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.
Propulsion science is just too primitive at this time. This is where the bulk of the money needs to be spent.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
How dumb. The first man on Mars is someone who will be remembered forever.
Thankfully, small-minded cretins like yourself are in a minority.
No, we are no interested. Next question.
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).
Um, no. Water as rocket fuel is separating out water into H and O, turning them into liquid, and burning them as rocket fuel.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Wouldn't you swear if you were just left behind on freaking Mars with no way home?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
"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.
I read that we scanned less than 1% of the sky with any regularity, if at all.
We already have 100% coverage of the sky, just not at the desired resolution and light sensitivity. Further, asteroids don't spontaneously spring into existence or jump around. Once you have nailed down the position of an asteroid, it's not going to disappear on you. And you don't need to look at the entire sky to find all inner Solar System asteroids. They have to pass through certain regions of the sky as viewed from Earth.
I presume, then, that you know rockets.
You demonstrate some serious shortsightedness in other areas, though.
Backing up to your rocket-ness, as it were, you know that the energy budget is almost the entire problem. In space, there is an unlimited energy supply 24/7. Gathering can be done on any scale, and once the scale becomes automated, surplus energy is a guaranteed result.
This is the end game: Manufacturing problems: material supply: near infinite. Material costs: extremely low, essentially whatever it costs self-maintaining equipment to maintain itself, which -- eventually -- will be nothing. Manufacturing room: unlimited in our terms. Shipment costs -- near zero (unlimited energy, continuous incoming streams of raw materials and outgoing finished products or intermediate materials, etc.)
We can't do this if we stay here. It's not just difficult, it's flat-out impossible. Whereas in space, it's definitely going to be difficult, and you bet it'll be expensive, but the reward is huge beyond the wildest dreams of any sitting economist or world leader today.
The eggs in one basket is also a very serious issue all by itself for anyone who feels that survival as a race is a worthy goal. Not everyone does, of course, but I definitely do.
We need to go. Naysayers need to be beaten with a wet noodle until the understand it.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.