Status quo won't get you to Mars - new NASA chief

The only problem I have with Bolden's quote...

"The challenge for us in the next few months is to figure out what the single most efficient, most cost-effective path is to get [to Mars]"

...is this:
The most efficient and cost-effective path may not be the best path for long-time sustained exploration of Mars and beyond.

I'm afraid that we will go to Mars just for the sake of going to Mars -- just like the goal of Apollo was simply to get to the Moon so we could wave and say "we're here". The one good thing about a slow approach may be that the overall goal is long-term exploration of Mars -- THAT'S the goal. The goal should not be to simply "get there".

We already made that mistake with Apollo.



[edit on 7/22/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by jkrog08
if our race depended on it.

Therein lies the rub. We could probably get a generational interstellar spaceship off our world in 20 years if the continuation of our species depended on it. It would be an amazing machine, and it might even succeed, precisely because necessity is the mother of invention. We aren't really trying all that hard to reach for other worlds because it's not viewed as a necessity. NASA needs to do a better job of getting the word out on how much manned deep space exploration can benefit our technological development back on earth.

reply to post by ngchunter

NASA needs to do a better job of getting the word out on how much manned deep space exploration can benefit our technological development back on earth.

Well said and I could not agree more with you.

I wonder what methods they could use to get people interested again?

reply to post by jkrog08


One easy way would be to showcase its technological advancements.
According to NASA, the dizzying array of products that use technologies or materials originally developed for the space program includes: TV satellite dishes, medical imaging devices, the in-the-ear thermometer, fire-resistant materials used in firefighting, smoke detectors, sunglasses, cordless power tools, the Space Pen, shock-absorbing materials used in helmets, the joystick video game controllers and, even, golf balls.

And that list doesn't even count such now-taken for granted advances as global positioning devices, food freeze-drying and preservation processes, and communication and weather satellites.

Im sure there's plenty more inventions the human race could benefit from by reigniting space exploration.

reply to post by jkrog08


There could be a simple reason for the lax attitude towards these missions..

NASA, ESA and the rest are just publicity fronts and the real missions are being done behind closed doors..

Its very possible..

reply to post by Dermo


I think that is highly likely but I like to separate probability from known facts. So while I think there is a secret space force that is likely 1,000s of years in advance than current knowledge, I can not prove it so I stick to what is known, well in threads like these anyways.

reply to post by LiveForever8

Even if we forget all of those space age products, there is still the fact that people in the United States began to take interest in the sciences, engineering, and math as a direct result of the space race in the 1960s.

Many of those young people who became engineers or scientists because of the space race are the same people who drove the great technological boom of the 1980s, 1990s and onward.

Programs such as Apollo got some of the best young minds in the U.S. (and the world, for that matter) interested in technology, and because of that the U.S. and the world later reaped the rewards.

Another thing that NASA may want to try is to actually do something ambitious, or at least propose it. I mean to be honest even though some of their past missions have been intriguing to space geeks like myself-to the general public they are, well BORING. They need something to "spice up space again". I thought Mars or He3 might be it, but maybe not....

Maybe someone who is reading this and part of the "secret space program" can leak just a few decades advanced tech to NASA?

Let the Russians go, they have a whole complex and training
and planing operation right now.
Let us find out what is wrong with NASA and a lot of other concerns.
If we let the Russians go first like they did launching Satellites and
going to the Moon and Dark Side first.
We will get all steamed up and go to Mars in 10 years like we did to the Moon.
Only Pink Floyd made money from the Dark Side of the Moon.
A Michael Jackson made the most money Moon Walking.
Get ready for 18 months in space and another hit song or dance.

they claim we went to the moon in the 60s within 10 years after the speech of JFK..
So they could go to the moon with technology of the 60s within 10 years
but we cant go to mars within 10 years with nowadays technology.
If you see the state of technology we have today we could all ready have been to the moons of saturn and jupiter.
strange they want man on mars in 2035 that is 25 years time
and to the moon in 2o20/ 2025 .. thats 10 to 15 years.
We can go to the moon next year if we are willing.. and do the same as in the 60.
build a arianna 5 heavy version from the ESA and when the orion capsule is ready and tested this year plase it atop and launche the lander system on an idenitcal system and launch them to the moon. they can do it.
if they can launch several satelites a year they can also launch astronauts to the moon the coming 2 years.

reply to post by MarkLuitzen

It's not the lack of technology that is keeping NASA from going to Mars, or getting back to the Moon more quickly -- it's the lack of money.

NASA's current annual budget is about $18 Billion -- and that's for everything that NASA does: the space shuttle, the space station, the new Mars lander, AND the Constellation (Manned Moon) Program, plus other things such as supporting ongoing mission like the Mars Rovers and the Cassini probe.

In the 1960s, NASA's annual budget was about $30 Billion (corrected for inflation) and the vast majority of that money went towards the Apollo program.

If NASA spent -- say -- $20 Billion to $25 Billion annually on going to Mars, we would be able to be there in less than 10 years. Humans DO have the technology and know-how to do it.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


if some private interpreneurs can launch rockets and satelites into space as proven last week for only a couple of milions of dollars 50 milion or less.
why can't nasa to the same for a fraction of the cost?

They have lost there balls they are afraid to lose people and yes its sad to lose people but there are soldiers killed in afghanistan in a daily bases .

Yes I know that NASA is grossly underfunded but they stopped to quickly with breaktrough projects.. And a former NASA employee is developing the VASMIR engine technology private and commercially because they are given the time the money and they will have a system operational which can take us too mars within 39 days to 4 months.
NASA can better take there money and create a propulsion system for in space to the planning and the communication and when arriving on destinations do the sciences but let the private commercials build the landers the habitats and the other equipment.
IF NASA builds a nuclear powered high energy propulsion system launch it in space and build it together there and use the ISS as the departure place so private rockets like the delta 4 or rocket of spacex to launch crew and the cabine to space they can reuse the propulsion system as much as they want and use the ISS as a station to inspect the craft and refuel it for the trip. so only the lander and the crew cabin have to be launched for each mision.
they have to think cost saving and yes I want the NASA get half of the money the US DOD gets.

reply to post by MarkLuitzen


Launching satellites into space is MUCH MUCH cheaper than launching people. Spaceflight costs rise exponentially once humans are added to the mix.

NASA can launch satellites and unmanned probes "on the cheap" also. They, too can launch $50 million Earth-orbiting satellites, and the LCROSS mission to impact the Moon is only $79 million. -- and that includes development costs, hardware costs, and ongoing mission costs.

[edit on 7/23/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

im not a big fan of manned spaceflight. Far too expensive considering the science return we get is almost zero.

Proper science missions are getting canned left , right & center to spend $50+ billion on going to the moon. And for what? so we can watch them hit golf balls around on it? No thanks

We can do the science at these places using robotic probes for a fraction of the cost. No need for people to be there.



[edit on 23-7-2009 by yeti101]