Cut it out NASA, you don't have the money or a plan for Mars
February 5, 2016 7:52 AM Subscribe
"Members of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology tore apart NASA's Journey to Mars initiative, claiming the program needs a much more defined plan and clear, achievable milestones to work. Those in attendance also doubted the feasibility of a long-term Mars mission; they cited the massive amount of money needed for the trip — much more than NASA currently receives year to year — as well as a significant leap in technological development. Because of these enormous challenges, a few witnesses at the hearing suggested that NASA either rethink its approach or divert its attention to a Moon mission instead."
they cited the massive amount of money needed for the trip — much more than NASA currently receives year to year
More than $2 trillion for a failed war in Iraq, but we just can't find any more money in the budget for NASA.
posted by zakur at 8:04 AM on February 5, 2016 [46 favorites]
More than $2 trillion for a failed war in Iraq, but we just can't find any more money in the budget for NASA.
posted by zakur at 8:04 AM on February 5, 2016 [46 favorites]
NASA is planning a Mars mission because politicians told them to. But yeah, I'm sure it's NASAs fault.
posted by selfnoise at 8:07 AM on February 5, 2016 [38 favorites]
posted by selfnoise at 8:07 AM on February 5, 2016 [38 favorites]
NASA is planning a Mars mission because politicians told them to.
And worse, telling them how to do it. At least when the politicians said "land on the moon" they got out of the way and let NASA figure it out.
posted by eriko at 8:09 AM on February 5, 2016 [14 favorites]
And worse, telling them how to do it. At least when the politicians said "land on the moon" they got out of the way and let NASA figure it out.
posted by eriko at 8:09 AM on February 5, 2016 [14 favorites]
Fuck you, assholes . Just when some of us are getting excited about space and its possibility, killing the only project that has a chance of exciting youth into becoming astronauts and scientists, just...fuck you, assholes.
posted by corb at 8:11 AM on February 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by corb at 8:11 AM on February 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
Just a reminder: the GOP has stuffed this committee with anti-science climate change denialists. There are numerous problems with Mars missions as proposed, but most of these fuckers aren't really qualified to speak on these matters.
posted by Halloween Jack at 8:12 AM on February 5, 2016 [38 favorites]
posted by Halloween Jack at 8:12 AM on February 5, 2016 [38 favorites]
Just when some of us are getting excited about space and its possibility, killing the only project that has a chance of exciting youth into becoming astronauts and scientists, just...fuck you, assholes.
The only project? Why rely on government hand-outs, when you could look to real pioneers like Mars One? Privatize space! USA! USA!
Er, Netherlands! Netherlands! Wait, the Dutch are more progressive than us? They're the real jerks in this, let's take back space!
posted by filthy light thief at 8:15 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
The only project? Why rely on government hand-outs, when you could look to real pioneers like Mars One? Privatize space! USA! USA!
Er, Netherlands! Netherlands! Wait, the Dutch are more progressive than us? They're the real jerks in this, let's take back space!
posted by filthy light thief at 8:15 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, we've got enough budget to build a giant rocket with no concrete mission plans. In fact the current launch schedule has such infrequent launches that it may not be safe to do so. It's shades of the Superconducting Super Collider, where after the initial contractors got paid everyone lost their appetite to actually accomplish the goal.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 8:21 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 8:21 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't think a return to the Moon is necessarily a bad idea as a step towards going to Mars. Long-term habitation of the ISS is one thing, and it teaches us a lot, but travelling to some other body and living there is a reasonable next level progression, and who knows what we find out doing that.
As for needing a defined plan with clear goals -- obviously. Give them the money, and NASA will do that. Without money, you can't plan your work and work your plan. It's a circular argument of needing money for goals and goals for money, but ultimately, it comes down to Congress making the allocations.
Who knows -- maybe seeing a taikonaut on the lunar surface will help spur things along on the American side.
posted by Capt. Renault at 8:21 AM on February 5, 2016 [9 favorites]
As for needing a defined plan with clear goals -- obviously. Give them the money, and NASA will do that. Without money, you can't plan your work and work your plan. It's a circular argument of needing money for goals and goals for money, but ultimately, it comes down to Congress making the allocations.
Who knows -- maybe seeing a taikonaut on the lunar surface will help spur things along on the American side.
posted by Capt. Renault at 8:21 AM on February 5, 2016 [9 favorites]
You just need to convince them that mars might be a security threat, so we should go check that out. I mean haven't any of these people seen Iron Sky?
posted by boilermonster at 8:23 AM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by boilermonster at 8:23 AM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Wouldn't building a moonbase be the first logical step, a proof of concept? And also totally flippin' sweet?
posted by schoolgirl report at 8:24 AM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by schoolgirl report at 8:24 AM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
Tell them Noah's Ark might be on the Moon or Mars.
posted by dirigibleman at 8:26 AM on February 5, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by dirigibleman at 8:26 AM on February 5, 2016 [11 favorites]
Sure, but they're not suggesting building a moonbase, just going there and using some resources. A moonbase would be awesome, but I don't think it would ever get fully funded.
posted by corb at 8:27 AM on February 5, 2016
posted by corb at 8:27 AM on February 5, 2016
Wouldn't building a moonbase be the first logical step, a proof of concept? And also totally flippin' sweet?
Building a self sufficient base here on Earth would be probably be the best first step, but that's not very sexy. Probably somewhere in Antarctica.
Not a base that we fly supplies into several times a year, but something that can truly exist on its own for a couple of years at a time at least. Then take that knowledge and apply it to the vastly different and much more hostile environment of space, the Moon or Mars.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:29 AM on February 5, 2016 [23 favorites]
Building a self sufficient base here on Earth would be probably be the best first step, but that's not very sexy. Probably somewhere in Antarctica.
Not a base that we fly supplies into several times a year, but something that can truly exist on its own for a couple of years at a time at least. Then take that knowledge and apply it to the vastly different and much more hostile environment of space, the Moon or Mars.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:29 AM on February 5, 2016 [23 favorites]
Manned missions to asteroids seem more promising all the time.
posted by ZeusHumms at 8:37 AM on February 5, 2016
posted by ZeusHumms at 8:37 AM on February 5, 2016
To be honest, the "going to Mars" bit looked like a bit like trying to run before learning to walk (or technically, learning to walk again after getting a steel pipe on the spine). A return to the moon by the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 17 (2022) would be a great way to get things in motion again.
posted by lmfsilva at 8:41 AM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by lmfsilva at 8:41 AM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
Building a self sufficient base here on Earth would be probably be the best first step, but that's not very sexy. Probably somewhere in Antarctica.
An Antarctica self sufficiency base, a thousand feet underwater self sufficiency base, a middle Sahara self sufficiency base, and a seven eights to the peak of Everest self sufficiency base.
Then we can really start planning to the moon.
posted by bukvich at 8:51 AM on February 5, 2016
An Antarctica self sufficiency base, a thousand feet underwater self sufficiency base, a middle Sahara self sufficiency base, and a seven eights to the peak of Everest self sufficiency base.
Then we can really start planning to the moon.
posted by bukvich at 8:51 AM on February 5, 2016
Manned missions to asteroids seem more promising all the time.
If only somebody were trying to figure out the legality of asteroid mining.
posted by tobascodagama at 8:51 AM on February 5, 2016
If only somebody were trying to figure out the legality of asteroid mining.
posted by tobascodagama at 8:51 AM on February 5, 2016
Why the heck would we go back to the Moon and build a moon base? Everything useful you could do on the Moon you could do better in space or on asteroids, without being at the bottom of a stupid gravity well. It's not like the Moon is bring anything that useful to the table in terms of resources, other than a place to stand on.
The only thing I can think of that's unique is building a radio telescope array on the far side of the Moon - and while that's very close to my own heart, I'd rather have colonies on asteroids.
posted by RedOrGreen at 8:56 AM on February 5, 2016 [9 favorites]
The only thing I can think of that's unique is building a radio telescope array on the far side of the Moon - and while that's very close to my own heart, I'd rather have colonies on asteroids.
posted by RedOrGreen at 8:56 AM on February 5, 2016 [9 favorites]
Building a self sufficient base here on Earth would be probably be the best first step, but that's not very sexy. Probably somewhere in Antarctica.But, why would anyone bother to do this? What do we learn by locating such a base on Earth? Would any learnings even be applicable to a moon colony which would lack an atmosphere, require filtering ultrafine particulates, operate at low gravity, &c &c? It just seems to me that verifying the reliability of the engineering is something that can be achieved conventionally, without needing to commit to a weirdly restrictive resupply schedule... Is there an aspect to this I'm missing?
On preview, like RedOrGreen I'd also like to see a greatly expanded presence in space. Let's get a torus up there!
posted by books for weapons at 8:59 AM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
I want NASA to have so much more money. I want them to have ALL the war money. Oh please let's go to Mars....!
posted by agregoli at 9:01 AM on February 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by agregoli at 9:01 AM on February 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
Mining asteroids and building a meteor defense system ( to protect us from them ) - are real priorities in my opinion.
But I'm also for going to Mars and anywhere else we can manage.
posted by Liquidwolf at 9:04 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
But I'm also for going to Mars and anywhere else we can manage.
posted by Liquidwolf at 9:04 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Further development of remote semi-autonomous systems would be where I'd be spending the money specifically development of off-planet autonomous fabrication.
The less we need to get out of our gravity well the cheaper everything space wise can be.
I don't want to see an Apollo style Mars shot, because that's not sustainable. I want to be able to develop systems to support an extended, and ultimately indefinite human presence on not Earth, and everything we do should be designed to expand our capabilities. There's no value in just flag planting.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 9:06 AM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
The less we need to get out of our gravity well the cheaper everything space wise can be.
I don't want to see an Apollo style Mars shot, because that's not sustainable. I want to be able to develop systems to support an extended, and ultimately indefinite human presence on not Earth, and everything we do should be designed to expand our capabilities. There's no value in just flag planting.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 9:06 AM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
I mean, if we're talking about what non-Earth solar system object would be most useful to think about building colonies on, my vote is Venus. Seems like we're going to have to figure out how to live on a hot planet with a runaway greenhouse effect whether we like it or not...
posted by tobascodagama at 9:10 AM on February 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by tobascodagama at 9:10 AM on February 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
My own suggestion is to abandon sending squishy-soft humans into space, what with their unreasonable expectation of being returned alive (if at all), and rather up JPL funding to produce exponentially more science in a fraction of the time of a manned Mars mission. But, unfortunately, that would make the aerospace contractors and their congressional sycophants cry so please disregard...
posted by jim in austin at 9:12 AM on February 5, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by jim in austin at 9:12 AM on February 5, 2016 [10 favorites]
Going to Mars is a stupid, wasteful idea no matter how you plan it out.
If we want to be a spacefaring race than the research money should go to genetically modifying ourselves to be right for living in non-Earth environments.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:15 AM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
If we want to be a spacefaring race than the research money should go to genetically modifying ourselves to be right for living in non-Earth environments.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:15 AM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Building a self sufficient base here on Earth would be probably be the best first step, but that's not very sexy. Probably somewhere in Antarctica.
But, why would anyone bother to do this?
Because you have to pass the first grade before you go to college.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:19 AM on February 5, 2016
But, why would anyone bother to do this?
Because you have to pass the first grade before you go to college.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:19 AM on February 5, 2016
Going to Mars is a stupid, wasteful idea no matter how you plan it out.
Eh, the research alone that would come out of this would be worth it.
If we want to be a spacefaring race than the research money should go to genetically modifying ourselves to be right for living in non-Earth environments.
Or we could use this fantasy technology to modify ourselves to live in an even more hostile environment like the year 2045!
posted by cjorgensen at 9:19 AM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
Eh, the research alone that would come out of this would be worth it.
If we want to be a spacefaring race than the research money should go to genetically modifying ourselves to be right for living in non-Earth environments.
Or we could use this fantasy technology to modify ourselves to live in an even more hostile environment like the year 2045!
posted by cjorgensen at 9:19 AM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
It just seems to me that verifying the reliability of the engineering is something that can be achieved conventionally, without needing to commit to a weirdly restrictive resupply schedule... Is there an aspect to this I'm missing?
Verify that the basic tech works on Earth first, before completely risking human lives on the Moon/Mars/wherever. Figure out who to recycle that human waste/water, get your 3D printing down pat, run into as many problems as you can, where it's possible to get the people out alive before everything goes wrong.
Then adapt to new environment.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:21 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Verify that the basic tech works on Earth first, before completely risking human lives on the Moon/Mars/wherever. Figure out who to recycle that human waste/water, get your 3D printing down pat, run into as many problems as you can, where it's possible to get the people out alive before everything goes wrong.
Then adapt to new environment.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:21 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Venus has a surface temp of 465 degrees Celsius. Not an easy proposition for a human to explore there.
posted by agregoli at 9:22 AM on February 5, 2016
posted by agregoli at 9:22 AM on February 5, 2016
Well, not with that attitude
posted by the phlegmatic king at 9:22 AM on February 5, 2016 [24 favorites]
posted by the phlegmatic king at 9:22 AM on February 5, 2016 [24 favorites]
My friend the astrophysicist said elsewhere:
"Sounds like a lot until you realize [that half a trillion dollars] is 2% of the DoD expenditures over the next four decades. And a fraction of a percent of the total budget. And that money will be spent on useful science, technology, and infrastructure here on Earth, not loaded as bales in a rocketship to Mars. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost us four times what a NASA Mars program would require. That's what's staggering."
posted by sneebler at 9:25 AM on February 5, 2016 [15 favorites]
"Sounds like a lot until you realize [that half a trillion dollars] is 2% of the DoD expenditures over the next four decades. And a fraction of a percent of the total budget. And that money will be spent on useful science, technology, and infrastructure here on Earth, not loaded as bales in a rocketship to Mars. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost us four times what a NASA Mars program would require. That's what's staggering."
posted by sneebler at 9:25 AM on February 5, 2016 [15 favorites]
Or, here's an idea - make a human-supporting moonbase remotely with robots. Only send the humans to actually live in it when it's been running safely for a while.
posted by Mitrovarr at 9:26 AM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Mitrovarr at 9:26 AM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
I just bought some cheap scotch. It's not a waste compared to the American military budget, very little is by that low standard, but it was still a pointless waste.
Eh, the research alone that would come out of this would be worth it.
You spend billions of dollars on a difficult project and you will probably get something out of it, but it's wasteful to make that project be sending people to a useless death rock to pose in front of a flag instead of like, greening the Sahara or getting all the carbon dioxide out of our atmosphere or something.
Venus has a surface temp of 465 degrees Celsius. Not an easy proposition for a human to explore there.
The idea for Venus is to float above the surface in the atmosphere. It's more Earthlike there than on Mars.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:26 AM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Eh, the research alone that would come out of this would be worth it.
You spend billions of dollars on a difficult project and you will probably get something out of it, but it's wasteful to make that project be sending people to a useless death rock to pose in front of a flag instead of like, greening the Sahara or getting all the carbon dioxide out of our atmosphere or something.
Venus has a surface temp of 465 degrees Celsius. Not an easy proposition for a human to explore there.
The idea for Venus is to float above the surface in the atmosphere. It's more Earthlike there than on Mars.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:26 AM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Drinky Die, I know. I love this stuff. From what I understand, Mars is easier for loads of reasons. Not that I don't want us to go EVERYWHERE.
posted by agregoli at 9:27 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by agregoli at 9:27 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Venus has a surface temp of 465 degrees Celsius. Not an easy proposition for a human to explore there.
Humans are poorly suited to literally everywhere in the universe except Earth. The point of the joke is that Earth will look a lot more like Venus than Mars in a hundred years.
posted by tobascodagama at 9:31 AM on February 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
Humans are poorly suited to literally everywhere in the universe except Earth. The point of the joke is that Earth will look a lot more like Venus than Mars in a hundred years.
posted by tobascodagama at 9:31 AM on February 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
The idea for Venus is to float above the surface in the atmosphere. It's more Earthlike there than on Mars.
Sure, except for the floating base part, which has never been done before.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:31 AM on February 5, 2016
Sure, except for the floating base part, which has never been done before.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:31 AM on February 5, 2016
Verify that the basic tech works on Earth first, before completely risking human lives on the Moon/Mars/wherever. Figure out who to recycle that human waste/water, get your 3D printing down pat, run into as many problems as you can, where it's possible to get the people out alive before everything goes wrong.Right, but why does that require an expensive remote earth base of dubious scientific value, when extended local tests of individual components should turn up the same problems?
Apollo 11 took something over two days to achieve lunar orbit, that seems well within the range of rescue missions should everything fail but the walls and oxygen scrubbers, which building tin cans that maintain pressure against vacuum is already a solved problem (and also not something we're going to be testing in Antarctica).
posted by books for weapons at 9:35 AM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
They're down on the Asteroid Redirect Mission as well, seemingly because it's about testing engines and not studying the asteroid.
I'm pretty keen on Asteroid Redirect technology, because if a massive asteroid turns up it'd be great to be able to move it ASAP before it smashed into the Earth. I live on the Earth!
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 9:41 AM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
I'm pretty keen on Asteroid Redirect technology, because if a massive asteroid turns up it'd be great to be able to move it ASAP before it smashed into the Earth. I live on the Earth!
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 9:41 AM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
I wish NASA could get some money so that we could have potable water and get the asbestos removed in Building 14 at the Goddard Space Flight Center where Fermi, MMS , SDO, LDCM, Wind, and ACE have their mission operations areas. So far the solutions have been to post signs that say "Run water for at least one minute on first use of the day" and "Danger: Asbestos".
posted by Rob Rockets at 9:41 AM on February 5, 2016 [23 favorites]
posted by Rob Rockets at 9:41 AM on February 5, 2016 [23 favorites]
"If we want to be a spacefaring race than the research money should go to genetically modifying ourselves to be right for living in non-Earth environments."
I'm looking forward to gaining a hard, chitinous exoskeleton, acid blood, and facehugging abilities, myself.
posted by markkraft at 9:43 AM on February 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
I'm looking forward to gaining a hard, chitinous exoskeleton, acid blood, and facehugging abilities, myself.
posted by markkraft at 9:43 AM on February 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
they cited the massive amount of money needed for the trip — much more than NASA currently receives year to year — as well as a significant leap in technological development.
"We don't have the technology for this yet!"
"What about providing some funding to develop the technology? You know, like we did for the moon landing? Which also resulted in dozens of incredible scientific discoveries and new technologies used around the world today?"
"No dice"
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:52 AM on February 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
"We don't have the technology for this yet!"
"What about providing some funding to develop the technology? You know, like we did for the moon landing? Which also resulted in dozens of incredible scientific discoveries and new technologies used around the world today?"
"No dice"
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:52 AM on February 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
We haven't even come close to fully exploring our own oceans. Maybe space can wait a generation or two?
posted by davebush at 10:02 AM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by davebush at 10:02 AM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
If you've forgotten the politics here, the whole idea of going to Mars was George Bush's in 2004. We discussed it on Metafilter at the time. My memory is that at the moment it was announced a whole lot of space fans were dismayed because it was political meddling. And it totally derailed a bunch of very effective, much cheaper robotics missions. Also this bold new initiative wasn't funded.
posted by Nelson at 10:30 AM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Nelson at 10:30 AM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
"We haven't even come close to fully exploring our own oceans. Maybe space can wait a generation or two?"
We should play this game more!
We haven't even come close to (creating a home for everyone). Maybe (materials sciences) can wait for a generation or two?
We haven't even come close to (eradicating known diseases). Maybe (genetic engineering) can wait a generation or two?
We haven't even come close to (feeding humanity). Maybe (creating new restaurants) can wait a generation or two?
We haven't come close to (creating an efficient, centralized global government to provide the basics of life for everyone), maybe (the next Star Wars film) can wait a generation or two?
Humanity's capability to do more than one thing at once isn't necessarily a distraction from the task which matters more. It's a necessity for creativity and invention. If you want a dynamic world that actually shows the kind of concern for our earth that you'd like to see, you need to accept that everything is connected.
Humanity's greatest breakthroughs, both in terms of new discoveries, helping improve longstanding problems, and elevating the spirit of humanity as a whole, came from the ability to think seriously about more than one thing at the same time.
posted by markkraft at 10:55 AM on February 5, 2016 [16 favorites]
We should play this game more!
We haven't even come close to (creating a home for everyone). Maybe (materials sciences) can wait for a generation or two?
We haven't even come close to (eradicating known diseases). Maybe (genetic engineering) can wait a generation or two?
We haven't even come close to (feeding humanity). Maybe (creating new restaurants) can wait a generation or two?
We haven't come close to (creating an efficient, centralized global government to provide the basics of life for everyone), maybe (the next Star Wars film) can wait a generation or two?
Humanity's capability to do more than one thing at once isn't necessarily a distraction from the task which matters more. It's a necessity for creativity and invention. If you want a dynamic world that actually shows the kind of concern for our earth that you'd like to see, you need to accept that everything is connected.
Humanity's greatest breakthroughs, both in terms of new discoveries, helping improve longstanding problems, and elevating the spirit of humanity as a whole, came from the ability to think seriously about more than one thing at the same time.
posted by markkraft at 10:55 AM on February 5, 2016 [16 favorites]
Davebush, I get very tired of hearing that argument. First of all, we ARE exploring our oceans. We can do many things at once. It doesn't make space exploration less important. Second, in some respects, going to space is far easier than exploring the depths of the ocean, with the pressure problem. Third, space cannot wait a generation or two. We don't have much time left and I sure would like to find out more about space. SAVING the ocean, however, would ensure another generation or two, so I'd rather money went into that instead of exploration.
posted by agregoli at 10:59 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by agregoli at 10:59 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Right, but why does that require an expensive remote earth base of dubious scientific value, when extended local tests of individual components should turn up the same problems?
1. Because the final base will be expensive and remote
2. The scientific value will come from finding out who to build and maintain a self sufficient base/colony/whatever
3. You don't want to bet you self sufficient base/colony/whatever on parts that have never worked together before.
Apollo 11 took something over two days to achieve lunar orbit, that seems well within the range of rescue missions should everything fail but the walls and oxygen scrubbers, which building tin cans that maintain pressure against vacuum is already a solved problem (and also not something we're going to be testing in Antarctica).
It would probably take more than two days to build, test and launch a rescue mission, especially if it's on Mars.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:00 AM on February 5, 2016
1. Because the final base will be expensive and remote
2. The scientific value will come from finding out who to build and maintain a self sufficient base/colony/whatever
3. You don't want to bet you self sufficient base/colony/whatever on parts that have never worked together before.
Apollo 11 took something over two days to achieve lunar orbit, that seems well within the range of rescue missions should everything fail but the walls and oxygen scrubbers, which building tin cans that maintain pressure against vacuum is already a solved problem (and also not something we're going to be testing in Antarctica).
It would probably take more than two days to build, test and launch a rescue mission, especially if it's on Mars.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:00 AM on February 5, 2016
Saying we should prioritize our resources on things of more immediate value is not the same thing as saying we can't do two things at once. We could explore multiple oceans.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:03 AM on February 5, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 11:03 AM on February 5, 2016
Good thing we do. I want to explore oceans on other planets as well.
posted by agregoli at 11:08 AM on February 5, 2016
posted by agregoli at 11:08 AM on February 5, 2016
And immediate value can be quite subjective. This discussion feels weirdly fighty to me, don't we all just want more science funding?
posted by agregoli at 11:09 AM on February 5, 2016
posted by agregoli at 11:09 AM on February 5, 2016
Someday I might take the House assessment of a scientific mission over NASA's, that day will most likely not be soon.
posted by sfts2 at 11:11 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sfts2 at 11:11 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Maybe the thing to fix first is the external politics governing NASA.
posted by ZeusHumms at 11:13 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ZeusHumms at 11:13 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
This discussion feels weirdly fighty to me, don't we all just want more science funding?
Even with more funding we will still want to prioritize where the funding goes.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:22 AM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Even with more funding we will still want to prioritize where the funding goes.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:22 AM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
It would probably take more than two days to build, test and launch a rescue mission, especially if it's on Mars.
Just ask Matt Damon.
posted by nubs at 11:29 AM on February 5, 2016
Just ask Matt Damon.
posted by nubs at 11:29 AM on February 5, 2016
It's worth noting that NASA had a funded moon and Mars program, Constellation, but was so insanely incompetent at managing it that it was rightly cancelled. Prior to that, back in the 1980s, NASA sabotaged the Space Exploration Initiative so early that it was stillborn before even getting started.
NASA agency and program management is well known within the agency to be utterly inept at running large development programs but nobody seems to be able to do anything about it. This is profoundly depressing to me.
posted by LastOfHisKind at 11:35 AM on February 5, 2016
NASA agency and program management is well known within the agency to be utterly inept at running large development programs but nobody seems to be able to do anything about it. This is profoundly depressing to me.
posted by LastOfHisKind at 11:35 AM on February 5, 2016
They call it a moonshot for a reason. It's never going to be cheap, and if your plan isn't flexible, you'll never even get started. I always love it when people, who think laying off everybody at a company is good for business, make decisions on programs like this.
posted by Chuffy at 11:42 AM on February 5, 2016
posted by Chuffy at 11:42 AM on February 5, 2016
It's worth noting that NASA had a funded moon and Mars program, Constellation, but was so insanely incompetent at managing it that it was rightly cancelled. Prior to that, back in the 1980s, NASA sabotaged the Space Exploration Initiative so early that it was stillborn before even getting started.
The Shuttle program was a disaster as well, and not just because of the outside meddling.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:42 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Shuttle program was a disaster as well, and not just because of the outside meddling.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:42 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
putting scientists in charge of multibillion dollar budgets would elevate their status too much :P jimmy carter was a nuclear engineer!
"Sounds like a lot until you realize [that half a trillion dollars] is 2% of the DoD expenditures over the next four decades. And a fraction of a percent of the total budget. And that money will be spent on useful science, technology, and infrastructure here on Earth, not loaded as bales in a rocketship to Mars. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost us four times what a NASA Mars program would require. That's what's staggering."
another way to look at it is the federal reserve's b/s is now around $4.5tn, up from under a $1tn before the GFC, which sounds impressive until you compare it to the bank of japan's as a percentage of GDP (as Heywood Mogroot III has helpfully provided here ;) where you'll see it's currently around 72% vs. the US' 23%; the point is that japan has been printing money and monetizing its debt (and equities) for decades -- now resorting to negative interest rates -- and is still struggling with deflation, which means that the fed (theoretically!) could still triple it's b/s to help fund NEW DEAL SCIENCE without breaking a sweat :D
If we want to be a spacefaring race than the research money should go to genetically modifying ourselves to be right for living in non-Earth environments.
it came from earth!*
posted by kliuless at 11:44 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
"Sounds like a lot until you realize [that half a trillion dollars] is 2% of the DoD expenditures over the next four decades. And a fraction of a percent of the total budget. And that money will be spent on useful science, technology, and infrastructure here on Earth, not loaded as bales in a rocketship to Mars. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost us four times what a NASA Mars program would require. That's what's staggering."
another way to look at it is the federal reserve's b/s is now around $4.5tn, up from under a $1tn before the GFC, which sounds impressive until you compare it to the bank of japan's as a percentage of GDP (as Heywood Mogroot III has helpfully provided here ;) where you'll see it's currently around 72% vs. the US' 23%; the point is that japan has been printing money and monetizing its debt (and equities) for decades -- now resorting to negative interest rates -- and is still struggling with deflation, which means that the fed (theoretically!) could still triple it's b/s to help fund NEW DEAL SCIENCE without breaking a sweat :D
If we want to be a spacefaring race than the research money should go to genetically modifying ourselves to be right for living in non-Earth environments.
it came from earth!*
posted by kliuless at 11:44 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Even with more funding we will still want to prioritize where the funding goes.
posted by Drinky Die
Um, yes, of course?
posted by agregoli at 11:45 AM on February 5, 2016
posted by Drinky Die
Um, yes, of course?
posted by agregoli at 11:45 AM on February 5, 2016
And immediate value can be quite subjective. This discussion feels weirdly fighty to me, don't we all just want more science funding?
Yes, but we can't agree on where the science funding should go, hence the fighty vibe.
The Shuttle program was a disaster as well, and not just because of the outside meddling.
Oh, the outside meddling started a slow roll down shitstorm hill.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:46 AM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yes, but we can't agree on where the science funding should go, hence the fighty vibe.
The Shuttle program was a disaster as well, and not just because of the outside meddling.
Oh, the outside meddling started a slow roll down shitstorm hill.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:46 AM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Oh, I didn't know that the funding funneling was decided directly from Metafilter! My mistake, I'll leave you to it.
posted by agregoli at 12:02 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by agregoli at 12:02 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
The Shuttle program was a disaster as well, and not just because of the outside meddling.
Actually it was a disaster primarily because of outside meddling. Because Nixon, like every other administration since Apollo proved we could Beat The Reds, wanted NASA to pack 20 pounds of functionality into a spacecraft with a 5 pound budget. So NASA, hat in hand, went to the Department of Defense for help. And for a microscopic fraction of the DoD budget (small enough that it could have simply disappeared without anyone noticing), DoD tried to make the Shuttle a military platform and levied requirements that made the Shuttle unworkable. And NASA made the best of it. Which, as we know now 40 years later, wasn't good enough.
I know the Administrator job is primarily political, but I wish I could sit in front of Congress and call them and the President out on their bullshit. Lay it out and tell them: we won't bother trying if you don't authorize the funds to do it right. Yes, that means funding that looks more like Apollo-era funding.
In exchange, I'll gladly tell the DoD that they have to cough up 1% of their budget to do so. But they won't be allowed to levy any requirements for that money.
posted by chimaera at 12:03 PM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
Actually it was a disaster primarily because of outside meddling. Because Nixon, like every other administration since Apollo proved we could Beat The Reds, wanted NASA to pack 20 pounds of functionality into a spacecraft with a 5 pound budget. So NASA, hat in hand, went to the Department of Defense for help. And for a microscopic fraction of the DoD budget (small enough that it could have simply disappeared without anyone noticing), DoD tried to make the Shuttle a military platform and levied requirements that made the Shuttle unworkable. And NASA made the best of it. Which, as we know now 40 years later, wasn't good enough.
I know the Administrator job is primarily political, but I wish I could sit in front of Congress and call them and the President out on their bullshit. Lay it out and tell them: we won't bother trying if you don't authorize the funds to do it right. Yes, that means funding that looks more like Apollo-era funding.
In exchange, I'll gladly tell the DoD that they have to cough up 1% of their budget to do so. But they won't be allowed to levy any requirements for that money.
posted by chimaera at 12:03 PM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
I'm all for dramatically reducing military budget and dramatically increasing science budgets, but I'd rather spend that money on a combination of earth-side problems (it's not like there's not an almost infinite amount of research that needs money) and robotic space exploration. Humans in space has relatively little scientific value, especially compared to the cost.
And plenty of people would be inspired by massive research into energy, health, etc here on earth as well.
posted by thefoxgod at 12:08 PM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
And plenty of people would be inspired by massive research into energy, health, etc here on earth as well.
posted by thefoxgod at 12:08 PM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
Oh, I didn't know that the funding funneling was decided directly from Metafilter! My mistake, I'll leave you to it.
Check your spam folder, the memo went out on the 15th of December.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:10 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Check your spam folder, the memo went out on the 15th of December.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:10 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
What do we learn by locating such a base on Earth?
If we learned how to maintain a materially-closed ecosystem of any size at all, we'd know a lot more than we do now. We haven't pulled it off even in gentle Arizona and Krasnoyarsk.
posted by clew at 12:43 PM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
If we learned how to maintain a materially-closed ecosystem of any size at all, we'd know a lot more than we do now. We haven't pulled it off even in gentle Arizona and Krasnoyarsk.
posted by clew at 12:43 PM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Lightweight Firefighting equipment
Hydroplane prevention grooves
Improved baby food
Lasers for heart surgery
Improved life support monitoring
Forest Fire Detection
Blood pressure kits
Artificial Limbs
LEDs in Medical uses
Freeze drying
Nah, no need to give NASA money, its just flinging people into space, what good can we possibly get from that?
posted by Twain Device at 12:43 PM on February 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
Hydroplane prevention grooves
Improved baby food
Lasers for heart surgery
Improved life support monitoring
Forest Fire Detection
Blood pressure kits
Artificial Limbs
LEDs in Medical uses
Freeze drying
Nah, no need to give NASA money, its just flinging people into space, what good can we possibly get from that?
posted by Twain Device at 12:43 PM on February 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
I admit I'm somewhat confused by the arguments that NASA should first build habitats in other environments, such as the Sahara or Antarctica before trying space, because both of those are WILDLY different biomes than Mars is. The engineering challenge alone of getting electronics to work reliably on Mars is crazy, and it's hard to replicate that environment here. (Place on Earth with soil most like Martian soil: Mauna Kea, which has its own boatload of problems.)
There is value in putting money towards exploration and a Mars mission, because that's the stuff that funds grants and futures. You'd see it go towards all sorts of little things, that could then get used to better humankind and the earth. It's not like it just sits in a warehouse and is only used to build a thing that will be put on the ship to Mars and never be used anywhere else. That's not how this works.
Basically, this all makes me incredibly sad.
posted by ultranos at 1:07 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
There is value in putting money towards exploration and a Mars mission, because that's the stuff that funds grants and futures. You'd see it go towards all sorts of little things, that could then get used to better humankind and the earth. It's not like it just sits in a warehouse and is only used to build a thing that will be put on the ship to Mars and never be used anywhere else. That's not how this works.
Basically, this all makes me incredibly sad.
posted by ultranos at 1:07 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
OK, can we stop the space race BS and do it right this time?
Step one is to build the next generation Shuttle, with a human or remote piloted reusable first stage so you aren't throwing away a giant chunk of equipment every time you launch. A catapult assist for launch would be nice too, various people have suggested Pikes Peak and it might work, but it isn't strictly necessary.
Step two is to build a **REAL** station in a stable orbit, not a tinkertoy like the ISS in an orbit that will decay due to scraping the atmosphere.
Step three is to build, in orbit, a single use lander/colony core as well as at least one reusable lander and at least one ferry to move the lander back and forth.
Then, after the core colony is in place and the foundry there is starting to produce aluminum, oxygen, etc and moving them to the station in orbit because that's cheaper than hefting all the raw materials up from Earth, **THEN** you can talk sensibly about building a Mars mission.
But talking about building a manned Mars mission before we've even got a Shuttle replacement, much less a real space station, is absurd, not to mention dangerous to the astronauts who will be volunteering to step into yet another space race.
And, of course, doing it space race style provides no long term benefits. Look at the Apollo program. Impressive, no denying it. And it got us to the Moon before the Godless Commies got there.
But the long term result of the Apollo program was diddily squat. You want real progress you get it by building up an infrastructure, not space race silliness.
posted by sotonohito at 1:20 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Step one is to build the next generation Shuttle, with a human or remote piloted reusable first stage so you aren't throwing away a giant chunk of equipment every time you launch. A catapult assist for launch would be nice too, various people have suggested Pikes Peak and it might work, but it isn't strictly necessary.
Step two is to build a **REAL** station in a stable orbit, not a tinkertoy like the ISS in an orbit that will decay due to scraping the atmosphere.
Step three is to build, in orbit, a single use lander/colony core as well as at least one reusable lander and at least one ferry to move the lander back and forth.
Then, after the core colony is in place and the foundry there is starting to produce aluminum, oxygen, etc and moving them to the station in orbit because that's cheaper than hefting all the raw materials up from Earth, **THEN** you can talk sensibly about building a Mars mission.
But talking about building a manned Mars mission before we've even got a Shuttle replacement, much less a real space station, is absurd, not to mention dangerous to the astronauts who will be volunteering to step into yet another space race.
And, of course, doing it space race style provides no long term benefits. Look at the Apollo program. Impressive, no denying it. And it got us to the Moon before the Godless Commies got there.
But the long term result of the Apollo program was diddily squat. You want real progress you get it by building up an infrastructure, not space race silliness.
posted by sotonohito at 1:20 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
ultranos, I think the argument is mainly that NASA should do Biosphere 2 right, as a proof of concept demonstrating that we understand our environment well enough to produce a self sustaining ecosystem for us canned apes.
Doing the trials here on Earth is a lot safer than doing them on the Moon. And costs less to boot.
posted by sotonohito at 1:25 PM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
Doing the trials here on Earth is a lot safer than doing them on the Moon. And costs less to boot.
posted by sotonohito at 1:25 PM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
Vaguely apropos to topic: Edgar Mitchell died last night.
I'd link, but work computers don't let me.
posted by Capt. Renault at 1:42 PM on February 5, 2016
I'd link, but work computers don't let me.
posted by Capt. Renault at 1:42 PM on February 5, 2016
For those who don't know, Edgar Mitchell was the Lunar Module Pilot on Apollo 14.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:49 PM on February 5, 2016
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:49 PM on February 5, 2016
The comments about a half trillion dollars being a drop in the bucket are very well taken.
All the same, when I (having RTFM) happen upon a passage like this
I chose to take the main thrust of the article as constructive criticism. Maybe NASA's not in the same place it was when it changed history five decades ago. Maybe NASA's not playing the heroic role that spaceflight fans would want it to play. Maybe NASA needs more come-to-Jesus meetings than it needs uncritical nerd-cheerleading.
posted by jason's_planet at 5:11 PM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
All the same, when I (having RTFM) happen upon a passage like this
“While sending humans to Mars, and returning them safely to the Earth, may be technically feasible, it is an extraordinarily challenging goal, from physiological, technical, and programmatic standpoints,” Sommerer testified. “Because of this extreme difficulty, it is only with unprecedented cumulative investment, and, frankly, unprecedented discipline in development, testing, execution, and leadership, that this enterprise is likely to be successful.”I can't really refute it.
He implied that NASA presently had none of this in sufficient quantities.
I chose to take the main thrust of the article as constructive criticism. Maybe NASA's not in the same place it was when it changed history five decades ago. Maybe NASA's not playing the heroic role that spaceflight fans would want it to play. Maybe NASA needs more come-to-Jesus meetings than it needs uncritical nerd-cheerleading.
posted by jason's_planet at 5:11 PM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
but it's wasteful to make that project be sending people to a useless death rock to pose in front of a flag instead of like, greening the Sahara
Excellent idea!
posted by sammyo at 6:09 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Excellent idea!
posted by sammyo at 6:09 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sorry, just coming in late to cheer on Brandon Blatcher's comment:
Build the technology for a self-sufficient installation. Put people in there for a year or more, and do the studies. Create the technological base that can then be used for any kind of space mission you like. It would have tremendous downstream benefits for applications on this planet, but most importantly this kind of thing is a necessary precursor before you can ask people to spend years away from Earth.
posted by Kevin Street at 11:55 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Building a self sufficient base here on Earth would be probably be the best first step, but that's not very sexy. Probably somewhere in Antarctica.This is exactly what NASA should be doing, or somebody anyway. NASA has already been researching stuff like this for years, so they would be a natural fit for this kind of "mission."
Not a base that we fly supplies into several times a year, but something that can truly exist on its own for a couple of years at a time at least. Then take that knowledge and apply it to the vastly different and much more hostile environment of space, the Moon or Mars.
Build the technology for a self-sufficient installation. Put people in there for a year or more, and do the studies. Create the technological base that can then be used for any kind of space mission you like. It would have tremendous downstream benefits for applications on this planet, but most importantly this kind of thing is a necessary precursor before you can ask people to spend years away from Earth.
posted by Kevin Street at 11:55 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Why is it NASA's job? We're all on this planet. Another space race would be a waste. I think the ISS proves we work better together rather than rivals. So NASA is being cut again. I'll throw a few coins into the hat.
posted by adept256 at 12:42 AM on February 6, 2016
posted by adept256 at 12:42 AM on February 6, 2016
Also while people have a number of priorities, of what we should do first. Porn in space was being crowdfunded last year.
posted by adept256 at 12:53 AM on February 6, 2016
posted by adept256 at 12:53 AM on February 6, 2016
I just want to live in a Kim Stanley Robinson novel. Is that so much to ask?!
posted by A Bad Catholic at 10:05 AM on February 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by A Bad Catholic at 10:05 AM on February 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
I just get sad thinking that it seems like our space exploration has pretty much keeled over and died.
posted by jenfullmoon at 6:30 PM on February 6, 2016
posted by jenfullmoon at 6:30 PM on February 6, 2016
Found this link in that asteroid mining thread: 2015 Was the Best Year Ever in Space
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:50 PM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:50 PM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
I just get sad thinking that it seems like our space exploration has pretty much keeled over and died.
It hasn't, but none of us will be vacationing in orbit (let alone the Moon or Mars) in our lifetime.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:52 PM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
It hasn't, but none of us will be vacationing in orbit (let alone the Moon or Mars) in our lifetime.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:52 PM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
NASA’s new space tourism posters are spellbinding. Some really lovely future-retro graphic design by Invisible Creature.
posted by Nelson at 8:55 AM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Nelson at 8:55 AM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Thanks, Nelson - these are gorgeous! Reminds me of these NASA exoplanet travel posters, which are on many doors here.
posted by RedOrGreen at 2:04 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by RedOrGreen at 2:04 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Reaching Mars in a few days? It's possible, NASA video says: A new video released by the space agency discusses the possibility of speeding up our missions to other worlds by harnessing the power of lasers.
posted by homunculus at 6:59 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 6:59 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
NASA to simulate growing potatoes on Mars in Peru
posted by homunculus at 7:01 PM on February 20, 2016
posted by homunculus at 7:01 PM on February 20, 2016
Yeah, but how are they going to make ketchup?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:15 PM on February 21, 2016
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:15 PM on February 21, 2016
"Ketchup n Fries" grafted tomato-potato plant.
posted by clew at 5:31 PM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by clew at 5:31 PM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
« Older "That’s when the narcotics officers kicked in the... | Crossfire Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by thelonius at 8:03 AM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]