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

151–160 of 342 posts

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

#151

Post by CydeWeys »

justinator wrote: post #113
HarkMamilton wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Environmentalism isn't an excuse to give up on every other aspiration humanity might hold.

I personally would vote in favor of putting space exploration on hold until we get a handle on the quickly accelerating environmental disaster we humans have set up that seems that it may just wipe ourselves out. Personally. One needs beauty in the world, yes, but one also needs to breathe.

This doesn't make any sense though, as there's no reason they should be exclusive priorities. I, personally, would vote in favor of putting many things on hold until we increase humanity's resilience to catastrophic events by settling on other planets, but I recognize that priorities aren't mutually exclusive.

Anyway, what's the point of focusing all efforts on Earth if human civilization is going to die out here anyway? That's the path we're currently on, and stopping space exploration isn't going to magically fix that. Wanting other baskets for the egg of human civilization is just pragmatism.

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

#152

Post by RugnirViking »

Kazamai wrote: post #38

I don't see the purpose of landing people on Mars. Just to say, "we did it". Wouldn't it be a much more rewarding goal to research and execute systems that could send humans one way to planets in our galaxy. Even seeding organisms on other planets in the hope that they evolve into intelligent life.

'Wouldn't it be a much more rewarding goal to research and execute systems that could send humans one way to planets in our galaxy'

Presumably a precursor to this is creating ships that can get to planets within our solar system, for example mars. This is just one step in a long line of potential goals as we learn what's possible

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

#153

Post by carsongross »

nicwolff wrote: post #129
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...

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...

But most federal outlays are entitlements. Breaking it out by entitlement type doesn't change that fact. Military spending presumably includes space/rocket related R&D.

And the total as a percentage of GDP has gone up extensively, which a stacked graph doesn't show.

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

#154

Post by njarboe »

HarkMamilton wrote: post #144
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…

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…

There is still an amazing amount of coal in the ground. Check out the Powder River Basin in the US which, for one example.

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

#155

Post by nathancahill »

valuearb wrote: post #106
tynpeddler wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, 'Hol…

NASAs manned space efforts have devolved into a scam to divert funds into the state of Alabama. It literally can't build any manned space systems unless they are gold plated and cost 20 times what they should.

The gold plating is for radiation shielding in space. It reflects more infrared radiation than other materials.

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

#156

Post by SkyLX »

valuearb wrote: post #106
tynpeddler wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, 'Hol…

NASAs manned space efforts have devolved into a scam to divert funds into the state of Alabama. It literally can't build any manned space systems unless they are gold plated and cost 20 times what they should.

Cite some sources for your claims dude.

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

#157

Post by digikata »

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.

Research is needed, it's hard to predict, and Development for space forces the movement of practical, envelope pushing movement of research and theory into at some hard problem solving in ways that just more research doesn't accomplish.

For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_solar_cells

Space isn't solely responsible for solar cells, but I can't help but note these entries in the timeline.

1950s - Bell Labs produce solar cells for space activities.

1954 - On April 25, 1954, Bell Labs announces the invention of the first practical silicon solar cell

1958 - T. Mandelkorn, U.S. Signal Corps Laboratories, creates n-on-p silicon solar cells, which are more resistant to radiation damage and are better suited for space. Hoffman Electronics creates 9% efficient solar cells. Vanguard I, the first solar powered satellite, was launched with a 0.1W, 100 cm² solar panel.

Would the solar cell technology we enjoy today have developed as quickly or at all with that little extra push of space investment to move it along? Would the research ever have ended up as practical without hard engineering problems to solve along the way?

I think you'll find similar connections for fuel cells, and battery tech. You see metals research now which is applicable for the space application first, but the engineering knowledge will likely get re-applied in more expanded mundane applications in due time...

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

#158

Post by c22 »

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…

You could build a telescope there. Also managing infrastructure, survival, and resupply would grant loads of experience applicable to habitating Mars with cheaper fuel costs and a slightly easier abort option should something go wrong.

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

#159

Post by indigo0086 »

skinnymuch wrote: post #93
indigo0086 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I quickly and poorly tried to make a point, so let me just state what I envision. NASA is one giant government entity bogged down by bureaucracy like any other govt org. The private sector can grow, and become competitive for the greatest minds, more efficient tech, and more networked understanding of what is needed to accomplish this mission. Each company will do what is in the best interest of their company and invest as such. NASA will take the money out of our pockets, dump it in these projects, and will waste a certain amount, and may not even come out with tech as effective as had the private sector had done it.

The reason I trust the private sector over NASA is that NASA is a "too big to fail" org. It can lull for a few decades but because it's a federal org, if a new need arises they'll try to solve it by dumping money into it. I mean I'm sure persistence is a great quality on an individual level, but when our dollars are at stake, I'd at least like to be ensured that the entire process up until the final product is created is invested privately as it puts pressure on a smaller scale. If they fail at doing it then we waisted the dollars that could have been spent elsewhere more effectively, while a private company will be able to re-structure, support and collaborate with others with their knowledge.

I just don't have this blind trust that dumping money into NASA will produce a result, let alone the best one. The people at nasa if they are smart can freely go to a company that can do it better without the government waste or abuse, NASA is merely a department with people, they're not shackled to their desks and must only use their minds on American Space Ventures.

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

#160

Post by gozur88 »

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.

But the same people were in Congress, pretty much.

The problem is the public lost interest in the moon. It's a big dusty rock with nothing much to recommend the billions we were spending to go there.

Post reply on HN