Slashdot Mirror
Can The Martian Give NASA's Mars Efforts a Hollywood Bump?
Flash Modin writes: NASA has poured considerable time and resources into Ridley Scott's The Martian — perhaps more than any other movie in history — going so far as to time a Mars human landing site selection workshop to coincide with the film. Jim Green, NASA's head of planetary sciences, was one of the consultants, with other astronomers fact checking every aspect of the set and script. The rockets, modules, and space suits were built — and 3-D printed — with heavy guidance from NASA. The filmmakers even hired Rudi Schmidt, former project manager of the European Space Agency's Mars Express spacecraft, to test the experiments done in the movie, including turning water into rocket fuel — which works. And, on the eve of The Martian's premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival this weekend, some of those scientists believe that this obsessive adherence to science fact will be enough to make NASA's Journey to Mars real for Americans. The space agency needs a Hail Mary because, in truth, the real program is nowhere near ready for prime time.
How dumb. The first man on Mars is someone who will be remembered forever.
Thankfully, small-minded cretins like yourself are in a minority.
Have you seen the usual Mars movie from Hollywood? This movie is FAR more realistic than almost any other ones out there. And for true space geeks (of which NASA is full of), the book is fantastic.
The movie isn't some ultra-clever attempt to kickstart public support, although that doesn't hurt. NASA's funding has shrunk as a portion of GDP, as a portion of government spending, and even when just adjusted for inflation even while NASA now is tasked with a far more ambitious mission (to send people to Mars), such that NASA makes up less one half of one percent of the federal budget (this while the public either think NASA has a much larger portion of the federal budget or has been utterly shut down). A little public support wouldn't hurt, though what NASA really needs is the political freedom to rationalize some of their programs (like being freed by Congress to use existing launch vehicles for exploration, like from ULA or SpaceX, instead of spending so much of their budget on SLS) so they can afford to build things like landers and the like instead of things the private/military sectors already have built (like launch vehicles).
"Can The Martian Give NASA's Mars Efforts a Hollywood Bump?"
Yes, for about 30 days. Then we'll have BlackFriday, Xmas, etc. All will be forgotten, while waiting for the next Survivor/Dancing/Bachelor/whatever.
Right, Nothing. Just essentially inexhaustible natural resources, defeating our civilization's all-eggs-in-one-basket issue, endless non-polluting-of-living-environment industrial space, low-grav environments for the disabled and elderly, low and zero-grav industrial environments, endless storage and manufacturing space, CHON, no, nothing at all "out there." Whatever are those "scientists" thinking?!?!?!?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
> There's nothing for us out there, unless you are unusually attracted to radiation-blasted vacuum.
One could have said something similar about the American west, or Australian outback. Not vacuum, but a hostile environment. In fact, 80% of the Earth is inhospitable without the help of technology (the oceans, deserts, and ice caps). Slightly better technology will allow us to live anywhere in the Solar System.
Perhaps you see nothing out there, but I've done some real estate development in the past, and all I see are opportunities.
I've said before to underwhelming response, we need to spend on protecting this gorgeous planet of ours from big rocks coming at us. It has happened before, so instead of trying to get off this really nice planet on to a crappy cold rock, we should first make sure we can defend the nice home with air, water and food before trying to build on a long shot.
The two are not mutually exclusive. As a matter of fact, they are complementary efforts. And given that there are 7 billion humans, we can actually focus on more than one goal.
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
Are you suggesting we'll get to the low energy + material cost state by sitting on our thumbs? There's a huge learning curve here. We either climb it to get to the honey, or we don't get the honey.
Again, are you suggesting we'll get to the "resources, energy and know-how" state by sitting on our thumbs?
First of all, "out there" is not just mars. Second of all, no. The ocean floor has almost none of the benefits space provides.
ok, fine, endless vacuum. It's a challenge. It's not an impossible to breach barrier. And learning to do it, particularly learning to do it space-to-space instead of ground-to-space -- is part of the process. Once we get an industrial base established -- and that's the key here, make no mistake -- costs will drop precipitously. Robotics will drive that too, but there are all manner of advantages for humans "out there."
Yes, creating a viable presence off-planet / in space is very challenging. But no, it isn't something we should -- or really, can afford to -- ignore.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.