NRC Report: NASA Can't Afford Mars Mission

[Guest]

How are they going to be independent if they are funded by the various governments?

HUMANZ. (10 chars)

[Reddragon]

Personally, maybe its right. I don't know. They have a point about the dead-end technology not aiding in the path to mars - an asteroid capture platform doesn't really lend much to a Mars mission beyond giving the Orion something 'cool' to do while they prove the platform. There are some benefits to the asteroid mission outside of a Mars program, though, so it's not exactly wasted money.

The largest problem of NASA is that only one real exploration flight is planned yet today for SLS due to an unfinished roadmap. They haven't said anything about visiting the redirected asteroid again half a year later or next year. We have seen concepts about using the deep space habitation module to visit a larger asteroid outside of Earth SOI and the 'Skylab 2' at Earth-Moon L2. But none of these had any confirmation yet today. Commercial Crew Program was also told to be the first 'stepping stone' for privatization of spaceflight as a necessity but besides aiding the ISS for about 4 years (since Roscosmos probably won't support it after 2020 and 2017 is set to be the first year for 'space taxi' flights) no more possibilities has been opened to them. A lunar lander could be developed by the private industry the way Morpheus is being done. Bigelow Aerospace is almost ready with the first cheap inflatable habitats. Space X has the cheapest costs per launch. Boeing proposed a reusable(!) lunar lander. Without exact further plans this could even go dormant for years without NASA as a costumer for LEO flights. The first time I heard about how NASA is planning to use SLS for deep space and commercial partners' launchers to LEO I knew this is going to be a problem again. Instead of SLS CCP should have been expanded to deep space too. Without the ability of the US political elite to stand up for groundbreaking decisions like this, even this short term plans will continue to struggle. At some point there has to be a conclusion whether the all time administrations are really willing to give the needed budget ambitious goals for NASA or not. The gap between STS and CCP should be a great example.

Edited June 5, 2014 by Reddragon

[Dodgey]

How are they going to be independent if they are funded by the various governments?

Independant from any single government, no government would be able to dictate what"science" is focused on. It would solve what Congress is doing with NASA.

[Greenfire32]

A 3.2 million dollar study that stated the obvious.

NASA can't afford a manned mission to Mars, at least not without a influx of cash. The report also favors a manned lunar outpost as opposed to an asteroid mission to get American astronauts to Mars before 2050, but recommends a set deadline of 2037, a delay of two years from the original plan of 2035. Mein gott, reality sucks so much. Washington Post has it covered.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/nrc-human-spaceflight-report-says-nasa-strategy-cant-get-humans-to-mars/2014/06/04/e6e6060c-ebd6-11e3-9f5c-9075d5508f0a_story.html

So, we can't get to Mars, and he most we can hope for by the mid-2030's is either asteroids in decaying lunar orbit or a small surface outpost that keeps getting straddled by lack of funds. As I said, "reality sucks"

We don't need NASA:

Mars One

[Guest]

We don't need NASA:

Mars One

It's not gonna freaking work. it has $100000 how can they colonize Mars?

[NASAFanboy]

We don't need NASA:

Mars One

Mars One is even worse off finance-wise, since it'll be a struggle to even raise a billion under good circumstances. Being a "private" organization doesn't suddenly grant the organization magical powers that allows it to violate the laws of economics and physics. It simply doesn't. Mars One will fly the day pigs fly, and that's probably it.

NASA might find it tough to get to Mars by 2060, but Mars One is going yo find it tough to afford its first rover.

And I will seriously run into the NASA headquarters at Washington DC and laugh at everyone I see if a scantily funded reality tv show from somewhere in Europe somehow manages to beat the combined efforts of the space program of the most powerful nation in the world, no matter how underfunded.

[Reddragon]

-snip-

In fact, NASA is still far the best funded space agency of all. Underpaying is very much relative. Yet today no other agencies can afford to chose between deep space exploration pathways with numerous different rover, telescope and robotic missions and earth observation programs on schedule. It sure is still weaker than it used to be.

Edited June 7, 2014 by KasperVld

[Guest]

In fact, NASA is still far the best funded space agency of all. Underpaying is very much relative. Yet today no other agencies can afford to chose between deep space exploration pathways with numerous different rover, telescope and robotic missions and earth observation programs on schedule. It sure is still weaker than it used to be.

People really don't like Space anymore.

[SteveMcMahon]

A 3.2 million dollar study that stated the obvious.

NASA can't afford a manned mission to Mars, at least not without a influx of cash. The report also favors a manned lunar outpost as opposed to an asteroid mission to get American astronauts to Mars before 2050, but recommends a set deadline of 2037, a delay of two years from the original plan of 2035. Mein gott, reality sucks so

So, we can't get to Mars, and he most we can hope for by the mid-2030's is either asteroids in decaying lunar orbit or a small surface outpost that keeps getting straddled by lack of funds. As I said, "reality sucks"

Government bureaucracy sucks. NASA has suffered the long-term fate of all government agencies, it has become ossified and terrible at producing good value from its budget.

For example - spending $3.2 million to say they can't afford to go to Mars?!? For something that could have been done by a couple of accountants and a few engineers spending a few weeks on a spreadsheet and MS Project? They spent $3.2m to produce a report begging for more cash. Crazy waste of money, and somebody should be fired for it. But they won't, because public sector.

Other problems NASA has include being in thrall to the prevailing political agendas of the day rather than focusing on their mission. 1960's NASA was obsessed with putting men on the Moon. Today's NASA is obsessed with affirmative action and climate change. Wernher von Braun wouldn't get past security if he tried to join modern NASA.

Yes, getting to Mars and back is technically an awesome challenge and will be hideously expensive. But if Project Orion could figure out a plausible way to do it back in the 1950's, what's stopping NASA in 2014? More money doesn't necessarily mean better missions if the money's going to people who already waste much of their budget.

They have a budget of over $18Bn a year and some of the smartest people in the world working for them. They should be capable of doing better, but once bureaucratic inertia sets in at a government agency it's very difficult to shake off. Unless there's a new space race with China to focus minds or a wholesale change in NASA's leadership, they'll probably never recover the spirit of 1969.

[Reddragon]

People really don't like Space anymore.

When mercury started barely anyone knew what it means in general let alone for the average people. Eisenhower and Kennedy could convince them why it's important. They did something barely anyone would give their name for today. I think it's not that hard to get people be interested in it if the decent people start to 'advertise' it.

Edited June 5, 2014 by Reddragon

[Duxwing]

The lay public might become interested in space were it well-advertised because I have rarely encountered the anti-space sentiment posters here describe. I know that four other kids play Kerbal Space Program at my school, two likely because of my relentlessly discussing it, and I lectured some kids on Kerbal Space Program during the year's end. My only encounter with anti-space sentiment was my middle-school friends' saying they would not trade a wealthy, wonderful life on Earth for a spartan, scientific life on Mars. I hope that other schools resemble mine.

-Duxwing

[NASAFanboy]

The lay public might become interested in space were it well-advertised because I have rarely encountered the anti-space sentiment posters here describe. I know that four other kids play Kerbal Space Program at my school, two likely because of my relentlessly discussing it, and I lectured some kids on Kerbal Space Program during the year's end. My only encounter with anti-space sentiment was my middle-school friends' saying they would not trade a wealthy, wonderful life on Earth for a spartan, scientific life on Mars. I hope that other schools resemble mine.

-Duxwing

Ah, they clearly don't.

Not a single person but me plays KSP at my scool, and if you ask someone about space exploration, they'll shrug you off and say "what's the point". Tell them it's good for humanity, and they'll say some bullcrap like "I don't care about humanity" or "I really don't know", or, if it happens to be a fundie, something like "God said we can't leave Earth".

[shynung]

-snip-

Space exploration doesn't have much supporters. People typically support things that have more immediate feedback, such as education, technology, or public services. Space doesn't have much use other than for research and national pride, in most people's view.

Edited June 7, 2014 by KasperVld

[okan170]

Actually, support for the space program has remained fairly constant since the late 60s. I'm beginning to think that people just assume it goes on. I suppose, as far as the public is concerned in silly terms, NASA is on a mission to take the most amazing pictures, and sometimes the only way to make them more amazing is to have people in them. Since people assume lots of money is spent on NASA, most of them also just expect space stuff to keep trundling along.

Getting rid of it would invite awkward comparisons to other countries, and in fact, even companies. Any comments section after a SpaceX story is usually excited and sad that NASA isn't doing this itself anymore. People just assumed the Shuttle was A-ok and could keep flying because... well I guess the feeling is "They would have built another one if they needed it".

Things like the HDEV Experiment and even involvement in KSP have shown a new side of NASA's PR though, and its amazing how fast its integrated itself with social media. Personally, I think this is a great idea as it gives people an experience that they can call their own as related to spaceflight. Properly used, the internet could be VERY useful in reaching out in ways that people themselves can interact with in a somewhat freeform way. Things like HD YouTube videos from space, streaming spacewalks, blog entries on neat experiments, its all much more accessible that it has ever been before, and properly used, could lead to more people becoming aware of these things in the future.

If I were NASA, I'd be seriously looking at maybe doing tie-in events with games to bring them to real launch events. We have ARM, but what about a small parts pack of some kind (and by then, probably missions) related to EFT-1 this fall/winter? As it came out, it'd be a great way of building awareness among players, after all!

[kmMango]

Give NASA 2% of the Federal Budget. See what that gets us.

[kmMango]

It angers me people don't care about space. When we need a new planet because we sucked this one dry, maybe they'll care then.

[kmMango]

Unfortunately, NASA can make something as amazing as stepping out of a spacecraft at 100 km above the ground with the earth rushing past at 17000 mph seem routine.

[vger]

I suppose, as far as the public is concerned in silly terms, NASA is on a mission to take the most amazing pictures, and sometimes the only way to make them more amazing is to have people in them.

I think that's even more imperative now than it was in the 60's.

NASA needs to adapt to modern trends to a certain degree, without betraying its core values in the process. We're living in the age of Hollywood Celebrities. That, unfortunately, seems to be America's moral compass now. In the days of the space race, politicians had that job. Politicians didn't just decide what direction the nation should go. They had the ability to shape our values. That job has now been handed over to the likes of Kim Kardashian. But at the time, all it took was for Kennedy to say, "We're going to the moon," and everyone was all for it. That kind of thing could never happen today. No matter what, we'll have a divided America on the issue, split 50/50 down the middle.

But some things could help, and NASA DEFINITELY needs to find some personalities who can appeal to the People in the manner that a Celeb could. Typically the more eccentric, the better, but that doesn't mean they have to be dimwits. We've had people like Sagan and Dawkins who could generate a lot of buzz, but more recently, you have Bill Nye, and he got his start by acting like a bit of a kook. But it worked, and now he's one of the best spokespeople science has.

If/when we start working towards another huge space mission comparable to Apollo, it would do NASA a lot of good to find astronauts who don't only know their stuff, but also have charisma, and know how to entertain. And if they can't find people who naturally know how to entertain, TEACH them. If we have astronauts who people actually enjoy watching and listening to, people will WANT to see THEM go to another planet, asteroid, etc.

Edited June 6, 2014 by vger

[NASAFanboy]

Imagine if NASA offered a current celebrity, like Tom Hanks or Bill Cloonley or even an rapper like Eminem an trip to the international space station or even a job as a astronaut (Though not an important one). Think of the buzz that would create.

[Spartan-S63]

Imagine if NASA offered a current celebrity, like Tom Hanks or Bill Cloonley or even an rapper like Eminem an trip to the international space station or even a job as a astronaut (Though not an important one). Think of the buzz that would create.

They definitely should send George Clooney up into space. It'd be like Gravity except it wouldn't contain all those inaccuracies or Kessler Syndrome.

[mdatspace]

The report does not discuss other ways of getting to Mars which might be cheaper. On-orbit assembly using smaller launchers might be able to do a mars mission cheaper.

[Guest]

The report does not discuss other ways of getting to Mars which might be cheaper. On-orbit assembly using smaller launchers might be able to do a mars mission cheaper.

Someone's been playing too much KSP...

[vger]

It'd be cheaper in the long-run. A ship assembled in space that is never meant to be anything more than a 'ferry' between destinations. It never lands, it only deploys landers. The only things you'd ever need to send once it was complete, was resources and people. That would require far less energy than to launch an entirely new ship every time you want to do something.

[FleshJeb]

But some things could help, and NASA DEFINITELY needs to find some personalities who can appeal to the People in the manner that a Celeb could. Typically the more eccentric, the better, but that doesn't mean they have to be dimwits. We've had people like Sagan and Dawkins who could generate a lot of buzz, but more recently, you have Bill Nye, and he got his start by acting like a bit of a kook. But it worked, and now he's one of the best spokespeople science has.

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)

[metaphor]

Getting people to Mars is a question of will more than any technical or cost problems. Most people are just indifferent to space right now, and so politicians don't really care about it either except in places with NASA centers. I think the best way to get a Mars landing funded is to improve people's perception of space. We need to spread awareness of space exploration. As more people get excited about space, more politicians will notice and more funding will come.