First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply NASA just announced it cant afford to go to Mars.
Banned
30256 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/14/17

Cardamom_Ginger wrote:

Frankly, I'd be surprised if NASA could. There's been talk of the program's purse being tight for well over a decade, in part because of space travel no longer being the novelty it once was. Less public and private interest transfers into less funding.


Yeah, funny how they suddenly announced *now* that they can't afford to go, even though they haven't, for at least 20 years, had the funding for a major expedition like a trip to Mars, never mind even keeping the Shuttle program running or developing a successor manned launch vehicle....

It's almost as if they're suddenly exclaiming their fiscal straits for political purposes or something, isn't it? No, that couldn't be it, right?
21555 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / M / In
Offline
Posted 7/14/17 , edited 7/15/17

outontheop wrote:


uncletim wrote:

cut defense spending by 25% for one year and you can fully fund NASA for 20 years


And the department of defense, and contracts executed explicitly for the department of defense have been responsible for far, FAR more technological advancement in the last century than has NASA, so your argument falls apart. Like CDs? Laser technology, thanks DoD! Internet? Evolutionary development from DARPAnet, a DoD funded project for networking nuclear missile launch and airspace defense systems (and conceptually derived from the SAGE computer-controlled airspace defense network). Solid state electronics? DoD programs to develop impact-resistant processors for use on vehicles and missiles. GPS? DoD navigation and precision targeting requirements. Jet engines? Supersonic flight? Organophosphate insecticides? Rocket propulsion? Computers? Thermal imaging? All developments heavily funded by DoD dollars.

But by all means, slash military budgets, because *science*.

You're just pulling your usual "look down your nose while you sneer at the stupid plebs, chastising everyone else while self-aggrandizing how much nobler of spirit and enlightened I am" act.


they are also responsible for $500 hammers and $700 toilet seats and such wonderful money sinks as the Sargent York program and the oh so wonderful F-35 billions over budget years behind schedule and the damn thing still doesn't fully work
33732 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / St.Louis
Online
Posted 7/14/17
terra formars s2 sucked anyways
140 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 7/14/17
They probably could of been funded but all of the money went to the middle east.
Posted 7/15/17

outontheop wrote:


uncletim wrote:

cut defense spending by 25% for one year and you can fully fund NASA for 20 years


And the department of defense, and contracts executed explicitly for the department of defense have been responsible for far, FAR more technological advancement in the last century than has NASA, so your argument falls apart. Like CDs? Laser technology, thanks DoD! Internet? Evolutionary development from DARPAnet, a DoD funded project for networking nuclear missile launch and airspace defense systems (and conceptually derived from the SAGE computer-controlled airspace defense network). Solid state electronics? DoD programs to develop impact-resistant processors for use on vehicles and missiles. GPS? DoD navigation and precision targeting requirements. Jet engines? Supersonic flight? Organophosphate insecticides? Rocket propulsion? Computers? Thermal imaging? All developments heavily funded by DoD dollars. The only reason we even *went* to space in the first place was because of the military implications of intercontinental missile delivery, untouchable (at the time) orbital reconnaissance assets, and global communication relay capability. Without DoD, there would have been no NASA. Oh, and NASA only existed because it inherited the role of NACA, which was a national board for military aircraft aerodynamic development.

But by all means, slash military budgets, because *science*.

You're just pulling your usual "look down your nose while you sneer at the stupid plebs, chastising everyone else while self-aggrandizing how much nobler of spirit and enlightened you are" act.


this is why I said go after the black budget where all of the secret unaccountables happen
21555 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / M / In
Offline
Posted 7/15/17
I blame Pence for touching stuff
89 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/15/17 , edited 7/15/17
NASA and the Air Force are joined at the hip. They work together quite a bit behind the scenes, and because of this, cutting the defense budget wouldn't help NASA as much you'd think it would.
38 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Lost
Online
Posted 7/15/17 , edited 7/15/17
I guess they're pretty much saying what everyone knew already anyway, especially considering how much the JWST actually cost them.

I don't think there's much merit sending people to Mars, at least scientifically anyway. They certainly could do more experiments with a single manned mission compared to what a single rover mission could do (and bring back stuff like rocks and sand too), but I think it would be cheaper just to send a bunch of rovers over many years in the end anyway.
8705 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Palm Coast, Florida
Offline
Posted 7/15/17
Good, it's just a red barren rock.
1322 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / Ireland
Offline
Posted 7/16/17

MonoDreams wrote:

Good, it's just a red barren rock.


It's more of a rust colour than red and it's not really barren, plenty of resources there.

1322 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / Ireland
Offline
Posted 7/16/17

quirky_neku wrote:

I guess they're pretty much saying what everyone knew already anyway, especially considering how much the JWST actually cost them.

I don't think there's much merit sending people to Mars, at least scientifically anyway. They certainly could do more experiments with a single manned mission compared to what a single rover mission could do (and bring back stuff like rocks and sand too), but I think it would be cheaper just to send a bunch of rovers over many years in the end anyway.


The amount you would learn just sending a human that far into space is plenty scientific. We don't really even know if we would survive the trip, at least sanity wise. There's plenty to be learned from sending some crazy people to mars, not to mention the great postcards!

37072 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 7/16/17
Of course they can't, and there's no reason to except for PR purposes. For God's sake, invest the money in drug addiction and overdose research, or development of superior batteries, or improvement of the US electrical grid, or replacement of lead-based water carrying infrastructure, or, you know, any of the other plethora of projects the world immediately needs completed.
3696 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 7/16/17 , edited 7/16/17

BlueOni wrote:
Of course they can't, and there's no reason to except for PR purposes. For God's sake, invest the money in drug addiction and overdose research, or development of superior batteries, or improvement of the US electrical grid, or replacement of lead-based water carrying infrastructure, or, you know, any of the other plethora of projects the world immediately needs completed.
but... but, my space program! (SpaceX)



5515 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/16/17
There is no shortage of projects that the United States should pay for first before sending humans to Mars.

Expand the current Mars rover projects and call it a day.
28122 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Kaguya's Panties
Offline
Posted 7/16/17
Oh well, nothing exciting about a dusty rock in space anyway.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.