7 ms·

Mars and Moon Are Out of NASA's Reach for Now, Review Panel Says

15 points by fjabre 17y ago

onreact-com 17y ago
The Chinese and the Russians or the Indians will reach Mars. http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2009/01/05/China-Russia-Mars-mission-set-for-takeoff/UPI-11111231173225/ http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2009/01/05/China-Russia-Mars...
- wouterinho 17y ago
  I guess these are nations that have something to prove in this area, especially China and India. Putting a man on Mars will certainly confirm you to the general world population as a "real" new dominant power.
  - joezydeco 17y ago
    Or confirm you as a nation that puts an expensive, small return mission as priority over more pressing internal problems?
    - fjabre 17y ago
      As long as we continue to be human we will always have 'internal' problems. The big picture is that Earth is a single point of failure and the clock is ticking away. Mars should be a higher priority but I don't expect the government to solve it. They've grown too big and dumb for that it seems. This hopefully will be tackled by more visionaries like Buzz Aldrin, Elon Musk, and Burt Rutan...
    - gtt 17y ago
      Internal problems always will be. By this logic we should cancel almost all pure research projects.
      - fjabre 17y ago
        How do you figure? If anything space exploration is research intensive. We have done a lot of research in space and even on the ground before we got there. I'm curious as to what you mean by pure research.
        jibiki 17y ago
        I don't understand your comment. You're saying that certain research should take priority over solving internal problems, but space exploration shouldn't...? Why?
        deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
        billswift 17y ago
        Humans in space efforts have nothing to do with research. They are now purely national prestige efforts. And I am extremely pro-space, I just don't think current efforts are doing ANYTHING AT ALL about getting us there permanently.
        fjabre 17y ago
        I'm saying that it should be more of a priority amongst the general public. I didn't say it should take priority over other forms of research. =)
      - joezydeco 17y ago
        From a UN Report: "More than 700 million Indians, or roughly two-thirds of the population, do not have adequate sanitation. Largely for lack of clean water, 2.1 million children under the age of 5 die each year" My point is: shouldn't a country like India put their research and money toward solving THESE problems instead of putting a man on Mars?
- zandorg 17y ago
  Also, if you can generate rocket fuel with internal labour (not imported), you can outdo the Americans in rocket fuel cost by a maybe 10x factor (I mean India here, or any economy like Thailand, with a different 'gearing' from the US dollar).
  - hughprime 17y ago
    I'm confused -- is labour cost a big part of rocket fuel costs? Actually I'd like to know much more about rocket economics. How much of the cost is in fuel vs engines vs support staff etc? If we started cranking out Delta rockets at mass production rates could we get the price down to, say, a million bucks a pop?
    - zandorg 17y ago
      I mean that materials are theoretically cheaper because of the low exchange rate, and so is labour.
    - wlievens 17y ago
      Not sure about rockets specifically, but I do know that the only reason the Soyuz is way cheaper than the Space Shuttle is lower Russian wages.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
DanielBMarkham 17y ago
I call horse manure. Mars and the Moon are well within reach. They are not a priority. Now you can argue that the priorities are wrong, and I'll agree with you, but don't spin it that somehow it's a matter of "reach". It's a matter of will.
- fjabre 17y ago
  Agreed. It really is a matter of prioritizing. With the way things are going on this planet one would think this would be a higher priority. Increasing our chances of survival as a species should be a high priority but it seems we can't see the forest through the trees. We have developed the means to destroy the planet, yet we have no way of escaping should that ever actually happen. It's not the kind of situation you'd like to find yourself in considering all the political and religious strife prevalent across the globe.
  - shrughes 17y ago
    > Increasing our chances of survival as a species should be a high priority but it seems we can't see the forest through the trees. Why should this be a priority? There are better things for NASA to do than satiate some folks' religious beliefs.
    - fjabre 17y ago
      I would hardly call increasing our chances of survival a 'religious belief' but if it is than sign me up. NASA should focus on buying rockets from Elon Musk.
  - GHFigs 17y ago
    Increasing our chances of survival as a species should be a high priority Why?
  - mechanical_fish 17y ago
    We have developed the means to destroy the planet, yet we have no way of escaping should that ever actually happen. I'm not at all sure that we have the means to make the Earth less habitable than the Moon or Mars. The Moon is pretty darned uninhabitable. Mars likewise. Assuming the absolute worst of the nuclear winter hypotheses to be true, we could perhaps destroy most of the higher life on Earth. But even after a nuclear winter the Earth would still have substantial amounts of water and oxygen, and almost certainly a functioning biosphere of some sort. [1] Which is more than can be said for the Moon or even Mars. Meanwhile, we most certainly don't have the technology to reach an extrasolar Earth-like planet, and spending tens of billions of dollars to have humans dork around in near-solar orbit won't change that fact one bit. If you really do dream of settling other planets, you need to spend far fewer dollars on far more radical experiments. Or you need to read Charles Stross: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the_high_frontier_redux.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the_high... Possibly both. -- [1] Bacteria are hard to kill. Many of them thrive on the lightless ocean floor at extremely high temperatures. And unicellular creatures built our oxygen atmosphere, so the loss of it probably won't bother them too much.
robryan 17y ago
If there not willing to give NASA more funds there almost better off pulling the plug on the thing and instead giving the money to private space companies, or retaining NASA as a purely research/ robotic exploration company.
wallflower 17y ago
Buzz Aldrin has said that if we send men to Mars and back once - it's an accomplishment but if we can do it three times, then we've proved that we have solved the problem. Russia is already training men to live in isolation for one hundred and five days (the duration of the Mars - Earth flight). http://pda.physorg.com/_news157702743.html http://pda.physorg.com/_news157702743.html
- nwatson 17y ago
  Why do we need to solve the round-trip problem to Mars? Many set out in the past from the Old World to the New World with no intention of returning. There are plenty willing in the near future to go one-way to Mars. "Humans in space" isn't about science ... robots do that. It's about pushing the limits of the human experience and spirit. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/opinion/01krauss.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/opinion/01krauss.html ... send material and equipment to Mars first, then the first human colonists. To never return. It's 10% the cost of a round trip we can't afford.
run4yourlives 17y ago
Mars and the Moon? In a few months NASA won't even be able to send a man into space, let alone the moon. Sad really.

15 points by fjabre 17y ago

The Chinese and the Russians or the Indians will reach Mars. http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2009/01/05/China-Russia-Mars-mission-set-for-takeoff/UPI-11111231173225/ http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2009/01/05/China-Russia-Mars...

wouterinho 17y ago
I guess these are nations that have something to prove in this area, especially China and India. Putting a man on Mars will certainly confirm you to the general world population as a "real" new dominant power.
- joezydeco 17y ago
  Or confirm you as a nation that puts an expensive, small return mission as priority over more pressing internal problems?
  - fjabre 17y ago
    As long as we continue to be human we will always have 'internal' problems. The big picture is that Earth is a single point of failure and the clock is ticking away. Mars should be a higher priority but I don't expect the government to solve it. They've grown too big and dumb for that it seems. This hopefully will be tackled by more visionaries like Buzz Aldrin, Elon Musk, and Burt Rutan...
  - gtt 17y ago
    Internal problems always will be. By this logic we should cancel almost all pure research projects.
    - fjabre 17y ago
      How do you figure? If anything space exploration is research intensive. We have done a lot of research in space and even on the ground before we got there. I'm curious as to what you mean by pure research.
      - jibiki 17y ago
        I don't understand your comment. You're saying that certain research should take priority over solving internal problems, but space exploration shouldn't...? Why?
        deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
        billswift 17y ago
        Humans in space efforts have nothing to do with research. They are now purely national prestige efforts. And I am extremely pro-space, I just don't think current efforts are doing ANYTHING AT ALL about getting us there permanently.
      - fjabre 17y ago
        I'm saying that it should be more of a priority amongst the general public. I didn't say it should take priority over other forms of research. =)
    - joezydeco 17y ago
      From a UN Report: "More than 700 million Indians, or roughly two-thirds of the population, do not have adequate sanitation. Largely for lack of clean water, 2.1 million children under the age of 5 die each year" My point is: shouldn't a country like India put their research and money toward solving THESE problems instead of putting a man on Mars?
zandorg 17y ago
Also, if you can generate rocket fuel with internal labour (not imported), you can outdo the Americans in rocket fuel cost by a maybe 10x factor (I mean India here, or any economy like Thailand, with a different 'gearing' from the US dollar).
- hughprime 17y ago
  I'm confused -- is labour cost a big part of rocket fuel costs? Actually I'd like to know much more about rocket economics. How much of the cost is in fuel vs engines vs support staff etc? If we started cranking out Delta rockets at mass production rates could we get the price down to, say, a million bucks a pop?
  - zandorg 17y ago
    I mean that materials are theoretically cheaper because of the low exchange rate, and so is labour.
  - wlievens 17y ago
    Not sure about rockets specifically, but I do know that the only reason the Soyuz is way cheaper than the Space Shuttle is lower Russian wages.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

DanielBMarkham 17y ago

I call horse manure. Mars and the Moon are well within reach. They are not a priority. Now you can argue that the priorities are wrong, and I'll agree with you, but don't spin it that somehow it's a matter of "reach". It's a matter of will.

fjabre 17y ago
Agreed. It really is a matter of prioritizing. With the way things are going on this planet one would think this would be a higher priority. Increasing our chances of survival as a species should be a high priority but it seems we can't see the forest through the trees. We have developed the means to destroy the planet, yet we have no way of escaping should that ever actually happen. It's not the kind of situation you'd like to find yourself in considering all the political and religious strife prevalent across the globe.
- shrughes 17y ago
  > Increasing our chances of survival as a species should be a high priority but it seems we can't see the forest through the trees. Why should this be a priority? There are better things for NASA to do than satiate some folks' religious beliefs.
  - fjabre 17y ago
    I would hardly call increasing our chances of survival a 'religious belief' but if it is than sign me up. NASA should focus on buying rockets from Elon Musk.
- GHFigs 17y ago
  Increasing our chances of survival as a species should be a high priority Why?
- mechanical_fish 17y ago
  We have developed the means to destroy the planet, yet we have no way of escaping should that ever actually happen. I'm not at all sure that we have the means to make the Earth less habitable than the Moon or Mars. The Moon is pretty darned uninhabitable. Mars likewise. Assuming the absolute worst of the nuclear winter hypotheses to be true, we could perhaps destroy most of the higher life on Earth. But even after a nuclear winter the Earth would still have substantial amounts of water and oxygen, and almost certainly a functioning biosphere of some sort. [1] Which is more than can be said for the Moon or even Mars. Meanwhile, we most certainly don't have the technology to reach an extrasolar Earth-like planet, and spending tens of billions of dollars to have humans dork around in near-solar orbit won't change that fact one bit. If you really do dream of settling other planets, you need to spend far fewer dollars on far more radical experiments. Or you need to read Charles Stross: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the_high_frontier_redux.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the_high... Possibly both. -- [1] Bacteria are hard to kill. Many of them thrive on the lightless ocean floor at extremely high temperatures. And unicellular creatures built our oxygen atmosphere, so the loss of it probably won't bother them too much.

robryan 17y ago

If there not willing to give NASA more funds there almost better off pulling the plug on the thing and instead giving the money to private space companies, or retaining NASA as a purely research/ robotic exploration company.

wallflower 17y ago

Buzz Aldrin has said that if we send men to Mars and back once - it's an accomplishment but if we can do it three times, then we've proved that we have solved the problem. Russia is already training men to live in isolation for one hundred and five days (the duration of the Mars - Earth flight). http://pda.physorg.com/_news157702743.html http://pda.physorg.com/_news157702743.html

nwatson 17y ago
Why do we need to solve the round-trip problem to Mars? Many set out in the past from the Old World to the New World with no intention of returning. There are plenty willing in the near future to go one-way to Mars. "Humans in space" isn't about science ... robots do that. It's about pushing the limits of the human experience and spirit. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/opinion/01krauss.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/opinion/01krauss.html ... send material and equipment to Mars first, then the first human colonists. To never return. It's 10% the cost of a round trip we can't afford.

run4yourlives 17y ago

Mars and the Moon? In a few months NASA won't even be able to send a man into space, let alone the moon. Sad really.