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

91–100 of 342 posts

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

#91

Post by marvin »

zatkin wrote: post #78
Quarrelsome wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You could have said the same thing about literally any exploratory initiative since humans first started using tools 50 000 years ago. Spending some tiny portion of resources expanding the scope of human presence does not preclude attacking more immediate challenges.

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

#92

Post by kbyatnal »

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…

Do you have any idea how many of our modern technologies were developed as a direct result of the space program? New technologies were needed to go into space and many of them have become essential for our lives.

MRI, LEDs, Anti-Icing Systems, Artificial Limbs, Land Mine Removal, Firefighter Gear, Water Purification, Pollution Remediation, etc etc...the list goes on and on. Studies estimate a $7-$14 return on investment for every $1 of NASA expenditure.

Source:

https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2008/tech_benefits.html

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

#93

Post by skinnymuch »

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.

When NASA funds private sector projects, the people aren't the funding, the money is. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point. I don't get what you're saying.

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

#94

Post by paulcole »

kbyatnal wrote: post #92
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…

Do you have any idea how many of our modern technologies were developed as a direct result of the space program? New technologies were needed to go into space and many of them have become essential for our lives. MRI, LEDs, Anti-Icing Systems, Artificial Limbs, Land Mine Removal, Firefighter Gear, Water Purification, Pollution Remediation, etc etc...the list goes on and on. Studies estimate a $7-$14 return on investm…

Everything from watchmaking to watch repair!

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

#96

Post by tynpeddler »

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…

Space probes may be cheap but they are slooooowwww. Most of the research done by spirit, opportunity and curiosity could have been done by a trained astronaut in an afternoon. As an example, in its 2623 day mission, spirit traveled less than 5 miles. Rovers are great for low budget exploration, but if you want to kick things into high gear, there's no substitution for trained humans.

Some of you may be thinking, 'Hold on a second, if you took the money for manned exploration and poured that all in to rovers, surely you would get even more science done than humans could possibly do!" Perhaps, but I would argue that the research done to support the manned exploration should be counted in the scientific haul. Meaning that currently, for ten billion dollars, we could shoot rovers to every corner of the solar system using current rocket technology. But if we spent that ten billion dollars sending people to mars, we would have to develop new rockets, new infrastructure, new habitation technologies, cosmic radiation shields and much more. All that technology, plus the knowledge we gain on mars would be more valuable than simply sending rovers all over the solar system, partially because all that new technology would probably make it easier to later send rovers all over the solar system.

In addition to the above, there is also the massive pr power of putting people on mars. Everyone in the world knows Neil Armstrong, but no one cares much about luna 2.

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

#97

Post by mcguire »

ceejayoz wrote: post #76
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.

Keeping a geologist alive on the way and while there, and returning them, are a little expensive, though.

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

#98

Post by specializeded »

philipov wrote: post #29
stevoo wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Creating interplanetary projects like the one above are extemely expensive. As the ISS showed is that costed !150 billion USD to construct making massive leaps into space should not be burden to a single country. With that the funding would be less, and the return even smaller. I believe a global space agency should be formed where each country can allocate the money they wish and set goals by panels to the direction…

> That will ease the financial burden of countries and create project on a global scale that will unite the world instead of finding new reasons be patriotic about. Which is the opposite of what world leaders actually want. Jingoism is the name of the game right now.

Opposite of what lots of us want too, kumbaya circles didn’t fuel the space race!

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

#99

Post by angersock »

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…

"Entitlements" is a technical term that's been used for quite some time (including the usage of the word in the original Social Security Act).

There's plenty of cases of speech manipulation, but this isn't one of them.

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

#100

Post by ApolloFortyNine »

mikeash wrote: post #16
Nanite wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NASA programs typically span multiple decades and run in the billions of dollars, The political pendulum sways from one side to the other side every 4-8 years, every new administration is looking for ways to cut down taxes. It's amazing they get anything done imho.

I'm pretty sure the big reason Apollo was successful was that they had enough support to get the job done within that 8-year period. And, no surprise, Nixon's election heralded the end, although inertia kept it moving for a few years.

The Soviet Union pretty much quitting a year or so after the US landed on the moon is what did it.
Post reply on HN