moves in this area (at the moment) with investments and funding from NASA. NASA has been a massive customer / subsidizer for entrants in the new space arena. I'm a huge fan of private sector space innovation, but having a large and well-funded public entity helps make that innovation possible. Advocating blanket defunding of NASA would put the private space sector into jeo…

NASA is made up of people, they can move freely. I just don't beleive in blind forced investment in a stagnant organization.

> NASA is made up of people, they can move freely.

I don't understand what point are you trying to make with this.

Re: NASA admits it doesn’t have the funding to land humans on Mars

#76

Post by ceejayoz »

jankotek wrote: post #36

Better science could be done with automated machines. We could explore entire solar system for a price of single mission.

As automation and robotics advances, I'm sure that'll be true.

Right now, if you compare something like Curiosity against a geologist with a shovel and access to a small lab, the geologist's gonna win.

Re: NASA admits it doesn’t have the funding to land humans on Mars

#77

Post by awalton »

yellowapple wrote: post #24
Thaxll wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should cut the defence budget. 611B/year it's a joke.

Slash it in half, give the slashed half to NASA. Then we can have ourselves a Pluto colony.

Meanwhile people are still dying for lack of access to healthcare, infrastructure is failing, education is remaining poor...

I agree with the slash the defense budget part, but NASA doesn't need 300B/y (and would have a hard time spending it even). They need ~30B/y (i.e. double their existing outlay) to do SLS and continue existing operations, and it needs to be in a lockbox of some kind such that future political swings require a huge amount of horsepower to disrupt it (like a congressional super majority vote).

Re: NASA admits it doesn’t have the funding to land humans on Mars

#78

Post by zatkin »

Quarrelsome wrote: post #74
mannigfaltig wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have trouble understanding the enthusiasm about space. Space hostile and empty. Why not simply send space probes and rovers at a fraction of the cost and spend the money more wisely, for example in projects which research aging, cancer, overpopulation and disaster management in face of global warming. Why do we need to make the exception for space and get drunk with nostalgia and romantic ideas of exploration, when…

because space is more than us and it isn't us. It gives us a non-nation based activity to pursue that is greater than the whole of earth. It represents new frontier, new resources and ways of thinking that transcend this planet. It is a form of evolution and of freedom that isn't shackled so much by our self-made problems of earth. There are new mistakes to make and that's super appealing.

We can't even cope with the environmental issues that we have on our own planet, so we avoid that and instead look to plaguing the rest of the solar system and beyond? Good grief.

Re: NASA admits it doesn’t have the funding to land humans on Mars

#79

Post by kuschku »

crush-n-spread wrote: post #48
jsudhams wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should outsource this to India or Israel.

That is insane. Take a USA tax funded public entity and spend the budget of it's most ambitious project in Israel or India. What are you talking about? And we already send money to Russia for Soyuz to get to ISS via ULA.

Actually, Orion is already outsourced to ESA.

Re: NASA admits it doesn’t have the funding to land humans on Mars

#80

Post by escribmac »

mannigfaltig wrote: post #69
FiatLuxDave wrote: post #11

I had a conversation a few years ago with Buzz Aldrin. He was talking about his idea for a Mars Cycler which would travel continuously between Earth and Mars. I told him that I thought it was a great idea (especially as it would be investing in 'permanent' space infrastructure instead of a single-shot mission) but that I thought it was unlikely that the government would allocate enough resources to build it. He seeme…

I have trouble understanding the enthusiasm about space. Space hostile and empty. Why not simply send space probes and rovers at a fraction of the cost and spend the money more wisely, for example in projects which research aging, cancer, overpopulation and disaster management in face of global warming. Why do we need to make the exception for space and get drunk with nostalgia and romantic ideas of exploration, when…

I think that trying to reach difficult goals will spark new innovation. Also, it's not like there's a direct trade off.
Post reply on HN