Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NASA Budgets for a Trip to the Moon

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 53 posts

Re: NASA Budgets for a Trip to the Moon

#21

Post by unethical_ban »

craftyguy wrote: post #2

> The Trump administration is also looking to trim the budget of NASA’s earth science directorate > The nearly $1.8 billion budget for that part of NASA would be about 6.5 percent lower than what was enacted for fiscal year 2017 Donald seems to be stuck in the Cold War. I've not heard of one good reason for him wanting to send Americans back to the Moon other than "prestige." There are much more valuable scientific t…

1) It is closer and more feasible to practice landing and returning from a planet than Mars

2) The ISS is going to de-orbit in the 2020s, so for low-gravity and habitat research, we can spend billions on another LEO station (which private industry is already tackling) or we can do something a bit more daring: set up shop on another rock.

I think NASA should be allowed, broadly, to choose its own missions and goals, and stick with it for longer than one administration. Their work takes more than 3 year election cycles.

Re: NASA Budgets for a Trip to the Moon

#22

Post by ggg9990 »

unethical_ban wrote: post #21
craftyguy wrote: post #2

> The Trump administration is also looking to trim the budget of NASA’s earth science directorate > The nearly $1.8 billion budget for that part of NASA would be about 6.5 percent lower than what was enacted for fiscal year 2017 Donald seems to be stuck in the Cold War. I've not heard of one good reason for him wanting to send Americans back to the Moon other than "prestige." There are much more valuable scientific t…

1) It is closer and more feasible to practice landing and returning from a planet than Mars 2) The ISS is going to de-orbit in the 2020s, so for low-gravity and habitat research, we can spend billions on another LEO station (which private industry is already tackling) or we can do something a bit more daring: set up shop on another rock. I think NASA should be allowed, broadly, to choose its own missions and goals, a…

The British-style civil service structure is much more suitable for long-term government investments like NASA, NIH, etc. They are too important and too complicated to be left to politicians.

Re: NASA Budgets for a Trip to the Moon

#23

Post by rdtsc »

throwawayjava wrote: post #17
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel in many ways that this is how NASA works. One leader says “My predecessor has no vision for a positive future. We must go beyond low Earth orbit and explore the solar system. I’m announcing renewed funding for programs that will send humans to Mars in 25 years. I’m introducing a bill that adds $2B to the NASA budget.” And then the subsequent leader says “My predecessor loved spending money even while the peopl…

TBF the military is the only jobs program whose recipients are unimpeachable.

The fact that counties around Northern Virginia are the wealthiest counties in the whole country (and 3rd wealthiest one is in Maryland, also close to DC) supports that statement:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rebeccalerner/2017/07/13/top-10...

Re: NASA Budgets for a Trip to the Moon

#24

Post by akvadrako »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #11
gnarbarian wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about a moon base we could use as a base camp for missions to the outer solar system or mars? H3 mining is another thought. Edit: other ideas * Autonomous vehicles sent ahead of time to build habitats for people. * Large underground bases dug into the bedrock positioned at the poles collecting solar energy. * Long tracks to launch things into space/earth electromagnetically. * Mining of ice which could get split…

I guess that feels a little like England setting up a base in Greenland as a supply depot to stop at before crossing the Atlantic to the new world. There’s way more stuff at their home base so it’s hard to see how adding a far off stop in a desolate place will help.

Well for one Greenland is outside the massive gravity well of England. So you can save a lot of fuel only shipping things back to Greenland between missions.

Re: NASA Budgets for a Trip to the Moon

#25

Post by tobltobs »

coolso wrote: post #14
craftyguy wrote: post #2

> The Trump administration is also looking to trim the budget of NASA’s earth science directorate > The nearly $1.8 billion budget for that part of NASA would be about 6.5 percent lower than what was enacted for fiscal year 2017 Donald seems to be stuck in the Cold War. I've not heard of one good reason for him wanting to send Americans back to the Moon other than "prestige." There are much more valuable scientific t…

> I've not heard of one good reason for him wanting to send Americans back to the Moon other than "prestige." Not even for the inspiration? I mean look at how everyone reacted to SpaceX's recent launching of a Tesla into space. Everyone thought it was super cool and inspiring - and it was. Now imagine how much cooler it would be to send people to the moon again in the modern age. Yeah it happened before but that was…

How is repeating something, which has been done already 50 years ago, inspirational? That sounds more like admission of defeat.

Re: NASA Budgets for a Trip to the Moon

#26

Post by gt_ »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #11
gnarbarian wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about a moon base we could use as a base camp for missions to the outer solar system or mars? H3 mining is another thought. Edit: other ideas * Autonomous vehicles sent ahead of time to build habitats for people. * Large underground bases dug into the bedrock positioned at the poles collecting solar energy. * Long tracks to launch things into space/earth electromagnetically. * Mining of ice which could get split…

I guess that feels a little like England setting up a base in Greenland as a supply depot to stop at before crossing the Atlantic to the new world. There’s way more stuff at their home base so it’s hard to see how adding a far off stop in a desolate place will help.

Or like England setting up a base at Sealand before crossing the Atlantic.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand

Re: NASA Budgets for a Trip to the Moon

#27

Post by maksimum »

ggg9990 wrote: post #22
unethical_ban wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) It is closer and more feasible to practice landing and returning from a planet than Mars 2) The ISS is going to de-orbit in the 2020s, so for low-gravity and habitat research, we can spend billions on another LEO station (which private industry is already tackling) or we can do something a bit more daring: set up shop on another rock. I think NASA should be allowed, broadly, to choose its own missions and goals, a…

The British-style civil service structure is much more suitable for long-term government investments like NASA, NIH, etc. They are too important and too complicated to be left to politicians.

How does accountability to the public work with career civil servants? I'm not saying it's not possible, but I think for every country like Finland where civil servants hold themselves accountable you can find 2-5 countries where they are inefficient, or worse, corrupt. Would the USA be more like Finland or more like the other countries?

Re: NASA Budgets for a Trip to the Moon

#28

Post by TaylorAlexander »

throwawayjava wrote: post #17
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel in many ways that this is how NASA works. One leader says “My predecessor has no vision for a positive future. We must go beyond low Earth orbit and explore the solar system. I’m announcing renewed funding for programs that will send humans to Mars in 25 years. I’m introducing a bill that adds $2B to the NASA budget.” And then the subsequent leader says “My predecessor loved spending money even while the peopl…

TBF the military is the only jobs program whose recipients are unimpeachable.

That’s under our control. They’re unimpeachable because we support an air of respect for them. We could do the same for those less privileged, but other agendas get in the way.

Re: NASA Budgets for a Trip to the Moon

#29

Post by gnarbarian »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #11
gnarbarian wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about a moon base we could use as a base camp for missions to the outer solar system or mars? H3 mining is another thought. Edit: other ideas * Autonomous vehicles sent ahead of time to build habitats for people. * Large underground bases dug into the bedrock positioned at the poles collecting solar energy. * Long tracks to launch things into space/earth electromagnetically. * Mining of ice which could get split…

I guess that feels a little like England setting up a base in Greenland as a supply depot to stop at before crossing the Atlantic to the new world. There’s way more stuff at their home base so it’s hard to see how adding a far off stop in a desolate place will help.

I'm thinking more long term. Things I'd like to see:

* Autonomous vehicles sent ahead of time to build habitats for people.

* Large underground bases dug into the bedrock positioned at the poles collecting solar energy.

* Long tracks to launch things into space/earth electromagnetically.

* Mining of ice which could get split into H and O for propellant.

* Mining of other materials to be used on site or sent back to earth.

* Attempt to get people to be self sufficient on another world, even if it took a hundred years.

* Depot for deep space asteroid mining ships/drones to drop off their cargo and refuel/repair without having to drop all the way down to Earth.

Re: NASA Budgets for a Trip to the Moon

#30

Post by maksimum »

whatshisface wrote: post #20
webkike wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it's a smokescreen to divert resources away from potentially damaging climate research?

It'd be hard for additional climate research to do anything (politically) that the existing climate research hasn't done already. Although, I understand how there might be some element of "Hah! Got'em!" among some groups. Overall, I see this as a move towards globally inspiring national pride projects and away from the more subtle and less-expensive "only PhDs understand how this is really important," tasks. It reall…

The fundamental issue is that it's relatively hard for us to reasonably account for future costs against present costs. I also think it's interesting that in more social equitable countries (like the Scandis) the public and politicians tend to take climate change more seriously. Is Maslow's hierarchy actually coming into play?
Post reply on HN