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

111–120 of 342 posts

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

#111

Post by valuearb »

kbyatnal wrote: post #92
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…

Do you have any idea how many of our modern technologies were developed as a direct result of the space program? New technologies were needed to go into space and many of them have become essential for our lives. MRI, LEDs, Anti-Icing Systems, Artificial Limbs, Land Mine Removal, Firefighter Gear, Water Purification, Pollution Remediation, etc etc...the list goes on and on. Studies estimate a $7-$14 return on investm…

Wow, you are saying if you take a massive pile of money to hire a bunch of the smartest engineers away from private companies and pay them to solve problems, they'll do it?

And if NASA didn't exist, and these engineers instead worked for less bureaucratic, more entrepreneurial businesses, they'd invent nothing?

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

#112

Post by TaylorAlexander »

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.

We learned a whole lot about the greenhouse effect by studying Venus...

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

#113

Post by justinator »

HarkMamilton wrote: post #85
zatkin wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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

#114

Post by valuearb »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #56
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...

Here's the article from which that graphic is sourced: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-is-driving-growth-i... I'm shocked that they are so brazen as to frame one of the categories as "entitlement spending". The neutral terms for the contents of this category are Medicare and Medicaid, pensions, retirement benefits, Social Security, welfare, and unemployment. You can also call them health insurance, retiremen…

Don't forget that their entitlements promise them much more than their contributions could ever pay for.

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

#115

Post by thebooktocome »

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.

What if space based Earth science is what it takes to solve our environmental issues? Sagan's Blue Marble has done more for environmental preservation than decades of armchair environmental activism.

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

#116

Post by arethuza »

eduren wrote: post #61
sametmax wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right now Mars doesn't have any resource with crave enough to justify this enormous cost. If suddenly we discover that there is something we can get money from, and not just knowledge, you'll get investers.

One "resource" that might justify a human presence on Mars is its relatively weak gravity well. Combine that with fuel production, and you are looking at Mars being the gas station to the solar system. There are certainly places in the solar system that do have valuable resources and the fuel to trawl around the asteroid belt would be a lot cheaper if it could be lifted from Mars rather than Earth. Not saying it will…

So Mars might be the Saudi Arabia of the 22nd century?

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

#117

Post by c22 »

tynpeddler wrote: post #96
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 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…

Everyone remembers Pathfinder but no one cares much about Eugene Cernan.

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

#118

Post by beisner »

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…

Lander aside, the biggest limiting factor is getting astronauts back from Mars! We already know how to get things there, and I think the lander issue is relatively easy to solve, but getting all the equipment and -- most importantly -- fuel for the return flight is the hardest problem to solve economically. Of course we could send like, 12 missions to deliver all the required components, but coordinating the assembly of a rocket on Mars is no walk in the park.

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

#119

Post by valuearb »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #14
John23832 wrote: post #2

I think anyone who remotely follows space exploration or NASA knew this.

Definitely. I've been in a number of discussions (read: arguments) about NASA's state of funding -- with some preferring to claim Trump has raised NASA's funding for space exploration substantially. It takes 5 minutes on Google to find historic data of % of spending budget. To get to the moon ("and the other things") Kennedy/LBJ-era funding was between 1.19% and 4.7% if I recall correctly. During Obama's admin I thin…

more manned money for NASA is just more pork for Alabama.

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

#120

Post by 0xffff2 »

valuearb wrote: post #111
kbyatnal wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any idea how many of our modern technologies were developed as a direct result of the space program? New technologies were needed to go into space and many of them have become essential for our lives. MRI, LEDs, Anti-Icing Systems, Artificial Limbs, Land Mine Removal, Firefighter Gear, Water Purification, Pollution Remediation, etc etc...the list goes on and on. Studies estimate a $7-$14 return on investm…

Wow, you are saying if you take a massive pile of money to hire a bunch of the smartest engineers away from private companies and pay them to solve problems, they'll do it? And if NASA didn't exist, and these engineers instead worked for less bureaucratic, more entrepreneurial businesses, they'd invent nothing?

Anecdotally, my group at NASA has seen several of our smartest engineers leave for the private sector in the last couple of years. They are all making heaps more money, but not one of them is doing the kind of innovative research that we do at NASA.
Post reply on HN