Water on Mars?

[peakishmael]

Re: Water on Mars?

I remember 10 years ago when we were supposed to return to the Moon by 2020 and get to Mars by 2030. Then Constellation got cancelled. The Ares V was scrapped in the process, along with the smaller Ares I. The only thing that survived the cuts was the Orion Crew Capsule. But now that's still in development, supposedly to go on the SLS, even though it was supposed to be finished already.

I also remember 10 years before that, when we had the X-33 as a replacement for the shuttle. That got scrapped for funding at 90% complete or something.

The truth is, NASA hasn't completed a manned space vehicle project since the Space Shuttle. And the way Congress is going, I doubt the SLS will ever come to fruition.

Plus, the former head of the SLS and Mars 2020 program has been calling for scrapping them for a year now. The knives are already out. The calls for scrapping the program will get louder. They'll talk about how expensive it is. More and more NASA administrators will agree. Then they'll promise you some other snake oil.

I also have very little faith in private manned spaceflight. It's simply not a profitable industry. Corner cutting and squeezing dollars out of sketchy safety moves gives you nothing but 20% failure rates. Any savings they 'discover' simply adds risk. Any profit they make simply comes directly out of taxpayers' pockets anyways. I don't see why cuts to NASA's budget won't simply be every bit as devastating to a private company that relies solely on NASA for revenue to do deep-space manned flight as it would if you just simply let NASA do the project without handing billions to a middle man.

Anyways, sorry to be so negative. But I'm pretty sure it's the truth. It seems to me we're a long, long way away from even being able to send a man to the moon again. Maybe 20+ years if they start boosting funding now. But they won't. A US mission to Mars isn't happening in my lifetime. Maybe the Chinese will pull it off by 2050 if I'm lucky enough to still be kicking around then. But China's space program is going down a dark path too.

My guess is that space programs have become so kleptocratic now that nothing big will ever get done. They're simply a way to hand out cushy favors and free government cash to billionaires now. The object is never actually innovation or mission completion. It's simply politicians and bureaucrats taking public money and handing it directly to corrupt private interests in exchange for favors down the line. It's more important that someone like Musk or some relation of Xi gets his very deep pockets lined than anything actually gets done.

The path has been pioneered for years now. Promise something 20 years out. Burn billions in contracts building it right up until the point the mission might begin. Then scrap the project. Hand out a bunch of new contracts. Hand another player enough to build a low earth orbit platform instead (the only potentially commercially viable platform). Then set a new promise for 20 years out. Burn billions again. Rinse and repeat.

We haven't set a human speed record since Apollo 10 in 1969.

Probably not coincidentally, that's about the last year the middle class saw its real earnings grow in the US.

Since then the game has just been robbing everybody blind.

There is no higher purpose.

I don't disagree with much of what you wrote. I just wanted to make sure everyone understood that there IS an active program for future human space flight beyond low-earth orbit, although as you point out its success is far from guaranteed.

Apollo happened quickly, in another era, for other reasons. Not clear that environment is ever coming back.

Meanwhile, NASA's science and aeronautics programs remain vital and productive.

[santafe2]

Re: Water on Mars?

Meanwhile, NASA's science and aeronautics programs remain vital and productive.

Yup, spending millions to promote The Martian. As we give up on planet earth I suppose NASA will offer options.

[shiny!]

Re: Water on Mars?

Yup, spending millions to promote The Martian. ...

Really?

[peakishmael]

Re: Water on Mars?

Really?

No. santafe2, whose opinions I respect, was in this case greatly exaggerating at best.

[santafe2]

Re: Water on Mars?

No. santafe2, whose opinions I respect, was in this case greatly exaggerating at best.

Sorry Shiny!, just having some fun with this. NASA wants money to go to Mars, "liquid water" found on Mars and a great movie about Mars come out in the same week. I would bet there's a little coordination going on but NASA can't underwrite movies...only the CIA or NSA has that level of dark money....

[lektrode]

Re: Water on Mars?

still say the 'mission to mars' is nothing but the latest vers of 'fusion' = distraction by the 'too far away' that is preventing more 'doable' stuff like maybe building a base on the moon - which is far more doable in the present, but that which would require massive expenditures - vs going to mars, which aint happnin anytime soon, but allows em to keep nasa funded (while accomplishing as little as possible)

[peakishmael]

Re: Water on Mars?

still say the 'mission to mars' is nothing but the latest vers of 'fusion' = distraction by the 'too far away' that is preventing more 'doable' stuff like maybe building a base on the moon - which is far more doable in the present, but that which would require massive expenditures - vs going to mars, which aint happnin anytime soon, but allows em to keep nasa funded (while accomplishing as little as possible)

Let's not overgeneralize. NASA's science and aeronautics missions are not much dependent on human space flight, and they are accomplishing as MUCH as possible within limited funding, which is quite a lot if you've been watching. Not just the robots at Mars but also Pluto, asteroids, Jupiter, Saturn, the Sun, Hubble and other astrophysics missions, plus Earth science, which may be the most important.

[peakishmael]

Re: Water on Mars?

Sorry Shiny!, just having some fun with this. NASA wants money to go to Mars, "liquid water" found on Mars and a great movie about Mars come out in the same week. I would bet there's a little coordination going on but NASA can't underwrite movies...only the CIA or NSA has that level of dark money....

Correct, NASA is using the movie to highlight it's own plans. But they can't underwrite movies.

There was no coordination between the timing of the liquid water announcement, and the release of the movie. The science paper, which was published on September 28 by Nature, was submitted for peer review to that journal by the non-NASA scientist many months ago. None of that was under NASA's control. If it hadn't been that paper, NASA could have featured others when the movie came out, as interesting Mars findings are published pretty regularly.

[shiny!]

Re: Water on Mars?

Thanks for the clarification on the funding. I'm so gullible...

Let's not overgeneralize. NASA's science and aeronautics missions are not much dependent on human space flight, and they are accomplishing as MUCH as possible within limited funding, which is quite a lot if you've been watching. Not just the robots at Mars but also Pluto, asteroids, Jupiter, Saturn, the Sun, Hubble and other astrophysics missions, plus Earth science, which may be the most important.

The contributions NASA has made to our lives via spin-off technologies is astounding, IMO. I'm sure the organization is less efficient and more bloated than it used to be but I'm still a big NASA fan.

I was born in 1958. Growing up in San Antonio with relatives in Houston, my family followed every move NASA made. My parents attended a banquet in Houston and met the Apollo 1 astronauts a few months before their tragic deaths. I remember Mom came home from that trip all gaga over Gus Grissom. Said he was the nicest guy...

[lektrode]

Re: Water on Mars?

...I'm so gullible...was born in 1958. Growing up in San Antonio with relatives in Houston, my family followed every move NASA made. ...

but that dont make ya a bad grrrl...

the 'giant step for mankind' was runnin LIVE on the tube that day, EDT, as eye recall it...

and '58 was a very good year, ms shiny!

[shiny!]

Re: Water on Mars?

but that dont make ya a bad grrrl...

the 'giant step for mankind' was runnin LIVE on the tube that day, EDT, as eye recall it...

and '58 was a very good year, ms shiny!

1958 also marked the introduction of Lektrode and the Iceberg rose. A very good year indeed!