
NASA: We're sending humans to Mars - didgeoridoo
https://twitter.com/NASA/status/539814651404754944
======
skriticos2
Sometime in the past fifty years NASA became paralyzed not by budget cuts, but
by political in-fighting, fractured organizational structure and lots and lots
of red tape. And then there is all that pork that goes around with the
entrenched contractors. The tale of the last Mars program that NASA put
together is a great example of this. They got handed a technically sound plan
to get there in reasonable time with reasonable resources. Then every org-unit
in NASA wanted to add their own part to stay relevant and it got so bloated
both technically and financially that it had to be put to rest.

So unless they convince me that they managed to get their internal structural
problems under control, I don't think they get anytime to Mars within this
century. And certainly not before the private sector does.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation_program](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation_program)

p.s.: There is a free movie on YouTube telling the tale:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcTZvNLL0-w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcTZvNLL0-w)

~~~
hackuser
> political in-fighting, fractured organizational structure and lots and lots
> of red tape.

These things happen in private sector organizations too; the assumption that
the private sector somehow will do it better needs to be supported. Really, we
need to point to a specific private sector organization.

Name every place in the solar system where NASA missions currently are
located. Outside the solar system? Where they have gone historically? Their
achievements are staggering; history-making events are routine; they are by
far the greatest explorers in the history of humanity. Certainly they aren't
perfect and every organization can improve, but they do pretty well.

~~~
seanflyon
> Really, we need to point to a specific private sector organization.

SpaceX. I agree that NASA has done more for space exploration than the private
sector and that SpaceX would not be where it is today without NASA funding,
but SpaceX is doing more per dollar than NASA is by a wide margin. I would
guess that NASA will be the first to land a human on Mars, but I would also
guess that they will lift off in a SpaceX rocket.

~~~
Daishiman
SpaceX sits atop decades of resources in what constitutes sound aerospace
engineering practices, and is being helped by the fact that their scope is
far, _far_ more limited than NASA's.

Private contractors given good specifications are certainly very effective at
what they do, but I really doubt that they'd be as good if they were to go on
a purely exploratory , basic research-like mission where objectives are
fuzzier.

~~~
kiba
Their scope is to colonize Mars. NASA's scope is to land a man on Mars.

In some way, SpaceX's scope is much more ambitious than NASA.

~~~
Daishiman
SpaceX's scope is irrelevant until they can be viable without substantial
assistance from Mars, from the point of view of the private-is-better
supporters.

It's most likely that space exploration will always be a public-private
mixture given the political and military interests in play, and the fact that
a privately-funded endeavor of such magnitude would be _extremely_ unlikely to
survive a failure, and no one in their right mind would underwrite such a
project.

It's funny that people praise private companies' willingness to be flexible
beyond bureaucracy yet they forget that a company can only survive for so long
without positive returns and that limits their risk tolerance tremendously.
Heck, consider how few companies are willing to do basic research nowadays.

~~~
jp555
"a company can only survive for so long without positive returns and that
limits their risk tolerance tremendously"

Don't you think Amazon's stock price says differently?

To me, a private Mars colony sounds a lot like an Amazon. An endeavor with a
very big mission and a very long execution time.

~~~
kiba
SpaceX's mission to colonize Mars isn't about making money, it's about
colonizing Mars.

But SpaceX needs to make money to make colonization of Mars happen.

~~~
jp555
I'm not sure what your point is exactly.

Making money is about making things people want. Colonizing Mars is the thing
that people want; and every step towards that goal (launch vehicles, human
spacecraft, etc) bootstraps them onto the next step. Much like how Amazon
works; they forfeit profit today to invest in not just tomorrow, but several
decades from now.

------
hristov
This is just stupid. What is the point? This will be extremely expensive, it
will gut a lot of useful science programs.

Send robots! They are thousands of times cheaper and they get the job done.
And when they die it is not a national tragedy.

Robots have been doing an excellent job of planetary exploration over the past
20 years or so. There is no reason to stop this. And this will mostly stop if
nasa decides to seriously pursue a human mars mission, because such a mission
will soak up most NASA resources.

The only reason to send humans is to satisfy the science fiction fantasies of
a bunch of stupid fan boys. And everyone knows that these fantasies can just
as easily be satisfied by a cheesy movie or TV show.

Now I have to emphasize the word stupid, in "stupid science fiction fanboys."
If you were a smart science fiction fanboy or girl you would know that
continued robotic exploration will make the science fiction fantasy of mars
tourism much closer than a human mission.

If we keep sending robotic missions we can study the mars soil and perhaps
move on to having the robots build stuff on mars. If the robots can build a
base with solar based energy gathering, oxygen generation and even perhaps
rocket fuel generation, then mars travel may become a regular if expensive
thing.

Otherwise we will have a single mission that with great fan fare sends one or
two people to stomp around on mars for an hour or two and quickly return. (Or
even worse, perhaps die there). After the mission the whole thing will be
scrapped and only the newspaper clippings and tv documentaries will remain.
This is what happened with Apolo. It was great but it did not really lead
anywhere in terms of moon exploration.

~~~
bonafidehan
I think the ultimate goal with space travel is to reduce the risk of human
extinction, which is a distinct possibility when we are confined to a single
planet or planetary system.

Transporting and then returning humans to a "distant" destination will be a
worthy milestone that will teach us a lot. We have to start somewhere.

Perhaps you're right: maybe we can more quickly achieve distribution of
humanity by solely focusing on robotic exploration. But I just wanted to point
out that satisfying science fiction fanboys isn't the only reason to travel to
Mars.

~~~
hawleyal
It seems incredibly arrogant and short-sited to assume that humans would be
able to somehow survive outside of their original environment. There isn't a
grocery list of things we need to bring into space or to another planet.
Everything on this planet is interrelated and inseparable in largely unknown
ways.

~~~
imaginenore
You don't need that much to just survive - food/water, atmosphere, low enough
radiation, manageable temperature.

All of these problems can be solved with our current level of technology on
Mars. After you establish the base near a water source, you can grow your own
food, you can make oxygen, you can mine for whatever elements you need.

Nobody says it's easy, but it's doable.

------
stevebot
Fuck the cynicism. The fact that NASA finally has its head turned around to at
least announce is indicative to me of a cultural, maybe generational shift
towards giving a shit about space travel. Who cares who does it first, at
least this is a trend in the right direction.

~~~
danielweber
NASA has "announced" Mars timelines 20 years in the future many times before.

~~~
stevebot
I have never seen their announcements in the past. Between SpaceX, the global
international space travel movement, and hey even Interstellar, there is a lot
more buzz around space travel. Plus, we have landed a rover on mars, plus
people have landed a rover on a comet. NASA has had a hand in space
advancement. I don't give a shit if they have been wrong in the past, the
growing hype around space travel is exciting, and I refuse to be a buzzkill
about it.

~~~
danielweber
If you are citing _Interstellar_ as a reason to believe this, I don't know how
to help you.

For anyone else:

Obama in 2010: to Mars by the mid-2030's
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_policy_of_the_Barack_Obam...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_policy_of_the_Barack_Obama_administration)

Bush in 2005: to the Moon by 2020, to Mars soon after 2030
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation_program](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation_program)

NASA 1998: DRM 3.0 calls for first launch to Mars in 2011, human crew in 2014.
[http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/1998021...](http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19980218778.pdf)

Bush in 1989: 90-day report, which was a joke, but also 30 years to spend $300
billion
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Exploration_Initiative](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Exploration_Initiative)

~~~
stevebot
I am not sure I believe it, fuck believing it. I have worked on enough
software projects to know its not entirely true. But why should I not get
excited? I got excited when Obama announced his policy and I will continue to
get excited. It means people are still thinking about Mars and space
exploration and that is a positive amongst all this cynicism.

~~~
danielweber
If you lap this up, they'll give you more of it.

"This" being "plans 20 years in the future."

I get that this is your first time getting your heart shattered. I'm the old
crone who doesn't understand the true love you found with your soulmate who is
promising you the moon, er, Mars. But if you repeat our mistakes, you will
repeat our heartbreak.

The more excited the public is, the more NASA sees it as a blank check to cram
more things as "necessary" for a Mars mission. The 90-day report is the
perfect example. Today's press conference is talking about creating "solar
electric propulsion," something that was never mentioned for prior Mars
missions but is now suddenly a requirement.

That's the pattern. The public wants a Mars mission, then NASA says "yeah,
we'll get there in 20 years, but first we need to spend time inventing <new
tech>." It's a different <new tech> each time.

~~~
snowwrestler
Unless you think that <new tech> is somehow detrimental to getting to Mars, I
don't see what the cynicism gets you. In fact, I've never understood how
cynicism helps achieve anything at all.

We'll send humans to Mars when it makes sense, when we can, and when we want
to. If we stop wanting to, we'll never go...we'll never even develop the
capability.

Mankind spent a long time--hundreds, maybe thousands of years--using boats
before we started sailing across oceans. Going to Mars is way more complicated
and dangerous, and that's still only the closest planet.

Enthusiasm for plans might create license for NASA to experiment, but lack of
enthusiasm would be far worse. There's no lack of other people who would love
to spend NASA's money. And even the private sector spaceflight companies are
largely dependent on NASA today.

~~~
marknutter
I think they mean <new tech> for <new tech>'s sake. Not <new tech> that's
absolutely necessary for reaching Mars.

------
bryanh
Call me cynical, but I feel like NASA won't end up shuttling humans to Mars.
Instead, NASA will more likely be shuttling government money between various
contractors before having the program cancelled in the far-future...

Politics + exploration for exploration's sake always seems at odds.

~~~
api
Perhaps, but I feel like NASA is at a point where if they don't "ship"
something big they're going to fade into the night.

Robotic space exploration is awesome, but it doesn't capture the human
imagination the way a human mission does. I also think -- and the academic
types be damned -- that there is a difference between sending a robot and
actually _going_ somewhere.

In the long term I think Mars will be settled by humans. Sending humans to
land there for a bit is a first step, a fact-finding mission.

~~~
bdamm
Mars will never be settled any more than Antarctica is settled. Mars is vastly
more difficult to get to and provides an even more severe environment. It's
going to be just like the moon - once we're there, we'll wonder why we ever
bothered to go to this miserable rock. Leave the private industry to go there
and do as they wish. After sending a small band of rovers there we haven't
found any compelling reason to go, have we? Other than exogeology?

NASA should be dreaming much bigger. How about manned missions to Jupiter?
Maybe after failing at the impossible for a while we'll at least get a better
concept of how far away the rest of pretty much anywhere in space is, and stop
thinking about planetary exploration as a lifeboat for our species.

~~~
beeworker
What's your lifeboat for our species?

~~~
bdamm
If making a lifeboat is the real goal, then let's colonize the moon. It's much
closer, and about equally inhospitable.

The best option is not screwing up our planet. If asteroid strikes is the
concern, then funding a planetwide network of residents living in underground
bunkers with supplies to last decades is probably cheaper and more effective
than going to Mars.

~~~
blhack
>The best option is not screwing up our planet.

That isn't even close to the best option. That's like saying: "don't make
backups, just don't screw up."

edit: to be more specific, "make makeups, but also try not to screw up"

~~~
crpatino
> That's like saying: "don't make backups, just don't screw up."

That does not even belong in the same category. Data backups in computer
systems are cheap, and people/organizations not doing them even cheaper!

On the other hand, doctors don't make backups of the gravely ill[1] before a
dangerous surgery. That is beyond our current capabilities, so "do not screw
up" is as good as it gets.

Yet another example, civil engineers do not make backups of skyscrapers[2]
before doing maintenance work, even major maintenance work. While technically
feasible, the economic cost would be prohibitive.

My gut feeling is that a "backup planet" would fall somewhere in between cases
[1] and [2].

------
jobposter1234
So many cynical comments in here. I can't disagree with the substance, because
the past track record has been mixed, and because of the issues with NASA's
political structure have been well documented.

I also can't disagree with the practicalists that suggest the money would be
better spent elsewhere.

However, one thing I can't get past: I don't think humanity will ever escape
self interested nationalism without space exploration. I have zero hope for
the long term survival of our species, barring significant human cooperation.

So I get all the intellectual arguments, but I also dream that space could be
the one freaking thing that joins our species together -- the understanding
that we really are very similar. I think only space will provide that push.

My opinion is that without space, humanity will destroy itself in a matter of
centuries, through environmental pollution, nuclear war, disease, or any of
the other methods we've come up with in the last 100 years.

~~~
marknutter
> My opinion is that without space, humanity will destroy itself in a matter
> of centuries, through environmental pollution, nuclear war, disease, or any
> of the other methods we've come up with in the last 100 years.

People say this, but I don't get what it's based in. Our track record for
surviving is incredibly impressive. In fact, if there's one trait we humans
have that's worth noting, it's our ability to survive, no matter the
conditions.

I also find it amusing that predict that humanity will destroy itself in a
matter of centuries after starting your post with "So many cynical comments in
here." :)

~~~
jobposter1234
I hear what you're saying. I had the first thought just after making my
comment, and explored it a little more. I hope you'll indulge me, because I'm
genuinely curious what you think.

It's really only in the last 120 years that humans have been able to inflict
enough damage within a few generations to seriously damage our existence. So I
limit myself to that era (and forward), because I'm focusing on human-
inflicted extinction.

I have 4 or 5 nuclear near-events that very narrowly started a nuclear war. (I
suppose I forget that humans will survive total nuclear war, but there would
be so much death that I'm not sure I'd want to survive it.) We can add in
global warming, although we don't know what the effects will be.

So 6 events or so in the last 120 years, 1 of which is still undecided. The
"next few centuries" part was a bit dramatic -- but over the next 1,000,000
years, how many more near-misses will we have? Even if we survive 99%, there's
still a pretty high chance that humanity is gone. And from reading
descriptions of things like the Cuban Missile Crisis, I think the odds of
nuclear exchange were much higher than 1%.

I must confess to resembling the second comment. In humanity, I see a lot of
hope, but I see also reason for despair. I guess the cynicism hit me a bit
because it's people being cynical about the one endeavor I believe holds hope
for uniting our species.

~~~
marknutter
I suppose I might agree with you that it's likely catastrophic events will be
caused by us at some point, but I very much disagree that the survivors of
those events will ever consider life not worth living. Wanting to stay alive
is probably our most fundamental desire, and we happen to be pretty damn good
at doing it. I think of those types of events like forest fires. On the
surface, they seem devastating, but they actually end up serving a wider
purpose and thus, one should not despair.

~~~
jobposter1234
Excellent points, from an abstract perspective.

However, if 99% of the world's population died and the remainder had to
scratch out a difficult living, I think it would be difficult to distance
myself from the reality that my existence, as I had known it to that point,
was dead.

One of the great things about the human spirit is the resilience of our
species and our individuals. However, it's hard for me to think I'd just
accept it as part of a greater purpose. (In fact, that language makes me think
of a religious approach to death -- "they're in a better place" \-- which does
nothing to soften the blow from a loved one's death.)

------
dyeje
Alot of cynicism in the comments on this, so I just wanted to say I am excited
and I believe in NASA.

~~~
radioact1ve
Seeing as I was in my own world today, I just heard about this news. I
was(still am) ecstatic and excited by the news just to be bummed down by the
comments. I'm with you on this.

------
dandrews
"I have no desire to do a Mars landing on our own," Bolden said (two years
ago).

[http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/story/2012...](http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/story/2012-08-01/NASA-
mars-rover/56656270/1)

I've more faith in Musk than in Bolden. "[going to Mars has] always been a
goal of SpaceX. We're hoping to develop the technology to do that in probably
12 to 15 years."

[http://www.latimes.com/la-oe-0801-morrison-musk-
spacex-20120...](http://www.latimes.com/la-oe-0801-morrison-musk-
spacex-20120801-column.html)

------
ifdefdebug
There's something I always asked myself about Mars expedition: well I kind of
believe that it's possible to put somebody down on Mars within the next few
decades.

But... what about coming back to earth? Escape velocity is about > 5 km/s.
Wouldn't you need to build a launch site having at least half of the power of
our launch sites down here on Earth? How are they going to do that anytime
near in the future?

So is it going to be a on-way trip? And if so, are they going to maintain a
supply chain from Earth to Mars for the whole of the life time of those
explorers? Water, air, food...

~~~
pmontra
Most of the mass (fuel) will be waiting in orbit. They need to bring down to
the surface only the fuel to get back to orbit so they won't need half of a
Saturn V. They still need to launch a lot of fuel from Earth.

~~~
ifdefdebug
I wasn't thinking about the whole journey back home, just the first part of it
which looks damn hard to me: how do you get a space craft away from Mars? You
need to reach escape velocity, and that's 5 km/s (> 11000 mph).

You'll have to build a complete launch site for that.

~~~
sfeng
If you have fuel in orbit you just have to reach it, you don't have to get to
escape velocity.

~~~
rspeer
You still have to match velocity with the fuel. Crashing into your fueling
station at 10000 km/h doesn't help anything.

~~~
LyndsySimon
Actually... it completely solves the problem of the return trip.

~~~
spb
Somebody needs to teach NASA to embrace Crash-Only Design.

------
chrischen
I feel like the significance of humans going to Mars is largely attributed to
movies and pop culture.

It's the Paris Hilton of the astronomical world.

I don't want to be labeled a cynic, but do the benefits of sending humans to
Mars outweigh the costs?

~~~
sueders101
>I feel like the significance of humans going to Mars is largely attributed to
movies and pop culture. It's the Paris Hilton of the astronomical world.

I think that may be conflating cause and effect. I'd argue a manned trip to
Mars is a focus of pop culture because it resonates strongly with so many. The
drive to explore has always been etched into a portion of humanity. For
many(myself included) Mars stands as the currently realistic pinnacle of
exploration for humanity. Along with accessibility of understanding the
accomplishment you end up with our current Martian fascination.

>I don't want to be labeled a cynic, but do the benefits of sending humans to
Mars outweigh the costs?

With anything as expensive and complex as a manned mission to mars, we
honestly can never know until we try. It's impossible to predict what fruits,
if any, it would bear for humanity. That's the nature of exploration and
discovery. For all we know there's some infeasible to overcome barrier that
makes the task of manned travel to Mars impossible.

Due to the intractable nature of quantifying the value of manned Mars missions
I think the reasoning for doing so falls to a far more base human condition
than a positive cost benefit analysis. On a personal level the desire for
continued human exploration is hard to explain to those who don't possess it.
There's an intensely disquieting internal sensation that comes with feeling
stagnation at the bounds of human capability. It's not dissimilar to the urge
for preservation of the Earth for future generations, or to rid the world of
undue suffering. These drives, like exploration, aren't built on entirely
pragmatic foundations. They can and do often fail to justify themselves on
purely practical terms.

Just for clarity, my response isn't made with the purpose of persuasion. It's
to help convey my entirely subjective view of things and perhaps illuminate
the thinking behind some proponents for space exploration.

~~~
chrischen
> I think that may be conflating cause and effect. I'd argue a manned trip to
> Mars is a focus of pop culture because it resonates strongly with so many.

Game of Thrones, Star Wars, etc, also resonate with society. Things in those
movies aren't necessarily worthy of exploring. Conversely, cancer research
isn't represented well in pop culture... but that doesn't mean it doesn't
warrant pursuit.

~~~
sueders101
>Conversely, cancer research isn't represented well in pop culture

I'd disagree, with that sentiment(cancer awareness, research and prevention
are widely popular; otherwise we wouldn't so tightly associate the color pink
and breast cancer), but that's not really what I was getting at.

> that doesn't mean it doesn't warrant pursuit.

What I'm suggesting isn't that we should tailor our spending to match the
frequency in which a subject appears in pop culture, but that humanity has an
innate drive to explore. This drive manifests in both real attempts at
exploration(NASA, WHOI, ESA, etc.) and fictional dramatizations of exploration
that appear in pop culture.

Maybe a better example of a similarly inherent drive influencing pop culture
is the one for sex. Pop culture's fascination with sex(and exploration) is
merely a consequence fundamental human pursuits.

------
frakturfreund
The NASA went to the moon because the russians wanted to do it. Today's space
exploration is shaped by cooperation, but sometimes a little bit of
competition is needed to achive great thinks.

This is why i'm really hoping for the chinese to announce a manned mission to
mars. It's the red planet afterall ;), and this could be a modern sputnik
shock for the NASA.

~~~
drjesusphd
Sputnik had military implications. Going to Mars doesn't.

~~~
frakturfreund
That’s a valid point. But Sputnik had also a component of harmed pride (›most
advanced nation‹); at least this should be reproducible.

------
desireco42
This is like Kickstarter campaign. I don't believe until I see some serious
things happening.

I have more fate in SpaceX or Chinese to put man on Mars then NASA.

~~~
efuquen
I guarantee you if China or India were to make strides towards a serious Mars
mission (i.e. they had a Moon landing) we would have another space race with
the US involved. It's exactly what happened when the USSR sparked the first
space race. Whether we would win, who knows, but there is still plenty of
expertise and know how in about sending humans into space in the US ...

I really don't understand all the absolute trust in SpaceX, in terms of human
exploration they have proved _nothing_ thus far. Sending cargo to the ISS is a
different thing than sending humans. Once they pull that off we can start
talking about great strides they are making in human space exploration.

Otherwise it's still a risky venture that hasn't proven anything yet, the only
reason to have so much faith in them is because you're over zealously
infatuated with Elon Musk. Not to downplay any of his obvious success, but I
still believe in seeing results in the same way you're waiting to see if NASA
is going to do some "serious things". Let's hold people to same standards,
shall we?

~~~
gpm
> I really don't understand all the absolute trust in SpaceX, in terms of
> human exploration they have proved nothing thus far. Sending cargo to the
> ISS is a different thing than sending humans. Once they pull that off we can
> start talking about great strides they are making in human space
> exploration.

I think the thing about SpaceX is it seems like they have no ulterior motives
(no one honestly thought it was going to make money, until it did), and they
seem to have some chance of success.

I also think your humans to the space station mark is entirely the wrong one,
they could do that today if they were willing to accept a bit more risk, and
will almost certainly be able to do it in the near future. But putting humans
in space isn't solving any of the hard problems. Far more interesting will be
if they manage to re-use a rocket (or even first-stage) with no or minor
refurbishment... as re-use is the only way they will be able to achieve their
goals (paraphrasing massively from what Elon has said on numerous occasions).

~~~
consideranon
I guarantee you that people felt quite certain that SpaceX was going to at
least have the possibility of making loads of money. No one invests capital or
starts a business, much less an aerospace business, if they don't honestly
believe it will make money. Even if you have a bunch of idealists who want to
see humanity achieve it's destiny and reach for the stars, they would be fools
to invest so much time and money in something that they believe was destined
to fail.

Whatever Elon Musk is, he's not a complete fool.

------
vvpan
I honestly don't see the point of doing this. The scientific bounty from going
to the moon was tiny comparing to the amount of resource put into it.

I think poet Gil-Scott Heron does a great job deconstructing the space-
exploration efforts in "Whitey on the Moon".
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtBy_ppG4hY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtBy_ppG4hY)

~~~
snowwrestler
Some folks want to know how exploration can benefit them scientifically.

Other folks wonder what the point of science is, if not exploration.

~~~
nemo
I'm all for expanding frontiers of science.

I'd much prefer sending robotic exploration craft, though.

I don't see much scientific gain coming out of putting the people in space,
while the massively increased costs associated of keeping people alive and
well in space just subtract from scientific gains in knowledge and
exploration.

Putting people in space is for PR, putting robots in space is for science.

------
jonnycowboy
[http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/dec/01/nasa-orion-
sp...](http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/dec/01/nasa-orion-spacecraft-
human-mars-mission)

It seems they're just hyping this Thursday's mission.

That said, I don't know anybody could withstand a one year trip in a capsule
the size of Orion...

~~~
scrumper
I read some of the background material about Orion. The transfer mission will
include much larger structures for crew habitation. Orion is there as the
return-to-Earth vehicle which also provides something they call 'abort
anywhere' \- the ability to pull the plug on the entire mission at any point
during the flight to Mars.

------
kendallpark
We just need to pick another country to race with. "Hey China! Bet we'll get
to Mars faster than you!" Then we'll have Mars 2020.

~~~
saraid216
You ask the average American whether or not they'd pitch in to beat China to
Mars and they'd say no. We don't have the nationalism to make that work
anymore.

~~~
rinon
I'm not so sure on this... Competition is still a strong motivator, even if
nationalism is waning.

~~~
saraid216
The key to why the space race worked is competition _between nations_. It's
because the fallout from World War 2 was a strong sense of national identity.
The same thing that made McCarthyism work is what made the space race work.

We don't have that anymore. It was probably a worthwhile trade: there are
other vectors we can get technological advance from: but if Obama made a
speech about beating China to Mars tomorrow as a proof of how America is a
great nation, the Republicans would assemble on the dot to burn him at the
stake for it.

There's still a sense of national identity, such as can be seen in the
Olympics, but it's barely an echo of what it was 50 years ago. Before we lost
in Vietnam. Before the Civil War was re-enacted to gain universal suffrage.
Before Reaganomics. Before Cuba. Before Bosnia. Before 9/11 and Iraq. Before
Snowden. Before Ferguson.

------
cryoshon
We have to wait until the mid 2030s (20 years!) to put humans on Mars via the
government's program?

I fear that this goal is not nearly ambitious enough. Set a deadline far away,
and the time you "need" to spend preparing to meet that deadline will increase
in order to fill the amount of time you have.

~~~
fargolime
Isn't it prudent to spread out the $1 trillion cost over a couple decades?
After all, we have to borrow every dime of that from future taxpayers. I'm
including cost overruns.

Or are you willing to pay an extra $10K a year in taxes to get to Mars sooner?

~~~
istorical
The average taxpayer pays NASA $55 per year.

~~~
ArtDev
I pay less for my Science Museum membership.

I would love to see NASA fixed (firstly) and fully funded (once its fixed).

~~~
fargolime
Well you haven't paid a dime in NASA funding yet. All funding to date has been
borrowed from people younger than you or not yet born. Presumably the gov't
will borrow many times more to get to Mars, than it has for any previous
mission.

------
scj
There are two possible scenarios where I'll get my hopes up that humans are
going to Mars:

1\. It is so close that it is obvious. A heavy lift human-rated rocket is in
service. It is demonstrated that humans can live long duration without the
radiation shielding of the Earth. The capsule is human rated (planned to
happen in 2021). A robotic landing of the vehicle on Mars is done (a lot of
Mars probes have failed on this step). That humans are selected / training.
This goal is set for the 2030s, so it fails this criteria.

2\. They announce a huge amount of funding to be spent within a few years. The
pages I've read thus far don't suggest what funding levels are.

I'll happily listen to what they say, but I'm still skeptical.

EDIT: Expanded the conditions for point 1.

~~~
mikeash
#2 is out of their control. I'd speculate that at least part of the purpose of
this announcement is to shame Congress into ensuring sufficient funding.

~~~
scj
Shaming congress doesn't appear to be effective at the moment.

Bush Sr. talked about going to Mars with SEI. Bush Jr. talked about it after
Columbia. Skylab (the space station in the 70s) was supposed to teach us about
long duration spaceflight in order to go to Mars (and we've been parked in LEO
ever since).

I want to believe... And I like Zubrin's plan to go to Mars. As it could work
with an incrementalist approach, and thus is pragmatic (and sounds like what
they are doing). But the problem is that there is a long time before the work
on the incrementalist dream starts and landing on Mars. Who knows what will
happen to funding in the mean time.

~~~
mikeash
It doesn't, but what other choice do they have? If you only have one button to
press, you might as well keep pressing it. Maybe it'll work one of these
times.

~~~
arto
"The definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and
expecting different results."

~~~
mikeash
It would be very difficult to chop down a tree with that mentality.

~~~
arto
In quoting Einstein's definition of stupidity, the analogy is to ineffectively
chopping at a tree without managing to fell it, and then proceeding to
ineffectively do the same to N other trees.

~~~
mikeash
First, the quote is about insanity, not stupidity. Second, Einstein didn't say
it. Third, it's not a very good definition of either.

------
spiritplumber
I've done a bit of (very marginal) work for NASA, and the problem they have is
that it takes 2 weeks and 5 signatures to get $200 worth of parts approved...
while everyone is always in a hurry regardless. Just give your engineers $300
a month for miscellanea, it'll be faster and cheaper. I can see why being a
federal agency they have to be spotlessly above-board when it comes to who
does what with money, but there's a limit to that.

What ended up happening with my projects (PhoneSat and a couple other things)
is that I was there part time, and just bought parts on my own dime, then I
sent a global itemized bill for everything. It took six months but they did
pay me back.

------
return0
Huge PR move, but i dont think it's gonna work. Do people really need to "send
a human" to mars? To prove what to whom (the soviets are no more). It's not
like we haven't already been there and taken our pictures. Or that we expect
any surprises from this mission. How about we make a plan to terraform Mars?
Or to work on more mysterious things like genomes, like the brain etc? Sending
a human to mars is a PR move, maybe typical of our times, but not useful.

------
azdle
Looks like the briefing already happened. Does anyone know if a recorded
version is available anywhere yet?

~~~
drdeadringer
It's up on YouTube now:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBoj-1m-qLU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBoj-1m-qLU)

------
chatmasta
All this means to me is that somebody in the NASA PR department is leading a
push to appear competitive with private companies. I imagine very little has
changed operationally in the past few months at NASA. This announcement is
only meant to conform to the ebb-and-flow of media, a battlefront where
private companies have been kicking NASA's ass lately. (Maybe NASA PR wants to
capitalize on recent virgin crash, chink-in-armor, lol).

This push is great but it's definitely a case of "fake it till you make it"
from NASA vs the private companies, since they're all competing for the same
funding. Honestly, I love it. It's great to see competition in the space race
again. This time instead of nation states duking it out in orbit, it's private
sector vs host nation state. It's great. Hopefully this leads to huge space
innovations in the next decade, and we actually do send humans to Mars.

Go space yay. ~= >===|=>

------
maaku
Notice that nowhere in the graphic is there a Martian lander. This looks like
a re-purposing of the Orion spacecraft into a twin configuration to support a
one-off slingshot around Mars on an approximately two-year free return
trajectory, with a few months spent close enough to Mars to get some science
done and photaos taken. It's an idea that's been floating around for years,
and not very interesting because it's a strategic dead-end.

I am very saddened. When I saw the tweet I thought we finally got a commitment
from high up to land people on another planet, and not just aimlessly building
random congress-designed porkbarrel crap with a hope to someday do something
somewhere as will be decided later.

A commitment to land people on Mars on a strict schedule would do so much to
overcome the bureaucratic stranglehold on doing anything interesting in space
... too bad this isn't going to be it :/

------
induscreep
What exactly is the need to send humans to Mars? Why not robots? Is it worth
risking a human's life for science, when a robot can do an equally good job?

~~~
cryptoz
> What exactly is the need to send humans to Mars?

Lots of reasons, some below. Primarily, the reason to send humans is because
we have to in order to ensure the continued survival of (known) life in the
universe. Sending a few people to Mars will be the first steps in becoming a
multi-planetary civilization, which will reduce our dependency on a single-
point-of-failure for all known life.

> Why not robots?

You ask as if we haven't been sending robots to Mars for the last 3-4 decades.
(Edit: We should absolutely send robots. We should send way more robots than
people. But we should still send people.)

> Is it worth risking a human's life for science, when a robot can do an
> equally good job?

Not sure if trolling. Humans have collectively agreed that it's worth 10,000+
annual deaths in the USA in exchange for the convenience of cars. So yes, 1-5
human lives on Mars is worth the science that they'd get done.

Also...there are no robot scientists yet. Maybe there will be in the future,
but we can't bank on that and allocate budgets to imaginary robotic scientists
that are better than humans.

I've been trolled haven't I?

~~~
dharmach
> because we have to in order to ensure the continued survival of (known) life
> in the universe

Why not send bacteria which may evolve or may create environment for other
form of life? If by known life you mean human, why is it so important to
ensure the continued survival of human species in the universe?

~~~
WallyL
> If by known life you mean human, why is it so important to ensure the
> continued survival of human species in the universe?

I know this isn't a constructive comment but... Really? Like you don't see the
point at all?

------
Gravityloss
The existence of Apollo is a curse that has made it almost impossible for NASA
to plan any modest sustainable capabilities in human exploration.

Instead it's often "let's build our own huge rockets and launch a few huge
missions per year". This makes it expensive and unsustainable. The
development, the upkeep, the operations, everything is unscalable.

It's like if you want to create a new app, you decide you need custom
transistors. Division of work. Added value. Concentrate on what your core
competencies are. Start small and verify your solutions.

------
kylebrown
What are the physics behind the 20mb/s bandwidth limit over radio? He said
more than that isn't "feasible", because of power requirements or why?

~~~
etimberg
The information bandwidth in bytes/s is limited by the SNR and the bandwidth
(in Hz) of the radio channel. The atmospheric "window" is only so large. At
the same time, antenna's can only be so focused and transmit power is only so
high. If you're interested in reading more about this look up "link budgets."

------
MrZongle2
Not in my lifetime.

 _Somebody_ may get humans to Mars -- an effort that I'm all in favor of --
but given that NASA is kept on a short financial leash by politicians more
interested in dumping money into their constituent areas than funding a long-
term space policy, the odds that the United States government will be behind
the effort are slim at this point.

~~~
Mobiu5
NASA's budget is the highest of all government run space agencies and is three
times that of Russia, which is number two.

~~~
ahoy
So your point is that russia's space program and the ESA (etc) are _also_
underfunded then, yes?

~~~
csallen
No, Mobiu5 is countering MrZongle2's point that a non-NASA entities are likely
to beat NASA to Mars.

I happen to disagree with his analysis, however, because he's not taking non-
government entities like SpaceX into account.

~~~
mikeash
I don't see him making any reference to non-NASA entities at all. All he said
is that a trip to Mars made by somebody, anybody, might happen someday, but
the odds of sufficient financial support for this attempt are poor.

~~~
csallen
_> Somebody may get humans to Mars ... [but] the odds that the United States
government will be behind the effort are slim at this point._

i.e. non-NASA entities have a better chance than NASA

~~~
mikeash
Doesn't follow.

Edit: I see he has other replies that clarify that this is exactly what he's
thinking. "I'm fairly confident that I'll see humans on Mars before I die. I
just don't believe NASA will be behind the effort." I still maintain that this
is not indicated in the original comment, but that starts to become
unimportant.

------
chrissyb
This is great but we should really colonize the moon first. It allows us to
get all the necessary systems in place in a test environment. Earth is only 3
days away from the moon rather than 9 months to Mars.

It also makes sense to work on the moon first so we can use it to leap frog to
mars rather than sending a shuttle through earths atmosphere.

~~~
dj2stein9
> leap frog to mars rather than sending a shuttle through earths atmosphere.

But you still have to get the human through Earth's atmosphere and out of
orbit anyways. Once you're out of Earth's orbit you might as well coast all
the way to Mars because landing on the Moon doesn't gain you anything.

~~~
chrissyb
I suppose that is true, is it to early to talk space elevators? ;)

------
tsotha
I'll believe it when I see it. This must be about the 20th such announcement
from NASA, and the other 19 have sunk into the bureaucratic morass without a
trace. I see no reason to think this time is different, particularly in light
of the mountain of unfunded liabilities that are going to keep budgets tight
for decades.

------
ajarmst
Yeah, I believed you guys when you told me that in early 70s. I stopped
believing after the fourth or fifth time you gave up. Or maybe when it was
when you stopped being able to even put people in LEO. Humans may one day go
to Mars, but they won't be wearing NASA logos. Unless it's ironically.

------
agrona
The intriguing point to me that I haven't seen addressed on any reporting of
the announcement is this:

Is the plan to put humans on the surface and then bring them back home? How do
they intend to land and get back off of the planet?

(Forgive me if they addressed this in the video; I haven't had time to watch
it yet.)

------
raquo
What is this, a positive side effect of Cold War II? I'm sort of joking, but
not really.

------
hackuser
The essential issue for Mars, as well as for most other issues, is the
Republican Party's refusal to fund government programs. Until they change or
are voted out of office, all planning and discussion are hot air.

~~~
danielweber
Neither party really cares. There has been one pro-space guy running for
office in the past 15 years.

~~~
vtbassmatt
Unless you count goodspaceguy here in Seattle.
[http://info.kingcounty.gov/kcelections/candidatesonballot/pa...](http://info.kingcounty.gov/kcelections/candidatesonballot/pamphlet/pamphlet.aspx?cid=45691&listtype=PRIMARY&eid=1256#c20293)

/s

~~~
spb
Of course Mike Nelson wants to go to space. He misses his old spaceship, where
he had to watch those bad movies with his robot pals.

(Oh yeah, I just remembered he dropped the "Mike Nelson" part of his name
years ago. Too bad.)

------
soperj
I love all the people saying that Space-X's main goal is to turn a profit, or
that they have to turn a profit. They're a private company, not a public one.
As long as they still have people willing to do work for them for what they
pay them(if anything) then a private company can do whatever it likes(legally)
without making a profit at all. It's private, the goals are up to the whims of
the owners.

------
Marcus10110
2030s? Why wait 5-15 years after SpaceX gets there? I'm guessing it will be a
little awkward when they try to plant the flag on Elon's lawn.

side note, you can get SpaceX flags here:
[http://shop.spacex.com/accessories-58/spacex-flag-
bundle.htm...](http://shop.spacex.com/accessories-58/spacex-flag-bundle.html)

~~~
dspillett
_> Why wait 5-15 years after SpaceX gets there?_

This isn't the 70s where there was political pressure to do what-ever it takes
lest the damn Ruskies beat you to it and make you look weak. It is reassuring
that they are planning for what they can achieve safely rather than doing
what-ever is needed to get there first (assuming that is in fact what they are
doing, of course). And maybe SpaceX won't get there as fast as they hope -
their plans do seem rather ambitious.

------
givan
Maybe the whole NASA budget should be used for researching a better propulsion
engine first, with the current technology going to mars is extremely expensive
and inefficient, we are stuck with chemical propelled rockets since ww2, with
a breakthrough in this area we could achieve so much more, we need to focus
our resources better.

------
sbussard
If you got the politics out of NASA they could do just about anything. I've
worked at a couple different places in NASA and the talent varies from place
to place. It's the politics that ruin everything.

------
smegel
Personally I would much, MUCH rather see this money spent on further
exploration of other planets and their moons. Imagine having a rover on one of
the moons of Jupiter. To me Mars is just not that interesting.

------
ArtDev
Cool, space launch system (SLS) is a great start!
[https://twitter.com/NASA/status/539814651404754944](https://twitter.com/NASA/status/539814651404754944)

~~~
antubbs
It's a launch platform without clear future missions or funding. After the
surplus RS-25 engines from the shuttle program are used (designed to be re-
usable, they are heavy and expensive and will be destroyed by the launches)
it's not clear what will power the launch vehicle. It's a very expensive big
rocket with an unclear future in both engineering and political terms.

------
Marcus316
I missed the live briefing ... is there a replay somewhere that I can watch?

~~~
drdeadringer
Found it on YouTube:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBoj-1m-qLU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBoj-1m-qLU)

------
dredmorbius
Is there any more substantive statement than this Tweet?

------
mp99e99
Wow! This is amazing, glad to be alive to see this!

------
fredsted
What an amazing time to be alive.

------
shirro
Awaiting announcement of Commercial Crew to Mars program.

------
gchokov
Love the fact that it was first announced on Twitter :)

------
known
Plutonium: The scary element that helps probe space's secrets.

[http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29274491](http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29274491)

------
known
Will they come back?

------
known
Can they come back?

------
Eleutheria
Bush senior said so in 1989. Bush junior said so in 2004. Obama now says so
ten years later.

I'll wait for hillary to send us to mars in 2050, thanks, women have more
balls.

~~~
liquidise
and at the ripe age of 103 no less...

~~~
spb
We're all going to be immortal heads in glass jars by that point.

------
ArtDev
It about time!

------
fenollp
So uh, Mars is smaller than Earth now?

~~~
thangalin
Relative sizes of planets and stars:

[http://davidjarvis.ca/dave/gallery/star-
sizes/](http://davidjarvis.ca/dave/gallery/star-sizes/)

------
GhostCursor
You don't have any radiation shielding.

Why not try surviving under the ocean first? Fail Squad NASA.

~~~
seanflyon
"If you recruited the Mars crew out of smokers and sent them to Mars without
their tobacco you would be reducing their chance of getting cancer." \- Dr.
Robert Zubrin

------
wpankey
Sure! Let's destroy another planet with our insatiable resource seeking.
Anyone know of any sci-fi tomes where humans play the role of an unstoppable
galactic virus? If so, whoever/whomever wrote it may be onto something :(

~~~
EthanHeilman
The "destruction of mars" for the purposes of resource exploitation is a major
theme in KSR Mars books[0]. Although the actual evil of resource exploitation
and terraforming on Mars is highly debated in the books, with many
perspectives represented.

[0]: [http://www.amazon.com/Red-Mars-Trilogy-Stanley-
Robinson/dp/0...](http://www.amazon.com/Red-Mars-Trilogy-Stanley-
Robinson/dp/0553560735)

~~~
wpankey
Interesting -thanks EthanH

