NASA Doesn't Have the Money to Land Humans on Mars

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
NASA has admitted that at its current budget levels, the space agency cannot land humans on Mars. While the dream of colonizing the red planet is (for) now left to others, NASA still has plans for a moon exploration mission in which a “Deep Space Gateway” will be built as a potential launching pad for further exploration of the solar system. In more positive space news, the agency has released new images of Jupiter’s big red spot taken by the Juno Spacecraft.

"I can't put a date on humans on Mars, and the reason really is…at the budget levels we described, this roughly 2 percent increase, we don't have the surface systems available for Mars," said Gerstenmaier at a meeting of the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics today. In other words, we might be able to get to Mars orbit, but developing entry, descent and landing technology is beyond NASA's current budget constraints.
 
This is no surprise. While I'm all for the colonization of Mars and the outer planets during the next few thousand years, realistically the move outward should begin with the colonization of the moon first, a much more practical--read "cost effective"--goal. NASA should focus on that first, and on using the moon as a repository-library to ensure that humanity can rebuild itself in the event of a near-extinction calamity, whether natural (volcanic/asteroid/plague-disease) or man-caused (war/deliberately engineered plague-disease/global-warming*).

[*cough]

Moreover, budgets everywhere are constrained by a planetary population that is suddenly aging (at least in comparison to the generations that preceded this one), and the need to care for a citizenry that is becoming relatively 'geriatric.' The answer to "how" to do that lies in the "other news" above: With robotics (and other miniaturization generally). NASA can get a lot done using those cheap tools first, without needing to support frail humans in conditions which are trying hard to kill them.

Sustain a population on the moon first. If they focus on that, I think they are on the right path.
 
kekewons said:
This is no surprise. While I'm all for the colonization of Mars and the outer planets during the next few thousand years, realistically the move outward should begin with the colonization of the moon first, a much more practical--read "cost effective"--goal. NASA should focus on that first, and on using the moon as a repository-library to ensure that humanity can rebuild itself in the event of a near-extinction calamity, whether natural (volcanic/asteroid/plague-disease) or man-caused (war/deliberately engineered plague-disease/global-warming*).

[*cough]

Moreover, budgets everywhere are constrained by a planetary population that is suddenly aging (at least in comparison to the generations that preceded this one), and the need to care for a citizenry that is becoming relatively 'geriatric.' The answer to "how" to do that lies in the "other news" above: With robotics (and other miniaturization generally). NASA can get a lot done using those cheap tools first, without needing to support frail humans in conditions which are trying hard to kill them.

Sustain a population on the moon first. If they focus on that, I think they are on the right path.
Click to expand...

Can you please elaborateof what you consider cost effective?
Getting there is a lot cheaper yes. But from what i gather due to mineral composite Mars is a lot more habitat friendly and therefore would rely less on earth on constants maintenance/ressource input and have a lower running cost. so in the long picture more economical feasable.
offcause the issue is the big investment up front.
 
is this a joke article? it would probably cost trillions of dollars to try anything like this, not to mention probably 3 years in space for the trip. That might change if the emdrive turns out to be real but I don't have much hope for that.
 
Not surprised, our priority is killing Innocents on other countries, instead of doing something constructive.
 
I am all for the discoveries we can learn through space, but if we kill our ecosystem through our stupidity then humanity deserves to die.
 
jiminator said:
is this a joke article? it would probably cost trillions of dollars to try anything like this, not to mention probably 3 years in space for the trip. That might change if the emdrive turns out to be real but I don't have much hope for that.
Click to expand...
It does not take 3 years to go to mars and back and we need to get off this rock and start trying to have a self sustaining base on mars. To the guy that said the moon is a beter place to start its really not other then its colser to earth thats about all it has going for it. We have to start exploring outside earth might as well start now and reap the rewards, so many things we ues every day are here because of space programs
 
Back at Trump's state of the union it was hinted beforehand that there was going to be something about NASA in the speech. Trump went on to say nothing about NASA in the speech.

I understand the people who say that manned spaceflight is not worthwhile for various reasons. My main concern is that all of the fantastic unmanned planetary research NASA has done has effectively piggybacked on the manned space program, and without the manned program and it's interstate web of bureaucracy/suppliers/contractors maintaining political support in Congress there's a good chance that the rest of the science and exploration budget will disappear soon after.

We're currently spending about 0.5% of the federal budget on NASA, around $19 billion/year. If we doubled that we could have the ISS, a 'Skylab 2' fuel depot near the Moon, a Lunar surface outpost, asteroid missions, and Mars expeditions. The cost is a tiny fraction of our economic output, European nation-states of the 17th century spent a larger proportion of their GDP on expeditions or trade for far-eastern goods we now consider commodities. The domestic gross for all movies released in 2016 was ~$11 billion...

Even Thomas Jefferson believed in public funding of scientific expeditions, and I doubt the average person living in 1806 benefited much from the Lewis and Clark expedition. It would be wrong to not continue that tradition today when there are literally entire worlds sitting waiting.
 
Last edited:
NASA should focus more on working with private companies and facilitating communications and resource sharing rather than trying to perform these missions themselves. The private space has proven they can deliver better, faster, and cheaper than NASA. Get the government out of the way and act surprised when things like SpaceX happen.
 
sad that nasa wont be first there, but dont worry private companies like space x and prolly japan,russia,esa,japan an india will get there at some point.


another sad thing is once humans can on a regular basis colonise planets and moons war or wars will always be taking place. rare earth minerals? how about rare planet minerals and what if theres a planet that has gazzillion tons of super cool wierd fuel, oh yeah wars a coming
 
Well that's just sad. We need companies like NASA that give us wonder & hope, like we had in the sixties. Now all everyone looks forward to technological wise, is when the next iPhone is coming out. Screw the iPhone!, I want go to Mars & see three titty aliens.

Seriously though, Its a damn travesty. Also, how about we match all the money we wasted fighting stupid fucking resource wars in the middle east & give it to NASA, I bet they could use it to go to Mars three times over.
 
Krenum said:
Well that's just sad. We need companies like NASA that give us wonder & hope, like we had in the sixties. Now all everyone looks forward to technological wise, is when the next iPhone is coming out. Screw the iPhone!, I want go to Mars & see three titty aliens.
Click to expand...

Three tits. Awesome.

We need to get our asses to Mars. Launch a few dozen 'supply' rockets for when a manned mission gets there, and have robots do a lot of the work. There's been a lot of this stuff already talked about in science fiction stories. Start a small eco-lab, create some vegetation inside, oxygen makers, mining robots, etc.. When we get there, we're already a few steps ahead. Food, water, solar power, oxygen, communications. It could be sent and set up before we got there. And more sent all the time. Create a freight system to Mars.

I loved those cool sci-fi stories and possibilities when I was a kid. I really wish they'd come to reality, though. I wonder how much isn't done due to cost vs. feasibility or rewards (it's just a rock, nothing valuable up there, no reason to go). We have so many hobbyists creating things here that would work there. Automation, drones, robots, etc.. Those are just the kids doing things.
 
jiminator said:
an article came out a few days ago saying mars was too toxic for our bacteria. basically the mars movie was bullshit, not that it is surprising. but someone would not be able to poop in the soil and grow potatoes.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblo...planets-surface-found-too-toxic-for-life.html
Click to expand...

Spoiler alert.
In the book he injects himself with antibiotics well before storing his feces. He killed his gut bacteria well before Mars soil would have killed it.
 
we will probably never mine a planet for minerals. reason being a gravity well. it takes energy to land on mars, energy to escape from mars. The better alternative will be the asteroid belt. You just look for what you want and take it, no gravity wells involved.
 
Everyone is focused on Mars being colonized, and I really don't understand why. The moon is more financially feasible, and if a lunar base needs outside support during an emergency, Earth would be a lot closer to lend help. Also, due to the moons lower gravity and lack of atmosphere, it is the perfect launch pad to construct and launch other spacecraft, either probes or manned.

Secondly, Venus is constantly overlooked due to an incredibly hostile land environment, but cloud level would actually be feasible to enter, but no lower. A "floating" Vesuvian base would be quite feasible, possibly cheaper than a martian base, and with a shorter travel time as well (Earth is closer to Venus than Mars). Imagine a blimp designed to float just above cloud level, with the manned section hanging underneath.
 
SvenBent said:
Can you please elaborateof what you consider cost effective?
Getting there is a lot cheaper yes. But from what i gather due to mineral composite Mars is a lot more habitat friendly and therefore would rely less on earth on constants maintenance/ressource input and have a lower running cost. so in the long picture more economical feasable.
offcause the issue is the big investment up front.
Click to expand...

The moon is potentially more "cost-effective" because it's close and cheaper to get to (much lower boost costs), but also closer in terms of time (to get there and back). Time to make changes to the overall approach, to the myriad plans, to all the systems and subsystems and technologies which can and must be imagined, but which haven't yet been developed and built, let alone proven. As of today all we've really proven of our abilities is that we can "live" in earth orbit (ISS), provided regular, ongoing sustenance comes up from earth. A decent first step, but only that.

In the long run, humans must prove an ability to "live off the land," so-to-speak, before we can reasonably expect to go exploring with any eye to finding new places to live (or even visit more than a few times). The two likeliest places to prove we can do that are on the Moon and on Mars, and, once again, the former is going to be the more-cost effective as a test-bed. We've been there and walked on it...and done some exploring there already. It has water, which is probably the one critical element* we need to get started (although just how much and how accessible has yet to be determined), and therefore we could probably inhabit the place...and use it as a repository too. Two birds with one stone, etc....

[* unless we can find a way to "dehydrate it" <grin> the boost cost of water alone could be prohibitive...but robotic exploration probably doesn't need much of it in comparison to going out there ourselves].
 
Yaka said:
sad that nasa wont be first there, but dont worry private companies like space x and prolly japan,russia,esa,japan an india will get there at some point.


another sad thing is once humans can on a regular basis colonise planets and moons war or wars will always be taking place. rare earth minerals? how about rare planet minerals and what if theres a planet that has gazzillion tons of super cool wierd fuel, oh yeah wars a coming
Click to expand...
War--conflict--is just one aspect of it, and yes, conflicts will be coming. That's what we do, I suppose. Just one thing we do....

Assuming more level-heads prevail, however, it might be that future conflicts are shorter, and maybe more-decisive, both. At least that seems to be one trend or prediction made by George Friedman (formerly of Stratfor, and now of Geopolitical Futures fame). Besides, if his next-century predictions hold, "we" will be winning most of them...and I'm all for that. :D
 
there is no such thing as level heads prevailing. We each individually exist because all of our ancestors survived long enough to procreate, and that survival was often due to violent means, taking resources others needed for their survival and so forth. History is written by the survivors. Nobody gives a shit about level headed people that have gotten wiped out.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
Back at Trump's state of the union it was hinted beforehand that there was going to be something about NASA in the speech. Trump went on to say nothing about NASA in the speech.

I understand the people who say that manned spaceflight is not worthwhile for various reasons. My main concern is that all of the fantastic unmanned planetary research NASA has done has effectively piggybacked on the manned space program, and without the manned program and it's interstate web of bureaucracy/suppliers/contractors maintaining political support in Congress there's a good chance that the rest of the science and exploration budget will disappear soon after.

We're currently spending about 0.5% of the federal budget on NASA, around $19 billion/year. If we doubled that we could have the ISS, a 'Skylab 2' fuel depot near the Moon, a Lunar surface outpost, asteroid missions, and Mars expeditions. The cost is a tiny fraction of our economic output, European nation-states of the 17th century spent a larger proportion of their GDP on expeditions or trade for far-eastern goods we now consider commodities. The domestic gross for all movies released in 2016 was ~$11 billion...

Even Thomas Jefferson believed in public funding of scientific expeditions, and I doubt the average person living in 1806 benefited much from the Lewis and Clark expedition. It would be wrong to not continue that tradition today when there are literally entire worlds sitting waiting.
Click to expand...

You make a good point when you note that our unmanned explorations have piggybacked, somewhat, on manned programs--certainly they have piggybacked on the public enthusiasm for manned exploration (people might have rooted instead for R2D2 as "The Martian"...or maybe not), so sustaining that enthusiasm is probably critical to sustaining much of the funding. Yes, the goal of keeping manned exploration and expansion a "reachable" goal will be key.

But practically speaking--costs again--the affordable (and necessary) steps are going to seem a lot less "sexy." And here, I have to quibble with your numbers (but I'm listening too): The NASA administrator who seems to be the source for Megaliths OP didn't suggest we afford everything on your list if we just doubled the NASA budget. He just said we can't afford to land and sustain a surface base on Mars at current levels of funding. At least I that's what I understood him to say.
 
jiminator said:
there is no such thing as level heads prevailing. We each individually exist because all of our ancestors survived long enough to procreate, and that survival was often due to violent means, taking resources others needed for their survival and so forth. History is written by the survivors. Nobody gives a shit about level headed people that have gotten wiped out.
Click to expand...

True. What I actually meant was a hope that the level heads would keep from using the big, BIG weapons that might wipe us all (winners AND losers) out at the same time. But you are right: The level heads also have to win for it to matter.
 
leathco016 said:
Everyone is focused on Mars being colonized, and I really don't understand why. The moon is more financially feasible, and if a lunar base needs outside support during an emergency, Earth would be a lot closer to lend help. Also, due to the moons lower gravity and lack of atmosphere, it is the perfect launch pad to construct and launch other spacecraft, either probes or manned.
Click to expand...

I agree, Mars should be second to the Moon, we need to establish a base there first to make the jump to Mars.
 
Screw going on Mars, it's a waste of resources anyway. It's a dead planet and taking people there isn't worth the cost. It sounds good in theory but without a global effort to pay for the costs, it's not worth it for a single nation to foot the bill.
 
I read the same article about A "floating" Venusian base. The article made it sound really cool, but didn't offer any practical information as to how to achieve this. NASA has to decide which is more important. Physically advancing humans in space through inhabiting other planets and moons. Or to keep sending probes to Pluto and gas giants to learn about the formation of our own solar system.
 
I was born in '60, and most of what we think of as "space exploration" has happened during my own lifetime. What gives me pause is how much of our collective resources--particularly the easily accessible fossil fuels--we've used up in order to build up our civilization (such as it is) and to support that exploration. Twenty years ago it looked like we might be running out of a lot of them, but today it seems much of the reason for panic has evaporated.

Yet I wonder: If civilization takes a few, sharp and sudden steps backward...because "the NK fat boy" starts WW3, or because the Bird Flu suddenly evolves into something much more deadly...or if we miss the next incoming rock from space...or if the Yellowstone super-volcano goes off again (pick yer globe-wide cataclysm)...

...and we survive it yet again (as we've done on every occasion up until now)...will we find enough discoverable-and-recoverable fossil energy to rebuild things again even to this point? Or is this whole trip--the "evolution thing"--really a "one-shot deal?" Get it right the first time you try, or bump your collective heads against the glass ceiling forever after...no matter how many times you step up to the plate.

Just my own version, I guess, of the nightmares that must keep Steven Hawking awake at night.... I sure don't want to be proven right.
 
Should be "I can't put a human on Mars... because they won't let me put them in an induced coma so that they don't need space to move, variety in food, or much else in the way of life support on the journey
 
jiminator said:
is this a joke article? it would probably cost trillions of dollars to try anything like this, not to mention probably 3 years in space for the trip. That might change if the emdrive turns out to be real but I don't have much hope for that.
Click to expand...
with a gravity slingshot it takes roughly 8-10 months to reach mars, not 3 years. they can cut that travel time even further if they were able to build launch capability on the moon since they wouldn't need to waste fuel launching from the surface of earth meaning they could burn longer to mars cutting that travel time.


JohnEL said:
I read the same article about A "floating" Venusian base. The article made it sound really cool, but didn't offer any practical information as to how to achieve this. NASA has to decide which is more important. Physically advancing humans in space through inhabiting other planets and moons. Or to keep sending probes to Pluto and gas giants to learn about the formation of our own solar system.
Click to expand...

the probes are cheap and easy for nasa because they're not the ones paying for them out of their budget. it's the government funded/private funded research projects behind them that are. where nasa is involved is helping build the probes, testing facilities, and communication data relay station access. it's one of the many loopholes that lets them get around their stupidly low budget.

personally i think the moon should be their priority just because i have no faith in the private sector putting science ahead of profit and the moon has the capability of unlocking more access to the solar system than going to mars does right now.
 
Last edited:
kekewons said:
The moon is potentially more "cost-effective" because it's close and cheaper to get to (much lower boost costs), but also closer in terms of time (to get there and back). Time to make changes to the overall approach, to the myriad plans, to all the systems and subsystems and technologies which can and must be imagined, but which haven't yet been developed and built, let alone proven. As of today all we've really proven of our abilities is that we can "live" in earth orbit (ISS), provided regular, ongoing sustenance comes up from earth. A decent first step, but only that.

In the long run, humans must prove an ability to "live off the land," so-to-speak, before we can reasonably expect to go exploring with any eye to finding new places to live (or even visit more than a few times). The two likeliest places to prove we can do that are on the Moon and on Mars, and, once again, the former is going to be the more-cost effective as a test-bed. We've been there and walked on it...and done some exploring there already. It has water, which is probably the one critical element* we need to get started (although just how much and how accessible has yet to be determined), and therefore we could probably inhabit the place...and use it as a repository too. Two birds with one stone, etc....

[* unless we can find a way to "dehydrate it" <grin> the boost cost of water alone could be prohibitive...but robotic exploration probably doesn't need much of it in comparison to going out there ourselves].
Click to expand...

I think we agreee then. moon is definatly cheaper for short term testing. which we might ( i dont have the knowledge to determine) need to do some more of, but mars might have a brigter more prosperous future but a lot higher cost to set up.
 
It's really moon -> belt -> Mars.

Trying to build interplanetary colonization ships on Earth's surface is a loosing proposition- they need to be built in space, and the belt has the resources to do it. Further, the moon would be the first jump-off point, and has resources of its own.

And we'll definitely need practice building underground tunnels on other bodies that are fit to live entire human lives in. While people may return from the moon, Mars is likely to be a one-way trip for a very long time.
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
with a gravity slingshot it takes roughly 8-10 months to reach mars, not 3 years. they can cut that travel time even further if they were able to build launch capability on the moon since they wouldn't need to waste fuel launching from the surface of earth meaning they could burn longer to mars cutting that travel time.
Click to expand...

3 years would probably be a round trip time. and gravity slingshots are not magical acceleration boosters. NASA uses them because their probes have minimal amounts of fuel, so they can target planets and hit angles that throw them into the gravity well of other planets. The important thing to note is instead of going to one planet you are now going to 2 or 3 planets. The cost is "time". The moon also is not a solution. It has been used to put satellites into local orbits but not more than that.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Should be "I can't put a human on Mars... because they won't let me put them in an induced coma so that they don't need space to move, variety in food, or much else in the way of life support on the journey
Click to expand...

I don't think they'd be in very good shape after 3 years in a coma if they're still alive
 
I would looooove to see planets/moons colonized in my lifetime, but the tech is not there yet.. at all. We need fusion reactors and compact fusion reactors too, I don't think anything less would do.
 
JohnEL said:
I read the same article about A "floating" Venusian base. The article made it sound really cool, but didn't offer any practical information as to how to achieve this.
Click to expand...

Regular nitrogen/oxygen Earth air is a lifting gas in Venus's dense CO2-rich atmosphere. At an altitude of ~60 km its 70 degrees all the time and there's a dense atmosphere helping protect you from solar radiation.

NASA has a concept dirigible ship design for descending into the atmosphere and flying. The main challenge is going to be the Venus Ascent Vehicle for the return trip back up to orbit.
 
They haven't left earth yet... actually, there is not a single real picture of the earth. everything they have composites and cgi's. even their live streaming is a CGI video...


NASA_Blue_Marbles_Comparison_-_1600.jpg
 
wantapple said:
They haven't left earth yet... actually, there is not a single real picture of the earth. everything they have composites and cgi's. even their live streaming is a CGI video...
Click to expand...

Photo one is from a dissector camera for observing clouds. Photo 3 is a composite and looks more saturated because the images were taken at a much lower altitude. Your statement about 'no single real picture' directly contradicts the captio...

Oh fuck it, obvious troll is obvious.
 
wantapple said:
They haven't left earth yet... actually, there is not a single real picture of the earth. everything they have composites and cgi's. even their live streaming is a CGI video...
Click to expand...

lol...
 
griff30 said:
Spoiler alert.
In the book he injects himself with antibiotics well before storing his feces. He killed his gut bacteria well before Mars soil would have killed it.
Click to expand...

I thought it was his and the rest of the crew's stored shit that he used? Not the fresh stuff... that was the movie anyways. Besides, antibiotics don't kill all the bacteria in your gut or you would die.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top