NASA gets funding for Mars mission

[Hydra009]

While the argument against NASA is framed as a dichotomy, I doubt that it will ever even become a choice between one or the other.  Lets say we nix all further space exploration right now to save the planet from global warming.  To think all that money saved is going to be appropriated to forestall climate change would be naïve.  Congress controls the purse strings, and they would do the same thing with the NASA funds not spent that they do with your social security taxes.  They would spend it on other things.

True.  But let's be say for the sake of argument that the entire NASA budget (around $20 billion) goes towards fighting climate change.  The article says that would be enough by a long shot for the US to do its part to fight climate change.  Instead, he's talking about around 4% of the federal budget - probably more - which dwarfs NASA's current roughly 0.5% budget.  So what's the point of even bringing it up?  The only explanation I see for this is that it's his pet cause.  It's a cause I agree with and sympathize with, but I honestly can't stand people who have to make everything about their pet cause.  We have two separate issues intertwined solely because the author saw a news article about X but wanted to talk about issue Y.  Instead, he really should have just talked about issue Y directly or brought up issue Y based on news about Y.  That would have been far less off-putting.

I even wonder if that guy cares about climate change at all or is just using climate change as a tempting argument to funnel NASA funding away from space and into the mining industry.

I generally assume that people are being genuine unless they give me cause to doubt their sincerity.  And a cursory search reveals that he writes a lot about climate change.  I doubt think there's anything nefarious going on.

[Baruch]

Elon Musk already uses corporate whore money ... from taxpayers for the Tesla.  He wants a private planet, and have the taxpayers foot the bill.  This is reasonable, since the plutocrats want Earth to be their private plantation already.  Hope y'all are good at pickin' cotton.

[SGOS]

I generally assume that people are being genuine unless they give me cause to doubt their sincerity.  And a cursory search reveals that he writes a lot about climate change.  I doubt think there's anything nefarious going on.

He's probably sincere, and it doesn't bother me that much that he hijacked a topic to get to his own.  But as you point out, it's not necessary.  They are two separate issues.  And there is no reason to defund NASA, unless you oppose it.  And there are plenty of people who don't want to fund NASA, but politics involves a lot of reallocating money to pet projects.  And while climate control is important, in the end I don't see dollars ending up there, whether they come from NASA or someplace else, because I don't believe enough people care about it enough, especially those in power.  If I'm right, the most I would expect is some minor spending on climate control, but just enough to create an impression that government is trying to do something about it.  Creating the impression is all that is needed to get re-elected.

I'm very pessimistic about the future of climate control.  I have very little hope that we will seriously tackle the problem as a planet.  I can't tell you how much I wish I'm wrong about this, but those are my honest feelings.  However, I don't think we should quit pressing for the necessary changes either, even if it's a matter of dying while trying.  Sometimes, you lose a war, but I'm not going to throw in the towel because of that.

[Cocoa Beware]

What's the plan?

We haven't even gone back to the moon yet, and I was under the impression it would be prudent to first establish a more or less permanent presence there before considering Mars, for example the lesser gravity and lack of atmosphere would make a launch from the Moon much more practical then from Earth.

There are other considerations as well. How are the passengers going to protect themselves from radiation over an extended period of time? What about fuel? I'm pretty sure for the return trip we'll have to know how to make fuel out of the materials at hand on Mars.

Also, what's the point? It would make sense if such a venture could be made economically viable.

[Hydra009]

What's the plan?

Dunno.  But we have 20ish years to come up with one.

NASA's on the planning/prep stages, so details are pretty sparce.  But they're working on beefing up high-powered solar electric propulsion (faster trips means radiation is less of an issue) and developing the Orion launch vehicle.  Also, there is a plan to stop by the moon in advance of the Mars mission.  And no, they don't anticipate refueling on Mars - so they'd have to have enough fuel to launch from Earth then launch from Mars.

[Baruch]

Earth orbit is economically viable ... if you are a government, not if you are a corporation.  The corporate viability comes from being a government contractor.  Going to the Moon or Mars is strictly science ... and distracting the rubes.  The rubes need extra distracting when the seas rise and the oil runs out.  Look, look ... shiny things!  Mining asteroids might be economical someday ... but more economical than recycling?  We deliberately discourage recycling ... for economic reasons.