3 ms·
> Keep the ISS of course, as a relatively less expensive way of studying the effects of low-G on the human body The ISS is actually very expensive. > If NASA
by nickik 6y ago
> Keep the ISS of course, as a relatively less expensive way of studying the effects of low-G on the human body
The ISS is actually very expensive.
> If NASA had an unlimited budget, then by all means do it all.
NASA is not free to decide these things by themselves.
It is true that the robotic side has been more successful, but that is simply because human spaceflight has been totally mismanaged for the last 50 years. It is not inherently the case.
The new Mars rover was about as expensive as the complete development of Orbital human flight at SpaceX. And for that SpaceX was also able to finish the most advanced reusable rocket and make it human rated.
Actually getting humans onto Mars together with robots to work locally will actually produce a much bigger bang for the buck. Having local labs, local control of robots, human scientists directly on sight. It would also advanced the technology for transportation, agriculture, medicine and so on.
Specially with SpaceX already development the technology need to build a base on Mars, not taking advantage of it and only sending rovers out there, is in my opinion a bad policy. Its both bad from a scientific and from a political view.
Endlessly doing low-G research and getting more details on Marsian stones, is simply not on the same level as human permanently occupying Mars. And a Mars base is in my opinion not outside of the current budget if it were spent in a smarter way.
- bumby 6y ago>not taking advantage of it and only sending rovers out there, is in my opinion a bad policy I wonder much of this choice is due to political risk. A policy to send humans to Mars would have to span multiple administrations and risk being put on the chopping block due to multiple re-prioritizations. Maybe they think a less optimal sure bet is better?
- nickik 6y agoIts not as simple. The political transitions are part of it. However the politics of NASA are complicated. One of the major issues is simply that NASA for human-space flight could in the past not build on top of commercial rockets and NASA has been terrible at developing launch vehicles. Simply put, Marshall Space flight center, Boeing and Alabama is where the money is going. There simply is no accountability. The money just keeps flowing there year after year no matter what is achieved or not achieved. No matter if the president changes or not, no matter if you are going to Moon, Mars or an Asteroid. Before that the Shuttle was all consuming program that limited you to LEO, partly because you have very little budget left over as long as you had Shuttle operating. This is likely not gone change unless there are some real power shifts in congress.
- bumby 6y ago>There simply is no accountability I agree, but also think this is part of the design. Both government orgs like NASA and the contractors who support them spread their jobs/money across enough Congressional districts to reduce the risk of reduction in funding. Haven’t you ever wondered why NASA designed a naturally inefficient system by spreading the country? Programs in Marshall also stretch their tentacles into Johnson, Glenn, etc. I wonder if part of the blowback is that it makes it less palatable to prioritize big, bold projects (also factoring in how bad estimating these projects is and the fact they will have inevitable overruns). It’s not actually an inability to hold people accountable, it’s that they don’t want that accountability because it puts their districts at risk. Listening to a few talks by the NASA administrator led me to believe political risk is at the forefront of their mind