NASA: We're sending humans to Mars

Re:NASA: We're sending humans to Mars by anigbrowl on Tuesday December 02, 2014 @02:43PM (#8689347)

We're already scheduled to spend a similar amount on simply maintaining our (US) nuclear deterrent. Not that I think we should abandon it or that it lacks strategic importance, but I do wonder about scale, in the same way that I wonder if NASA could find more efficient approaches.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:NASA: We're sending humans to Mars by fargolime on Tuesday December 02, 2014 @03:27PM (#8689624)

So you're okay with paying extra taxes today so money needn't be borrowed from the kids (and their kids) for a Mars expedition?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:NASA: We're sending humans to Mars by anigbrowl on Tuesday December 02, 2014 @04:04PM (#8689890)

Yeah, some, although I think that with 30 year t-bills at ~3% some of it should be financed by debt, as we're likely to develop multiple growth- (and thus revenue-) enhancing technologies over a 30 year period.

For perspective, Medicare and social security outlays over the same period are likely to exceed $50 trillion.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:NASA: We're sending humans to Mars by fargolime on Tuesday December 02, 2014 @04:26PM (#8690020)

Okay, thanks for sharing your opinion on that. Myself, I'd rather see it paid off as costs are incurred, if we spend the money at all. If we weren't so in far in debt already (i.e. if future kids weren't so doomed), then we could take a chance on those revenue enhancements coming to fruition.

[ Parent | on HN ]