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

121–130 of 342 posts

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

#121

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#122

Post by valuearb »

DiThi wrote: post #19
Tepix wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Use Falcon Heavy by SpaceX or New Glenn by Blue Origin for a fraction of the cost of SLS. Orion may be worth keeping. It is limited to 4 astronauts which is probably too small a crew for a 2.5 year Mars mission. I do think that it could be built much cheaper, however.

I don't think FH is enough for manned mars missions. It has enough delta V to land there but not to come back.

A Falcon Heavy has close to the capacity of the first SLS version, and about half the later versions. But you can launch 20 Falcon Heavies for the cost of one SLS.

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

#123

Post by fsloth »

valuearb wrote: post #111
kbyatnal wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Wow, you are saying if you take a massive pile of money to hire a bunch of the smartest engineers away from private companies and pay them to solve problems, they'll do it? And if NASA didn't exist, and these engineers instead worked for less bureaucratic, more entrepreneurial businesses, they'd invent nothing?

The inventions did not arise merely from the minds of the engineers but of the problem constraints placed upon them. Space research has been beneficial for technological development because of the exotic problems which have created solutions with wide applicability.

This is not to say they would have not arisen through land based research but invention needs inspiration as well, not just financial incentives.

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

#124

Post by 0xffff2 »

Robotbeat wrote: post #104

The main thing NASA needs to land people on Mars (or the Moon for that matter) is a lander. NASA does not have one, nor is one being funded. All the other details for Mars can be done with variants of what already exists or will fly shortly (commercial crew vehicles or even Soyuz, ISS modules for a transfer craft, launch vehicles like the EELVs used by the military or Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy, in-orbit docking and pr…

>All the other details for Mars can be done with variants of what already exists or will fly shortly (commercial crew vehicles or even Soyuz, ISS modules for a transfer craft, launch vehicles like the EELVs used by the military or Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy, in-orbit docking and propellant transfer which is commonly used on the Space Station, etc).

I'll grant you a lot of that, but do you really think re-using ISS modules for transfer craft would be remotely feasible? The vastly different radiation regimes between LEO and interplanetary space make me doubt that this would work.

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

#125

Post by valuearb »

mikeash wrote: post #18
RugnirViking wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you propose we would get man to mars without a heavy lift rocket or manned capsules? EDIT: the previous comment used to say that SLS and Orion was a 'waste of money'. I accept that spaceX proposals among others are cheaper, however NASA, the US government, and many scientists also have a vested interest in keeping at least some orbital capability in the public sphere, even if only for military reasons

SpaceX's ITS could be developed for a similar cost as SLS+Orion, while being vastly more capable.

I doubt the ITS will cost remotely that much, because it won't be a source of grift for the citizens of Alabama.

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

#126

Post by shams93 »

Landing humans on other planets is the wrong way to go, at least at this stage of technological development. You combine tele-present robots with upcoming quantum teleportation of photons and you have instant communication between the drone on Mars and the human operator on Earth. Its going to cost even more to terraform Mars to make it even remotely do-able for human habitation.

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

#127

Post by valuearb »

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.

We already outsourced it to Alabama, and they stole 90% of the money.

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

#128

Post by thebooktocome »

dnadler wrote: post #64
LeifCarrotson wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"Entitlement spending" is a fairly common term used to describe government spending that benefits the people directly. I've seen it used in all kinds of places. I haven't heard it used in a derogatory way, though maybe I just haven't noticed.

It is very frequently used as a derogatory term on conservative radio and television shows.

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

#129

Post by nicwolff »

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...

What a terrible chart. By overlaying rather than stacking the areas it looks like almost all federal expenditures are now "entitlements"! Here's a stacked area graph since 1962, which makes clear that we've basically traded military spending for health care for old and disabled people:

http://www.painting-with-numbers.com/download/document/184/1...

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

#130

Post by clxsi »

shams93 wrote: post #126

Landing humans on other planets is the wrong way to go, at least at this stage of technological development. You combine tele-present robots with upcoming quantum teleportation of photons and you have instant communication between the drone on Mars and the human operator on Earth. Its going to cost even more to terraform Mars to make it even remotely do-able for human habitation.

I don't think we've proven that quantum mechanics will allow for FTL information transmission.
Post reply on HN