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

141–150 of 342 posts

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

#141

Post by seiferteric »

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…

Yes this is the kind of thing I am thinking also. Why do we have to do one "big trip" to mars? It would be better to set up the infrastructure in space and on the moon etc to support future missions further out. Basically, why can't we get to mars incrementally on the current budget? Things like putting a base on the moon, landing supplies on mars, putting a lander in orbit around mars...

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

#142

Post by simonh »

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.

Are you suggesting that not going to Mars will solve all our environmental problems? This isn't an either-or question.

If we really wanted to, there's no reason we couldn't do both and they're is a blocking issue for the other and some of the technology and science for both are complementary (planetary science, solar and battery technology, environmental control, automation).

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

#143

Post by simonh »

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.

Are you suggesting that not going to Mars will solve all our environmental problems? This isn't an either-or question. If we really wanted to, there's no reason we couldnt do both and they're is a blocking issue for the other and some of the technology and science for both are complementary (planetary science, solar and battery technology, environmental control, automation).

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

#144

Post by HarkMamilton »

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…

Humanity is at an incredibly high extinction risk. We have all sorts of incredible new technologies that could, at the very least, knock us back to pre-industrial society. They might just kill us outright.

We've already used all the easily accessible high-energy fuels, so if our current industrial society falls apart, we will probably never build another one.

If we don't get to space now, we will probably never get to space. Then it's only a matter of time until we get hit by an asteroid.

Or we'll just get killed by an engineered supervirus and skip the whole pre-industrial decay phase.

Going into space is our insurance policy.

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

#145

Post by Robotbeat »

0xffff2 wrote: post #124
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 modu…

Yes it is feasible. The radiation regimes are not vastly different. They're within roughly a factor of two of one another. And since the transit time is about half a year, and we've had multiple people experience ~year-long trips in orbit at a time, I think we're well within our existing knowledge to say they'd do fine radiation-wise, though perhaps with a slightly higher risk than usual. Still better than being a smoker. That is not at all the showstopper.

If you choose to remain in orbit around Mars instead of landing, however, you'll be exposed to a higher dose. Mars' surface has a level of radiation that's below that of ISS plus contains plenty of material for shielding your habitat.

Therefore, the lander helps address the radiation problem as well by getting you down to the surface for most of the mission's duration (instead of doing initial missions in Mars orbit only due to lack of money for a Mars lander as is the current NASA plan).

(Using the ISS spare pool is only one possible solution, by the way, and not likely to be the most optimum.)

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

#146

Post by kodis »

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...

I don't think that it's correct to say that NASA is getting less and less funding. At least according to the data on Wikipedia, NASA's budget has been between $15B and $20B per year in inflation adjusted dollars for the last few decades, and so increasing a bit most years to account for inflation.

The only budget metric that has been dropping has been NASA's percentage of the federal budget, and that's more due to the huge growth in federal spending rather than any decrease in the amount of funds that NASA has available.

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

#147

Post by acjohnson55 »

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…

Most people felt the same way about the Atlantic Ocean.

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

#148

Post by 0xffff2 »

BlackjackCF wrote: post #44

Is it possible for NASA to Kickstart this? I'd throw money at them.

What's the biggest Kickstarter on record so far? Keep in mind that, while tiny compared to the total US budget, NASA's budget is still $18 billion/year.

Edit: While not a Kickstarter, I think Star Citizen might be the crowd-funding winner. Even they have "only" raised $150 million so far. That's a lot of money for a space video game. It's not a lot of money for actually going to space.

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

#149

Post by CydeWeys »

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.

It's not the technology to tackle environmental issues that is lacking, it's the political will. Not going to space doesn't magically solve the problem of entrenched carbon-emitting interests having the power to block a short-term mandatory transition to renewable energy.

Given that, it absolutely makes sense to colonize space, as Mars can't be ruined in the same way that we're ruining Earth, and the petroleum mining industry won't be coming along for the ride.

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

#150

Post by njarboe »

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 hostile and empty."

This is a feature, not a bug. There is a small fraction of humanity that has the desire to do very hard and physically dangerous things. Another fraction who greatly enjoy empty spaces and prefer having great influence over the culture they live in. On Earth, very hard and dangerous can be found, but the activities are either recreational (mountaineering) or involve hurting other people (military, criminal life). Physical empty spaces are still around on Earth, but culturally empty spaces are gone. All land on Earth is either claimed by nation states or must remain unsettled by treaty (Antarctica). Have a small sub-set of humans desiring to leave the over-crowded tribe and cross that river, ocean, or desert for the chance to start their own tribe/civilization is probably necessary for evolutionary survival of the species.

Complaining about the waste in NASA's budget for human exploration, that I can understand, as they have not really advanced that cause since the moon shot. But to dismiss real human exploration all together ("drunk with nostalgia and romantic ideas of exploration"), when a certain fraction of people need it for a fulfilled life, seems closed minded. Maybe a crack will form if you read this. With a world GDP of about 80 trillion dollars/year a few billion/year of public funds for human space flight does not seem unreasonable.

Post reply on HN