Live data from Hacker News

NASA Budgets for a Trip to the Moon

nytimes.com

51–53 of 53 posts

Re: NASA Budgets for a Trip to the Moon

#51
post #49

Mars vs. Moon debates are getting ridiculous these days. Why not both? Thanks to NewSpace, getting out there is only going to become cheaper; we can, as civilization, afford both. Let ESA and NASA and China race to the Moon. SpaceX wants to go to Mars. If either succeeds in the next decade, we all win. The knowledge and experience gained is reusable for either, it goes into the same pool. And if we keep fighting over…

> Why not both? Because it costs too much right now. SpaceX is providing NASA with rockets, I'm not sure they'll have a sustainable business model to get to Mars. I hope they do find a way but until costs come way down it's going to be tough.

There is no sustainable business model to go to Mars. Unlike LEO, GEO, or maybe even Moon, there's no business opportunity on Mars.

The only way to go there is to accumulate resources from real business, and to improve efficiency.

Re: NASA Budgets for a Trip to the Moon

#52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, that's the point I was trying to make.

Re: NASA Budgets for a Trip to the Moon

#53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The moon’s inclination is 5 degrees to the ecliptic, you’d have to try really hard to find a worse place to put solar panels. Self-sufficiency would require manufacturing complex organical compounds and is total science fiction stuff, and will likely remain that way for a looong time.

How else would you power a moon base without getting stuck sending up material forever?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN