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

241–250 of 342 posts

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

#241

Post by CydeWeys »

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.

I don't see much purpose in the Wright brothers' airplane either, but it was a necessary intermediate step between not being able to fly and today's modern commercial jetliners.

In space travel as in software engineering, you need incremental progress.

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

#242

Post by greglindahl »

keenerd wrote: post #237
greglindahl wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're interested in the science behind spinning asteroids, check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarkovsky%E2%80%93O%27Keefe%E2...

That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. In The Expanse, they hollow out and spin up asteroids to use as a space station with centripetal artificial garavity. A typical rubble-pile asteroid would fly apart well before that. Even solid rock couldn't take the forces since they are all tensile.

Sorry, I thought you (or the other people reading this thread) might be interested in how asteroids behave in the real world. I wasn't saying that's what was happening in the show.

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

#243

Post by keenerd »

svachalek wrote: post #235
badloginagain wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just wanted to mention The Expanse, which definitely has hard limits on going over (or even reaching) the speed of light, and touches on many of the tropes you mentioned. It's also probably one of the best examples I've seen of a truly alien encounter- no bipedal humaniods with spoken language. The book series is excellent, and it has two seasons released from SyFy, which does a pretty good job capturing the feeling…

spoilers It sounds like you may not have read all the books yet.

Everyone says that after book 3 or 4 they go downhill anyway.

I like to believe there was only one Matrix movie ever made and only one Dune novel. I will probably prefer to believe that there were actually 9-N books in The Expanse series, where N has yet to be determined.

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

#244

Post by cmurf »

bluGill wrote: post #166
habosa wrote: post #103

In many science fiction books we assume that if an alien planet ever got a whiff of us they'd quickly board their space ships and come see us. It's somewhat comforting to think the alien planet could also be in a perpetual bureaucratic budget crisis and they've dismantled their space program to make more room for tax cuts. Politics could save us from an alien invasion!

Science fiction almost universally assumes the speed of light is not a hard limit. At this time we have every reason to believe that it is a limit. Our theories also say that if you were to go faster than light (which you cannot) it implies time dilation and time travel - again science fiction just assumes a loop hole so that doesn't happen. Many talk about travel at 10 times the speed of light (warp-10) as if that i…

Childhood's End, Arthur C. Clarke. Space travel is sub-light speed, and specifically takes account of time dilation as an integral part of telling the story.

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

#245

Post by EliRivers »

njarboe wrote: post #150
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…

"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 (mi…

culturally empty spaces are gone

You've never been to my home town :p

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

#246

Post by ethbro »

ComodoHacker wrote: post #164
tempay wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be nice, it's a shame it could just as easily result in an increase of military spending to fund a space program to come invade.

Let me anthropomorphically assume there will always be a closer target to spend excess planetary resources on.

Yes, but the closer target doesn't look alien.

How often do countries go to war with people who are similar to them? Now how often with people who are the other? (Whatever definition fits)

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

#247

Post by [deleted] »

ComodoHacker wrote: post #164
tempay wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be nice, it's a shame it could just as easily result in an increase of military spending to fund a space program to come invade.

Let me anthropomorphically assume there will always be a closer target to spend excess planetary resources on.

[deleted]

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

#248

Post by vlasev »

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…

Here are a few facts about Mars

1. You can make steel

2. You can make rocket fuel

3. You don't need a high delta-v to get into space

When you combine these facts together, it appears that you can make effective steel rockets.

On the Moon, facts 1 and 2 are not true, even if fact 3 is.

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

#249

Post by Casseres »

ianai wrote: post #223
badloginagain wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just wanted to mention The Expanse, which definitely has hard limits on going over (or even reaching) the speed of light, and touches on many of the tropes you mentioned. It's also probably one of the best examples I've seen of a truly alien encounter- no bipedal humaniods with spoken language. The book series is excellent, and it has two seasons released from SyFy, which does a pretty good job capturing the feeling…

How do they zip around the solar system so quickly? It seems like at various points they go from earth to where ever almost instantaneously (in the show, that is). Not a troll - I'm genuinely wondering what I missed from the episodes.

In the books, the sense of time it takes is conveyed. I don't think they're treating it as instantaneous in the show; just that they're keeping the story moving along because it makes for better TV. If you like the show and you like reading novels, I highly recommend the book series.

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

#250

Post by keenerd »

greglindahl wrote: post #242
keenerd wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. In The Expanse, they hollow out and spin up asteroids to use as a space station with centripetal artificial garavity. A typical rubble-pile asteroid would fly apart well before that. Even solid rock couldn't take the forces since they are all tensile.

Sorry, I thought you (or the other people reading this thread) might be interested in how asteroids behave in the real world. I wasn't saying that's what was happening in the show.

I didn't mean to come off sounding so harsh. YORP is fascinating stuff, particularly when it can happen to such an extreme degree to make a stable asteroid break up.
Post reply on HN