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.
> 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.
What exactly is the incentive for the private sector to go to Mars? Going back as far as the colonization of the New World, high risk and expensive exploration has traditionally been funded by governments.
Maybe when I a see private sector company at least get a human into LEO, let alone get someone to the Moon, we can start talking about whether they'll be able to pull off a Mars mission.
To add to the discussion... according to the briefing, they believe that all of the technologies required for a human mission to Mars are 15 years away, assuming that all technologies are fully tested. This puts an approximate time-line near 2030 [1].
Question from Scott Powers, The Orlando Sentinel:
"The technologies you talked about that are still a long ways from being fully developed, the EDL [2], the propellant and communications. Do you have a sense for what kind of time tables we're talking about, to get those to the point where they'll be able to be used in manned missions?"
Answer from Dr. James Reuther [3]:
"[...] To get all the way to the point where we are able to put 10 metric tons, 10 times what we can do today, to the surface or greater, which is what's really required for a human mission, is probably going to take until the beginning of 2030 before we have all of those technologies in hand, ready to go at that scale. And, that means that they're fully demonstrated and ready for that kind of mission."
In all honesty, I saw an #Onion tag at the end of the tweet and I thought it's a story made by the onion - had to read twice to see it's Orion, though it has more credibility with my first interpretation.
>>> NASA became paralyzed not by budget cuts, but by political in-fighting, fractured organizational structure and lots and lots of red tape.
My best friend's dad was a NASA scientist for almost 30 years. By the time the 90's rolled around and in the post Challenger era, he used to tell us neighborhood kids the same stories.
He finally retired in the early 1990's when budget cuts, in-fighting and the struggle to remain relevant were just too much for him to take. He' still bitter to this day about how he felt politicians ruined the agency.
I worked for NASA, the budget cuts alone helped bring it to where it is today. In the 1980s, we were still using technology from the 1950s because we couldn't afford to replace it. Things have only gotten worse since then.
You don't think they'll put humans on Mars within this century? Really? That's not a conservative statement. A conservative statement is, yea we'll probably get to Mars this century, but maybe not in the next 20 years.
It's not just that. The difficulties in sending a human to Mars and safely returning him/her are way beyond anything we have ever tried. It wouldn't be that bad to send a human to, say, Phobos, but Mars poses some extra problems, not the least of which is how to land.
An atmosphere too thick for retro rockets and too thin for parachutes is a major impediment.
So until I start seeing progress on those issues, I will see this just as sci-fi.
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.
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.
I don't think there's anything wrong with your perspective, but what do you think about the potential in-direct value that could come from a mission like this? Such as inspiring young people to pursue STEM, or the general population getting behind and funding other exploratory missions involving robots? You say that most NASA resources will be soaked up. That's possible, but what do you think about the potential in-direct benefits of getting the human race excited about space exploration?
We can already send robots to Mars. The challenge is sending living human beings. Thats where the innovations will come from, that goal will motivate and push progress.
"And when [robots] die it is not a national tragedy."
Exactly. No one, apart from a few invested souls, really cares. For this reason progress slows and innovation reverts to incremental steps rather than leaps.
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.
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.
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.
Guess what, the Navy doesn't build nuclear submarines. They contract companies to build nuclear submarines. The Air Force doesn't build fighter jets. They contract companies to build fighter jets. NASA didn't build a lot of the Apollo tech, they contracted companies to build Apollo. NASA also contracted companies for Constellation, the Space Shuttle, Orion, SLS, etc.
It's how the government works.
There are some 100% government financed research labs. There is the question of how much oversight the government has over the contractor (service vs design/build). There are different kinds of contracts (fixed price vs cost+).
At no point in time was the government ever building things 100% on their own, it has always been a spectrum. We are moving towards the end of the spectrum where NASA moves one responsibility (launching unmanned payloads to LEO) to a fixed-cost low-oversight service contract. That's great. But it's not like NASA woke up yesterday and realized the private sector is good at doing this kind of stuff.
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.
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."
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...
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.
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?
The Chinese are motivated for nationalistic and propaganda purposes, just like the United States was in the 60s. They'll eventually get to Mars.
Elon Musk is personally motivated, and appears to be able to make the construction and launch of space vehicles commercially viable. If SpaceX doesn't get to Mars, it will at the very least push the commercial space industry to the point where a competitor can.
NASA? They're beholden to a group of self-serving fools on Capitol Hill and the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue (which changes every 4-8 years). They're subject to the whims of politicians, which can make the necessary long-term planning and execution of such an endeavor nigh impossible.
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.
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.
#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.
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.
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.
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.
[+] [-] skriticos2|11 years ago|reply
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
p.s.: There is a free movie on YouTube telling the tale: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcTZvNLL0-w
[+] [-] hackuser|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] efuquen|11 years ago|reply
Maybe when I a see private sector company at least get a human into LEO, let alone get someone to the Moon, we can start talking about whether they'll be able to pull off a Mars mission.
[+] [-] Arjuna|11 years ago|reply
Question from Scott Powers, The Orlando Sentinel:
"The technologies you talked about that are still a long ways from being fully developed, the EDL [2], the propellant and communications. Do you have a sense for what kind of time tables we're talking about, to get those to the point where they'll be able to be used in manned missions?"
Answer from Dr. James Reuther [3]:
"[...] To get all the way to the point where we are able to put 10 metric tons, 10 times what we can do today, to the surface or greater, which is what's really required for a human mission, is probably going to take until the beginning of 2030 before we have all of those technologies in hand, ready to go at that scale. And, that means that they're fully demonstrated and ready for that kind of mission."
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBoj-1m-qLU#t=2304
[2] Entry, Descent and Landing
[3] http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/about_us/bios/reu...
[+] [-] waterlesscloud|11 years ago|reply
I want to be able to sit down and spend a weekend reading the step-by-step book-sized roadmap.
As far as I'm aware, there's not even a project name.
NASA is not going to put a human on Mars in the 2030s. I simply don't believe them anymore.
[+] [-] androidb|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] at-fates-hands|11 years ago|reply
My best friend's dad was a NASA scientist for almost 30 years. By the time the 90's rolled around and in the post Challenger era, he used to tell us neighborhood kids the same stories.
He finally retired in the early 1990's when budget cuts, in-fighting and the struggle to remain relevant were just too much for him to take. He' still bitter to this day about how he felt politicians ruined the agency.
[+] [-] tanglesome|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 3327|11 years ago|reply
NASA is not even close... Not with this budget not with the current brain drain, and 1970's style management.
[+] [-] higherpurpose|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryanmk|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] einhverfr|11 years ago|reply
An atmosphere too thick for retro rockets and too thin for parachutes is a major impediment.
So until I start seeing progress on those issues, I will see this just as sci-fi.
[+] [-] randyrand|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DINKDINK|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DyslexicAtheist|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lerouxb|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] domrdy|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hristov|11 years ago|reply
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|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] finkin1|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 3princip|11 years ago|reply
"And when [robots] die it is not a national tragedy."
Exactly. No one, apart from a few invested souls, really cares. For this reason progress slows and innovation reverts to incremental steps rather than leaps.
[+] [-] Tepix|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] csours|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zerny|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stevebot|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danielweber|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bryanh|11 years ago|reply
Politics + exploration for exploration's sake always seems at odds.
[+] [-] api|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] krschultz|11 years ago|reply
Guess what, the Navy doesn't build nuclear submarines. They contract companies to build nuclear submarines. The Air Force doesn't build fighter jets. They contract companies to build fighter jets. NASA didn't build a lot of the Apollo tech, they contracted companies to build Apollo. NASA also contracted companies for Constellation, the Space Shuttle, Orion, SLS, etc.
It's how the government works.
There are some 100% government financed research labs. There is the question of how much oversight the government has over the contractor (service vs design/build). There are different kinds of contracts (fixed price vs cost+).
At no point in time was the government ever building things 100% on their own, it has always been a spectrum. We are moving towards the end of the spectrum where NASA moves one responsibility (launching unmanned payloads to LEO) to a fixed-cost low-oversight service contract. That's great. But it's not like NASA woke up yesterday and realized the private sector is good at doing this kind of stuff.
[+] [-] jobposter1234|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] dyeje|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dandrews|11 years ago|reply
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/story/2012...
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...
[+] [-] ifdefdebug|11 years ago|reply
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...
[+] [-] chrischen|11 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] frakturfreund|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] desireco42|11 years ago|reply
I have more fate in SpaceX or Chinese to put man on Mars then NASA.
[+] [-] efuquen|11 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] MrZongle2|11 years ago|reply
The Chinese are motivated for nationalistic and propaganda purposes, just like the United States was in the 60s. They'll eventually get to Mars.
Elon Musk is personally motivated, and appears to be able to make the construction and launch of space vehicles commercially viable. If SpaceX doesn't get to Mars, it will at the very least push the commercial space industry to the point where a competitor can.
NASA? They're beholden to a group of self-serving fools on Capitol Hill and the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue (which changes every 4-8 years). They're subject to the whims of politicians, which can make the necessary long-term planning and execution of such an endeavor nigh impossible.
[+] [-] vvpan|11 years ago|reply
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
[+] [-] jonnycowboy|11 years ago|reply
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...
[+] [-] kendallpark|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cryoshon|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] scj|11 years ago|reply
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|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spiritplumber|11 years ago|reply
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|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] azdle|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drdeadringer|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chatmasta|11 years ago|reply
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. ~= >===|=>
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]