NRC Report: NASA Can't Afford Mars Mission

[CaptainKipard]

This man, right here:

(Chris Hadfield sings Space Oddity on the ISS)

Or musicians who can turn space into a powerful emotional experience:

(Pink Floyd's Marooned)

Seeing as America is a collapsing country that's

I'm really not sure any kind of PR would save NASA at this point. If fact this kind of thing wreaks of desperation. Singing has nothing to do with science. American scientists and engineers, abandon ship. You're welcome in Europe.

PS

Stupid forum rules. There's so much that can be said here that might help somewhat but it's all political. This is really annoying. The irony is that unlike other gaming forums, most people here are, I think, intelligent enough to care about politics and probably able to discuss it without whining.

edit

That clip is from a

. Edited June 6, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[vger]

Seeing as America is a collapsing country that's

I'm really not sure any kind of PR would save NASA at this point. If fact this kind of thing wreaks of desperation. Singing has nothing to do with science. American scientists and engineers, abandon ship. You're welcome in Europe.

It's not the anti-science that's the issue. I doubt many religious people WEREN'T interested in what NASA was doing during its golden age. Really the only places that science and religion clash are with issues of origins. Origin of the universe and the origin of humans. Not much else is an issue, and certainly not space travel.

In the eyes of the devout, space is a testament to the majesty of God's brilliance. They WANT to see that. It's not religious conservatism that NASA has to defeat. It's the stupid diversions that everyday television has to offer.

Stupid forum rules. There's so much that can be said here that might help somewhat but it's all political. This is really annoying. The irony is that unlike other gaming forums, most people here are, I think, intelligent enough to care about politics and probably able to discuss it without whining.

Yeah, thought this many times myself. There was one thread I posted a month ago or so that on any other forum would have been a flamefest within the blink of an eye. 5 pages in, nobody was ripping each others' heads off. It got locked anyway.

[Transits]

Mars One will get us to Mars in 2025

[FleshJeb]

Seeing as America is a collapsing country that's

I'm really not sure any kind of PR would save NASA at this point. If fact this kind of thing wreaks of desperation. Singing has nothing to do with science. American scientists and engineers, abandon ship. You're welcome in Europe.

Thanks for the videos.

I think you seriously underestimate the power of marketing--ESPECIALLY in America. Look what it's done for environmentalism--It's hip and it's cool (to a fairly large demographic), and it's a serious money-making business now. It makes up a giant chunk of my income.

I agree that big research science is on the decline--I've read the articles on funding shortages. However, I'm not ready to wet my pants on the subject quite yet. Times and conditions change. Marketing is one of the tools used to do that.

Singing has everything to do with being a human being. Your average ground-pounder doesn't know what they do on the ISS, nor do they care that Cmdr. Hadfield might have run an experiment on how crystals grow in microgravity. They don't have the background to see how it applies to THEM. The creature in the cupola might as well be an ivory-tower alien. So, he sings a (very cool) song in space. Huh, suddenly, that's just another Person up there, not so different from you and me. "Hmm, I wonder what he's up to, and what this ISS thing is all about. Maybe I'll google it..."

Secondly, Space Exploration is a long game...hopefully forever. Kids who learn to think of space as "cool" grow up to be engineers and scientists who think space is cool. Perhaps as importantly, the grow up to be congresspeople and senators. Change the zeitgeist, win the game. We got to the Moon because Kennedy was A) cool, and sold us on the idea that we had to keep up with the Soviets. There are a million great, rational reasons to explore space, but that's not what got us there. Don't fool yourself--Humans are NOT primarily a rational species; we're a lot more Kerbal than we'd like to admit. You have to get to them through their hearts and their guts. The mind will eventually follow.

Yes, the spaceship of progress appears to be running out of fuel. In times like these, you just have to put on your big-boy EVA pack and get out and PUSH. ;-)

Tangentially related concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

[CaptainKipard]

It's not religious conservatism that NASA has to defeat.

I disagree with that, but I'd like this thread to continue so, if you want we can chat through PM

I think you seriously underestimate the power of marketing.

No, I get it. It's easy to see when you notice how many people vote against their own interests. The problem is that NASA PR has nothing like the budgets of the corporate lobbies.

... So, he sings a (very cool) song in space. Huh, suddenly, that's just another Person up there, not so different from you and me. "Hmm, I wonder what he's up to, and what this ISS thing is all about. Maybe I'll google it..."

If you say so. I'll have to take your word for it because I don't think in that manner. What got me interested in space was a book with pictures when I was little, not a song...

Secondly, Space Exploration is a long game...hopefully forever. Kids who learn to think of space as "cool" grow up to be engineers and scientists who think space is cool. Perhaps as importantly, the grow up to be congresspeople and senators.

LOL, Perhaps not. Most likely not. American politicians are lawyers and businesspeople in overwhelming numbers. Think about what skills and personality traits those professions require, and how that translates to government. AFAIK there was a technocratic movement in America some time ago, but it was short lived.

Change the zeitgeist, win the game. We got to the Moon because Kennedy was A) cool, and sold us on the idea that we had to keep up with the Soviets. There are a million great, rational reasons to explore space, but that's not what got us there. Don't fool yourself--Humans are NOT primarily a rational species; we're a lot more Kerbal than we'd like to admit. You have to get to them through their hearts and their guts. The mind will eventually follow.

I direct you to my signature.

[Seret]

What's the big deal with a manned mission to Mars anyway? We're doing a fine job exploring robotically, and there's little payoff from going there and planting a flag until we're able to start a permanent settlement. That requires numerous intermediate hurdles we've yet to clear. We need to be focussed on cheaper access orbit, better propulsion and closed loop life support before manned missions to Mars become practical or desirable. If I was in charge the manned exploration programme would be focussed on successor stations to the ISS and a base on the moon as a test-bed.

We could go to Mars within a couple of decades if we wanted, but we'd get a lot more from it if we put it off until we had more suitable technologies. It's just too soon for boots on Mars, and it shows in the pricetag.

[Seret]

Why would a country give money to an international space agency if they are not going to get anything out of it and if they have no decisional power?

An international space agency would be the controlled by international treaties. Every decision would require a consensus from every national government. It would be either completely paralyzed or set on unambitious goals that would meet the lowest common denominator.

There are plenty of examples of effective multi-national cooperation in spaceflight. I actually think a permanent international space agency would be a great idea.

[Red Iron Crown]

There are plenty of examples of effective multi-national cooperation in spaceflight. I actually think a permanent international space agency would be a great idea.

I agree with this. It would reduce the nationalist tendencies of space exploration, and facilitate easier sharing of R&D so there's not as much reinventing of the wheel.

It needn't require consent from every participating nation for every decision. The charter for such an organization should include the creation of a management committee and the process for appointing members of it. Then give them a budget and overall goals then let them do as they think best.

[Nibb31]

There are plenty of examples of effective multi-national cooperation in spaceflight. I actually think a permanent international space agency would be a great idea.

Yes, but they are limited and only exist because they serve mutual interests. It could work on a specific large-scale focused project (such as an International Space Station or a Mars Expedition), but as an ongoing organisation it would end up pretty quickly as an even more paralyzed version of ESA.

I agree with this. It would reduce the nationalist tendencies of space exploration, and facilitate easier sharing of R&D so there's not as much reinventing of the wheel.

It needn't require consent from every participating nation for every decision. The charter for such an organization should include the creation of a management committee and the process for appointing members of it. Then give them a budget and overall goals then let them do as they think best.

Why would a country give up their sovereignty for space exploration, when the main objective of government funded space exploration is to serve national interests?

Edited June 6, 2014 by Nibb31

[CaptainKipard]

Why would a country give up their sovereignty for space exploration, when the main objective of government funded space exploration is to serve national interests?

This is a red herring.

[Red Iron Crown]

Why would a country give up their sovereignty for space exploration, when the main objective of government funded space exploration is to serve national interests?

One would hope because national interests aren't the main goal. Discovery and exploration serve us all, no matter the nation.

More pragmatically, to share costs.

-snip-

I'm thinking, or hoping at least, that such an international space program would exclude nations that are theocratic or sufficiently detached from reality. The US would have to repeal its foolish policy of refusing to collaborate with China, assuming both want to participate (I suspect the US wouldn't, not sure about China).

Ideally, an international program would be more insulated from the whims of a single nation's government.

Edited June 7, 2014 by KasperVld

[Seret]

Yes, but they are limited and only exist because they serve mutual interests.

Sure, is that a problem?

It could work on a specific large-scale focused project (such as an International Space Station or a Mars Expedition), but as an ongoing organisation it would end up pretty quickly as an even more paralyzed version of ESA.

Indeed, you've identified the main risk I think. Large multi-national organisations like the UN are indeed difficult to govern, but I think we have to admit that step-change in space exploration is an endeavour that is simply too large and expensive to be pursued effectively by individual states. Only the very richest have the resources to do anything effective. By pooling resources from a wider group we'd end up with more in the pot. I'm sure relatively affluent countries like Australia and Korea would love to be able to take part in a well-funded space programme, and they'd be able to compete for lucrative high-tech contracts.

[Dodgey]

I don't think I need to add anything about my point, Seret and Red Iron Crown covered it pretty well. When I thought about it the idea was mostly aimed at countries of smaller economies such as European countries, New Zealand and Australia. Allowing those countries to pool their resources while at the same time prevent big spenders such as America and China from dictating the direction that the scientific community take, leaving that up to a board consisting of members of the scientific community, not politicians. Allowing the funding to go directly to research into all fields of science.

Just think of the advances we could make if we worked together as a species. How quickly we could find solutions to many of the worlds problems (warning wishful thinking alert). Who knows, this could be the first step in the extreamly long process of world unification.

[kmMango]

I don't think there is much to gain from mars other than publicity. We should look further ahead. Develop fusion propulsion, and get working on the alcubierre drive. But no space agency will do that.

[Reddragon]

I don't think there is much to gain from mars other than publicity. We should look further ahead. Develop fusion propulsion, and get working on the alcubierre drive. But no space agency will do that.

I think they will if they sort out the unknowns. Fusion propulsion is very close. At least fusion power.

[PakledHostage]

Allowing those countries to pool their resources while at the same time prevent big spenders such as America and China from dictating the direction that the scientific community take, leaving that up to a board consisting of members of the scientific community, not politicians. Allowing the funding to go directly to research into all fields of science.

But don't forget that, in a democracy, politicians work for the citizens. The citizens want to see a return on their investment of the tax dollars that politicians invest on their behalf. If countries like the US are contributing a greater share of the capital to a multinational project, then they are quite reasonably going to expect a greater share of the benefits. That will include a greater say in the policy and goals for the project. Sadly, in any business venture, it is the guy with the money who gets to call the shots. As Nibb said, reality sucks...

[Whirligig Girl]

Perhaps we should kickstart a not for profit organisation to land people on Mars. The $60 billion or so for a return mission would certainly break some records.

Didn't Mars One have a kickstarter? Mars one had a sucessful 50 million dollar kickstarter... that might pay for the padding on the seats.

[Tux]

I don't think they should.

I think they should send a lot of robots. a rover army if you will with nice big drills

[Pipcard]

Mars for Less, people!

(What it would look like)

Edited June 6, 2014 by Pipcard

[cantab]

If the cost for a manned Mars landing looks like it will be sky high, then I just take that as meaning we need some disruptive technology to bring that down. While by its nature "disruptive technology" will probably be unanticipated, I can think of one possible approach: Make Everything Lighter.

To break down, the transfer stage should use solar-electric propulsion I think. There's been plenty of research into assorted electric thrusters, and even plenty of small examples deployed. The trip to Mars is going to be fairly long anyway, so there's plenty of time for such thrusters to work.

Not only will this reduce the mass of propellant needed, but that propellant will also not be susceptible to boil-off. That then helps the possibility of an assembly in LEO - and, unlike during the Apollo program, we also have plenty of experience of orbital assembly with Mir and the ISS. This then means the mission can be done off the back of commercial lifters instead of an expensive super-heavy-lifter like the SLS.

Then the habitat will probably be inflatable, or using carbon fibre composites, stuff along those lines.

The lander's a bit more speculative, but maybe something like an aerodynamic lower stage could work for the ascent, reducing the fuel load? Or, of course, there's always the idea of making the fuel on Mars. Or maybe it could be made from Phobos/Deimos? That would allow a one-departure mission: astronauts get to Mars orbit, start getting the fuel made for the lander, and if there's any hitch with the refuelling they can come back safely without landing (and hey, they still get to land on Phobos!)

[KasperVld]

Thread closed for cleaning the rule breakage. Will be reopened later.

Thread reopened, mind you that we'll be keeping a close eye for (mainly) further political discussions which are not allowed under the [thread=30064]Community Rules[/thread]!

As you were

Edited June 7, 2014 by KasperVld

[Guest]

Seeing as America is a collapsing country that's

I'm really not sure any kind of PR would save NASA at this point. If fact this kind of thing wreaks of desperation. Singing has nothing to do with science. American scientists and engineers, abandon ship. You're welcome in Europe.

PS

Stupid forum rules. There's so much that can be said here that might help somewhat but it's all political. This is really annoying. The irony is that unlike other gaming forums, most people here are, I think, intelligent enough to care about politics and probably able to discuss it without whining.

edit

That clip is from a

.

The forum rules exist for a good reason IMO. Statements like "America is a collapsing country that's increasingly anti-science" are political opinions that may or may not be based on fact, are general stereotypes, and incite arguments that rarely benefit anyone. I for one am glad to finally see some moderation in this thread, as some of the statements being made here were way off base.

[FleshJeb]

Thread closed for cleaning the rule breakage. Will be reopened later.

Thread reopened, mind you that we'll be keeping a close eye for (mainly) further political discussions which are not allowed under the [thread=30064]Community Rules[/thread]!

As you were

Do you happen to know of a good forum for discussing public policy as it applies to space exploration? (Anyone is also welcome to PM me--We don't have to agree)

May I start another thread discussing gov't agencies that use space-based instruments, without delving too much into policy?

I'm a private land surveyor who frequently uses the online tools that are provided by the National Geodetic Survey, and I think their work may be very interesting to some of the people here.

[CaptainKipard]

Ok, where is the line with these rules?

Can I talk about history? Can I mention what happened in Baghdad about 1000 years ago? It's relevant.

Everything is related somehow. These artificial restrictions make it really difficult. How can we possibly discuss science, which is under attack from you-bloody-know-who and NASA, which is a government funded agency. Those two things are directly and indirectly relevant in this thread.

Don't people read their history? Many kinds of prohibition have the opposite effect to what was intended.

[kmMango]

Most of us are reasonable people, I will say that. Politics riles people up. It can turn otherwise reasonable men into screeching howler monkeys. For most of us, a reasonable, calm debate is possible. But all it takes is one person taking offense to a statement and retaliating. Then arguments start, feelings are hurt, offense is taken, and the howler monkeys start screaming. So, in the interest of sanity, there is no politics on this forum.