6 ms·

Not in my lifetime. Somebody may get humans to Mars -- an effort that I'm all in favor of -- but given that NASA is kept on a short financial leash by politici

Not in my lifetime. Somebody may get humans to Mars -- an effort that I'm all in favor of -- but given that NASA is kept on a short financial leash by politicians more interested in dumping money into their constituent areas than funding a long-term space policy, the odds that the United States government will be behind the effort are slim at this point.

Mobiu5 12y ago
NASA's budget is the highest of all government run space agencies and is three times that of Russia, which is number two.
- Zelphyr 12y ago
  Isn't that kind-of like saying "My water is WAY cleaner than yours!" when we both live in a swamp? My point being, sure, we spend more than the other guy on space but compared to just about everything else we spend pitifully little on it.
  - Mobiu5 12y ago
    Perhaps, but I wouldn't underestimate them! They have a lot of ground-breaking projects happening even though you don't see them in the media very often. They do a lot with what they get.
- ahoy 12y ago
  So your point is that russia's space program and the ESA (etc) are also underfunded then, yes?
  - csallen 12y ago
    No, Mobiu5 is countering MrZongle2's point that a non-NASA entities are likely to beat NASA to Mars. I happen to disagree with his analysis, however, because he's not taking non-government entities like SpaceX into account.
    - mikeash 12y ago
      I don't see him making any reference to non-NASA entities at all. All he said is that a trip to Mars made by somebody, anybody, might happen someday, but the odds of sufficient financial support for this attempt are poor.
      - csallen 12y ago
        > Somebody may get humans to Mars ... [but] the odds that the United States government will be behind the effort are slim at this point. i.e. non-NASA entities have a better chance than NASA
        mikeash 12y ago
        Doesn't follow. Edit: I see he has other replies that clarify that this is exactly what he's thinking. "I'm fairly confident that I'll see humans on Mars before I die. I just don't believe NASA will be behind the effort." I still maintain that this is not indicated in the original comment, but that starts to become unimportant.
    - Mobiu5 12y ago
      I was really just trying to point out that he was trivializing NASA. Maybe a private entity will beat them there, maybe not. But they're clearly far from being an incapable organization and still achieve plenty of cutting edge, "world-first" scientific data gathering, engineering research, etc.. As a side note. I'm willing to bet they will be the first (with collaboration between the other space agencies as they often do). Edit: Plus, I don't know of any other deep space crew carrier that currently exists. It sounds to me like they have a head start since they already have one in their possession, albeit untested.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- molmalo 12y ago
  Yes, but you have to consider the difference in costs...
Lambdanaut 12y ago
NASA pessimism is one of the reasons the politicians have little incentive to change their minds.
- MrZongle2 12y ago
  Pessimism has little to do with the actions of politicians. If Senators and Congressmen believe that a $5B mission to study lunar cheese via sub-orbital flight would drive that money into their constituents' areas, they'll support it. It has nothing to do with what the public at large thinks about NASA; it's merely a bullet point they can trot out at the next election: see, through my work in Congress I brought jobs to your area, re-elect me. And THAT is why I doubt NASA can pull this off, because it's clowns like that who control the purse-strings. It's why we junked Apollo capsules for the Shuttle. It's why we have an Orion capsule in development now to replace the Shuttle. It's why the target for HSF went from the Moon to low Earth orbit, languished there for decades, paused briefly on the absurd notion of an asteroid interception mission as being viable, and is now back at Mars. My pessimism in NASA's manned program is well-founded. They have the ideas and the know-how, but their plans are at the mercy of self-serving, science-ignorant politicians.
  - bdamm 12y ago
    At this point we have corporations that can fund space flight. Do we really need governments funding a trip to mars? I think it isn't worth it. Leave it up to those who want to spend their own money. The government should be funding climate science, geo-engineering research, studying how to avoid war, and continuing to fund research into more powerful and cost effective propulsion and energy systems that we can use in space and here on earth. I think NASA shouldn't send a manned mission to mars.
    - rgawdzik 12y ago
      > "studying how to avoid war" I'm sure it isn't that straightforward.... Say you diverted NASAs 18.4 billion yearly budget. What can you do with 18.4 billion dollars? To give you contrast of how little that is relative to other American financial concerns, the GM bailout of 2008 was 51 billion. Why not have Mars missions if the US can give car companies tens of billions?
dllthomas 12y ago
Research, development, and construction will all take place in, y'know, areas.
free2rhyme214 12y ago
SpaceX is more likely to get humans to Mars than NASA.
- ceejayoz 12y ago
  If SpaceX's approach shows promise I'd expect NASA's program to evolve to integrate it somewhat. SpaceX might become the launch vehicle for the unmanned portions, for example.
  - daphreak 12y ago
    SpaceX's approach is to reuse well understood technology but do it mostly in house instead of farming everything out. The are innovating on process and cost but nothing else (at the moment). Those are two areas where NASA certainly could learn something.
    - ceejayoz 12y ago
      I really don't think you can claim they're not innovating when they've already propulsively test-landed (in the sea, but successfully) two Falcon first stages.
      - daphreak 12y ago
        They've done those landings (as tests) on land with the Grasshopper as well. The videos are super cool. NASA has propulsively landed many things (on other planets!). The fundamentals have been around for a while. What I'm trying to get at is that SpaceX is currently not the go to place for rocket science. I do think they are making mark in rocket building science which is exactly what we pay them to do.
- valarauca1 12y ago
  NASA's annual revenue is 73% SpaceX's market cap. But lets pretend that doesn't matter. Musk makes a solid ~1.1 billion a year off of various investments, and has ~11.7 billion in assets. Even if he dumped all that in SpaceX, you'd sill be ~6billion short of NASA's budget. Implying those assests could be quickly liquidated. Even if we assume SpaceX has more/better talent then NASA. Your still working with at least an order of magnitude lower budget. Which is massive, especially when we are talking about the difference between $1bil/yr and $10 billion/yr
codyb 12y ago
Well how old are you now? It's an interesting statement because technological advancements are virtually assured to keep increasing the average lifespan (especially in industrialized and wealthy countries, excuse the recent dip due to obesity) and they're also virtually assured to keep making space travel a more viable reality. Combine that with increased global cooperation (possibly deteriorating right now) and increased private competition and I think it's feasible. I'm 24. I have a feeling I'll more than certainly see humans on Mars barring any unfortunate calamity to myself. I've also been saying I'd live until I was three or four hundred years old since I was a ten years old. So call me an optimist in a variety of ways. Everything I've said is totally from a layman's perspective and I truly have not given the question much thought besides an initial excitement at the prospect upon reading this headline and checking out the news.
- MrZongle2 12y ago
  My skepticism isn't based so much off of my age (I'm in my 40s) but rather NASA's track record when it comes to manned spaceflight. I'm fairly confident that I'll see humans on Mars before I die. I just don't believe NASA will be behind the effort.
  - codyb 12y ago
    Hmm, I'm on the other end actually. I think that for humans to go to Mars it will have to eschew a profit motive, which companies like SpaceX simply can't do. As NASA is the best funded space agency for the richest and most technologically advanced nation on Earth, I'll believe the odds are stacked in their favor that they'll be behind the first astronauts there. Of course, if our politicians don't stop bumbling around we may very soon not be the most advanced nation on Earth which would be unfortunate. When it was a race, NASA did good! Hopefully other countries will join in and spur us on. Even Republicans might be able to get around to the idea of showing off American exceptionalism (I think it's bullshit, American exceptionalism has been predicated off a very rich country investing lots of money into research. But call it what you will, it is what it is.).

Mobiu5 12y ago

NASA's budget is the highest of all government run space agencies and is three times that of Russia, which is number two.

Zelphyr 12y ago
Isn't that kind-of like saying "My water is WAY cleaner than yours!" when we both live in a swamp? My point being, sure, we spend more than the other guy on space but compared to just about everything else we spend pitifully little on it.
- Mobiu5 12y ago
  Perhaps, but I wouldn't underestimate them! They have a lot of ground-breaking projects happening even though you don't see them in the media very often. They do a lot with what they get.
ahoy 12y ago
So your point is that russia's space program and the ESA (etc) are also underfunded then, yes?
- csallen 12y ago
  No, Mobiu5 is countering MrZongle2's point that a non-NASA entities are likely to beat NASA to Mars. I happen to disagree with his analysis, however, because he's not taking non-government entities like SpaceX into account.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    I don't see him making any reference to non-NASA entities at all. All he said is that a trip to Mars made by somebody, anybody, might happen someday, but the odds of sufficient financial support for this attempt are poor.
    - csallen 12y ago
      > Somebody may get humans to Mars ... [but] the odds that the United States government will be behind the effort are slim at this point. i.e. non-NASA entities have a better chance than NASA
      - mikeash 12y ago
        Doesn't follow. Edit: I see he has other replies that clarify that this is exactly what he's thinking. "I'm fairly confident that I'll see humans on Mars before I die. I just don't believe NASA will be behind the effort." I still maintain that this is not indicated in the original comment, but that starts to become unimportant.
  - Mobiu5 12y ago
    I was really just trying to point out that he was trivializing NASA. Maybe a private entity will beat them there, maybe not. But they're clearly far from being an incapable organization and still achieve plenty of cutting edge, "world-first" scientific data gathering, engineering research, etc.. As a side note. I'm willing to bet they will be the first (with collaboration between the other space agencies as they often do). Edit: Plus, I don't know of any other deep space crew carrier that currently exists. It sounds to me like they have a head start since they already have one in their possession, albeit untested.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
molmalo 12y ago
Yes, but you have to consider the difference in costs...

Lambdanaut 12y ago

NASA pessimism is one of the reasons the politicians have little incentive to change their minds.

MrZongle2 12y ago
Pessimism has little to do with the actions of politicians. If Senators and Congressmen believe that a $5B mission to study lunar cheese via sub-orbital flight would drive that money into their constituents' areas, they'll support it. It has nothing to do with what the public at large thinks about NASA; it's merely a bullet point they can trot out at the next election: see, through my work in Congress I brought jobs to your area, re-elect me. And THAT is why I doubt NASA can pull this off, because it's clowns like that who control the purse-strings. It's why we junked Apollo capsules for the Shuttle. It's why we have an Orion capsule in development now to replace the Shuttle. It's why the target for HSF went from the Moon to low Earth orbit, languished there for decades, paused briefly on the absurd notion of an asteroid interception mission as being viable, and is now back at Mars. My pessimism in NASA's manned program is well-founded. They have the ideas and the know-how, but their plans are at the mercy of self-serving, science-ignorant politicians.
- bdamm 12y ago
  At this point we have corporations that can fund space flight. Do we really need governments funding a trip to mars? I think it isn't worth it. Leave it up to those who want to spend their own money. The government should be funding climate science, geo-engineering research, studying how to avoid war, and continuing to fund research into more powerful and cost effective propulsion and energy systems that we can use in space and here on earth. I think NASA shouldn't send a manned mission to mars.
  - rgawdzik 12y ago
    > "studying how to avoid war" I'm sure it isn't that straightforward.... Say you diverted NASAs 18.4 billion yearly budget. What can you do with 18.4 billion dollars? To give you contrast of how little that is relative to other American financial concerns, the GM bailout of 2008 was 51 billion. Why not have Mars missions if the US can give car companies tens of billions?

dllthomas 12y ago

Research, development, and construction will all take place in, y'know, areas.

free2rhyme214 12y ago

SpaceX is more likely to get humans to Mars than NASA.

ceejayoz 12y ago
If SpaceX's approach shows promise I'd expect NASA's program to evolve to integrate it somewhat. SpaceX might become the launch vehicle for the unmanned portions, for example.
- daphreak 12y ago
  SpaceX's approach is to reuse well understood technology but do it mostly in house instead of farming everything out. The are innovating on process and cost but nothing else (at the moment). Those are two areas where NASA certainly could learn something.
  - ceejayoz 12y ago
    I really don't think you can claim they're not innovating when they've already propulsively test-landed (in the sea, but successfully) two Falcon first stages.
    - daphreak 12y ago
      They've done those landings (as tests) on land with the Grasshopper as well. The videos are super cool. NASA has propulsively landed many things (on other planets!). The fundamentals have been around for a while. What I'm trying to get at is that SpaceX is currently not the go to place for rocket science. I do think they are making mark in rocket building science which is exactly what we pay them to do.
valarauca1 12y ago
NASA's annual revenue is 73% SpaceX's market cap. But lets pretend that doesn't matter. Musk makes a solid ~1.1 billion a year off of various investments, and has ~11.7 billion in assets. Even if he dumped all that in SpaceX, you'd sill be ~6billion short of NASA's budget. Implying those assests could be quickly liquidated. Even if we assume SpaceX has more/better talent then NASA. Your still working with at least an order of magnitude lower budget. Which is massive, especially when we are talking about the difference between $1bil/yr and $10 billion/yr

codyb 12y ago

Well how old are you now? It's an interesting statement because technological advancements are virtually assured to keep increasing the average lifespan (especially in industrialized and wealthy countries, excuse the recent dip due to obesity) and they're also virtually assured to keep making space travel a more viable reality. Combine that with increased global cooperation (possibly deteriorating right now) and increased private competition and I think it's feasible. I'm 24. I have a feeling I'll more than certainly see humans on Mars barring any unfortunate calamity to myself. I've also been saying I'd live until I was three or four hundred years old since I was a ten years old. So call me an optimist in a variety of ways. Everything I've said is totally from a layman's perspective and I truly have not given the question much thought besides an initial excitement at the prospect upon reading this headline and checking out the news.

MrZongle2 12y ago
My skepticism isn't based so much off of my age (I'm in my 40s) but rather NASA's track record when it comes to manned spaceflight. I'm fairly confident that I'll see humans on Mars before I die. I just don't believe NASA will be behind the effort.
- codyb 12y ago
  Hmm, I'm on the other end actually. I think that for humans to go to Mars it will have to eschew a profit motive, which companies like SpaceX simply can't do. As NASA is the best funded space agency for the richest and most technologically advanced nation on Earth, I'll believe the odds are stacked in their favor that they'll be behind the first astronauts there. Of course, if our politicians don't stop bumbling around we may very soon not be the most advanced nation on Earth which would be unfortunate. When it was a race, NASA did good! Hopefully other countries will join in and spur us on. Even Republicans might be able to get around to the idea of showing off American exceptionalism (I think it's bullshit, American exceptionalism has been predicated off a very rich country investing lots of money into research. But call it what you will, it is what it is.).