NASA: We're sending humans to Mars

Re:NASA: We're sending humans to Mars by Mobiu5 on Tuesday December 02, 2014 @01:52PM (#8688987)

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

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:NASA: We're sending humans to Mars by ahoy on Tuesday December 02, 2014 @01:55PM (#8689004)

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

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:NASA: We're sending humans to Mars by csallen on Tuesday December 02, 2014 @02:06PM (#8689065)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:NASA: We're sending humans to Mars by Mobiu5 on Tuesday December 02, 2014 @02:30PM (#8689254)

I was really just trying to point out that he was trivializing NASA. Maybe a private entity will beat them there, maybe not. But they're clearly far from being an incapable organization and still achieve plenty of cutting edge, "world-first" scientific data gathering, engineering research, etc..

As a side note. I'm willing to bet they will be the first (with collaboration between the other space agencies as they often do).

Edit: Plus, I don't know of any other deep space crew carrier that currently exists. It sounds to me like they have a head start since they already have one in their possession, albeit untested.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:NASA: We're sending humans to Mars by mikeash on Tuesday December 02, 2014 @02:17PM (#8689152)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:NASA: We're sending humans to Mars by csallen on Tuesday December 02, 2014 @02:31PM (#8689263)

> 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

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:NASA: We're sending humans to Mars by mikeash on Tuesday December 02, 2014 @02:52PM (#8689405)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:NASA: We're sending humans to Mars by Zelphyr on Tuesday December 02, 2014 @01:55PM (#8689001)

Isn't that kind-of like saying "My water is WAY cleaner than yours!" when we both live in a swamp? My point being, sure, we spend more than the other guy on space but compared to just about everything else we spend pitifully little on it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:NASA: We're sending humans to Mars by Mobiu5 on Tuesday December 02, 2014 @02:00PM (#8689040)

Perhaps, but I wouldn't underestimate them! They have a lot of ground-breaking projects happening even though you don't see them in the media very often. They do a lot with what they get.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:NASA: We're sending humans to Mars by molmalo on Tuesday December 02, 2014 @02:39PM (#8689323)

Yes, but you have to consider the difference in costs...

[ Parent | on HN ]