NASA admits it doesn’t have the funding to land humans on Mars • Hacker News Board

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

#221

Post by badloginagain » Thu, Jul 13, 2017, 6:03 PM UTC

keenerd wrote: post #211

bluGill wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Science fiction almost universally assumes the speed of light is not a hard limit. Not at all, you need to look at other sub-genres. The social, economic and military structures that form around slower than light travel are a mainstay of hard science fiction. "A Deepness in the Sky" is a great example. So is the first half of "Neptune's Brood" or the second half of "Accelerando". Any story that uses a generation sh…

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 the books.

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

#222

Post by emodendroket » Thu, Jul 13, 2017, 6:04 PM UTC

mannigfaltig wrote: post #69

FiatLuxDave wrote: post #11

I had a conversation a few years ago with Buzz Aldrin. He was talking about his idea for a Mars Cycler which would travel continuously between Earth and Mars. I told him that I thought it was a great idea (especially as it would be investing in 'permanent' space infrastructure instead of a single-shot mission) but that I thought it was unlikely that the government would allocate enough resources to build it. He seeme…

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…

Science that is "about sobriety and utility" is by its very nature focused on short-term, incremental gains.

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

#223

Post by ianai » Thu, Jul 13, 2017, 6:08 PM UTC

badloginagain wrote: post #221

keenerd wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Science fiction almost universally assumes the speed of light is not a hard limit. Not at all, you need to look at other sub-genres. The social, economic and military structures that form around slower than light travel are a mainstay of hard science fiction. "A Deepness in the Sky" is a great example. So is the first half of "Neptune's Brood" or the second half of "Accelerando". Any story that uses a generation sh…

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.

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

#224

Post by kilroy123 » Thu, Jul 13, 2017, 6:09 PM UTC

Of course, they don't have the money. They literally need up to 100 billion UDS to make it happen. Alternatively, partner with China and a few other countries.

We could wait until private enterprises can get us there but that probably wouldn't be a far a long time.

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/a...

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

#225

Post by fancy_pantser » Thu, Jul 13, 2017, 6:09 PM UTC

arethuza wrote: post #116

eduren wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Arrakis might be a more direct comparison!

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

#226

Post by freeflight » Thu, Jul 13, 2017, 6:11 PM UTC

srtjstjsj wrote: post #202

ythn wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The assumption is that we will somehow "terraform" Mars so that it will be earthlike before Earth is destroyed.

why would martian life survive the destruction of earth from extraplanetary impact, which would affect martian orbit?

Mars is only the spearhead for further stellar and maybe even interstellar colonization, after all, we gotta start somewhere don't we? Once we manage to do Mars, by gaining knowledge, developing technologies and maybe even discovering new resources, we can hedge humanities survival further by applying this experience to colonizing other places in space.

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

#227

Post by javajosh » Thu, Jul 13, 2017, 6:11 PM UTC

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…

Maybe Musk and Bezos can live in a biosphere bubble on the asteroid belt maintained by an army of their (wholly-owned) mining robots. But Mars is a bad joke. It's deep in a gravity well and is a gigantic, cold Sahara dessert without breathable air.

If physicists and engineers can come up with a massless drive and potent, safe energy to drive it (e.g. EmDrive powered by fusion) we cold probably send missions back and forth to nearby stars - a worthy goal. But even then it will be expensive and time-dilation will ensure that whatever glory the explorers get will be amongst strangers. And it seems incredibly unlikely that we'll find any planet sufficiently close to Earth to be worth colonizing!

Now, if someone invents a unique, valuable zero- or micro-gravity industrial process then look out! Space will get real sexy real fast.

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

#228

Post by sqeaky » Thu, Jul 13, 2017, 6:15 PM UTC

mannigfaltig wrote: post #69

FiatLuxDave wrote: post #11

I had a conversation a few years ago with Buzz Aldrin. He was talking about his idea for a Mars Cycler which would travel continuously between Earth and Mars. I told him that I thought it was a great idea (especially as it would be investing in 'permanent' space infrastructure instead of a single-shot mission) but that I thought it was unlikely that the government would allocate enough resources to build it. He seeme…

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

and we have no guarantee earth won't become that way too.

If the worst should happen we will need to live without Earth or we will stop living. A big rock could come through any day.

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

#229

Post by sqeaky » Thu, Jul 13, 2017, 6:17 PM UTC

valuearb wrote: post #132

0xffff2 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yea, their research will now actually ship.

NASA is obligated to share their work with Americans. Many products ship with tech NASA invented that probably would not have been shared if a private enterprise came up with it.

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

#230

Post by keenerd » Thu, Jul 13, 2017, 6:22 PM UTC

badloginagain wrote: post #221

keenerd wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Science fiction almost universally assumes the speed of light is not a hard limit. Not at all, you need to look at other sub-genres. The social, economic and military structures that form around slower than light travel are a mainstay of hard science fiction. "A Deepness in the Sky" is a great example. So is the first half of "Neptune's Brood" or the second half of "Accelerando". Any story that uses a generation sh…

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…

Coincidentally I'm working through the book series right now. It is mostly good, though it would be nice if the main characters weren't quite as consistently lucky.

The author's handling of energy is really annoying. I can overlook the structural impossibility of spinning up an asteroid for example, but I can't overlook the fact that they can command that sort of energy. It is made even more frustrating because they understand the offensive capabilities of kinetic weapons and rocket exhaust.

For example, the mirror array on Ganymede was stupid. The greenhouses use electric lighting for half of the time anyway, when behind Jupiter. Why build this giant orbital mirror array when you could install a second fusion reactor instead and leave the lights on all the time? And then it could all be underground too.

Magnetospheres make some locations very desirable. Why not lay down some super conducting cables, hook up a fusion reactor to it and make your own magnetosphere? This would have been a great plot device too, since any rich civilized place would do it, but it also makes detection of the habitat trivial. Poorer places would keep their's off and take the risk of cancer, turning it on only for protection from solar flare bursts. Seedy places would never install one at all.