Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA: We're Not Racing SpaceX To Mars (seeker.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the tag-you're-it dept.

astroengine writes: According to NASA's new science chief Thomas Zurbuchen, the U.S. space agency doesn't see SpaceX as a competitor in a race to Mars and that if any private company gets there before NASA, it will be cause for celebration and a huge science boon. "If Elon Musk brought the samples in the door right now I'd throw him a party out of my own money," Zurbuchen told reporters on Monday. He also said that polarizing topics, including science issues, need to be tackled with empathy for and patience with people who have opposing viewpoints. "Just because somebody doesn't agree with us the first time we open our mouths doesn't mean that they're stupid, or we're smart, or the other way around. I think it's really important to create, bring some empathy to the table," he told Seeker. "There's a lot of stuff that can be learned by just talking to people." The report adds: "Before joining NASA, Zurbuchen was a professor of space science and aerospace engineering at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. His areas of expertise include solar and heliospheric physics, experimental space research, innovation and entrepreneurship, NASA said in a statement."

55 of 98 comments (clear)

  1. Good attitude by Camembert · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I like his humble, collaborative attitude, befitting a true scientist. I expect that, in practice getting there in a repeatable way will be the result of various international cooperations where different organisations will bring their own skills. Empahy and dialogue can only accelerate the process.

    1. Re: Good attitude by WarJolt · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ever hear the story the tortoise and the hare? In this version the hare blows up. It's really not that hard to be humble.

    2. Re: Good attitude by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Priorities also count. So race to Mars or race to build a city on the Moon. You might find that the city on the moon is far more capable of supporting Mars exploration, than trying to do it from earth (less gravity and no atmosphere). So should NASA focus on the bleeding edge always or should they also start to focus more on building the infrastructure to give others the opportunities to make the most of that space infrastructure that NASA builds, say a landing and launch facility on the moon, Mars ship assembly, fuel generation etc.

      Look at it this way, people say we can't afford, too much debt but you build space infrastructure and you add new assets to offset debts, like the entire surface of the moon or the entire planet Mars and of course a whole bunch of major asteroids and shit we ain't even out of the solar system yet, they can dump debt on all the new planets we find, those colonists will be born in hock up to their eyeballs but they will be out there exploring the galaxy.

      Settling space means creating trillions in new assets and the value of those assets would be bound to the cost of getting there, that exclusivity value and only the best going means the best have something to aim for. Are you good enough to set foot on another world or not?

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    3. Re: Good attitude by Rei · · Score: 1

      The hare should have been more realistic about the tech readiness level of submerging his carbon-fiber COPVs in sub-cooled liquid oxygen.

      --
      "He's a god; it'll take more than one shot." â" Lady Eboshi, Mononoke Hime
    4. Re: Good attitude by khallow · · Score: 1

      You might find that the city on the moon is far more capable of supporting Mars exploration, than trying to do it from earth

      The city on the Moon has to exist first. And IMHO it's not much harder to start doing stuff on Mars than to start doing stuff on the Moon. By the time, you have a city on the Moon, you'll have the means to similarly settle Mars.

      A lunar colony does have two big things in its favor, it's only a few days shipping distance from Earth. And economically, it's that and a few seconds delay from Earth. There's a more economically, one can do on the Moon that's not going to be similarly feasible on Mars.

    5. Re: Good attitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > It's really not that hard to be humble.

      Tell *that* to Keith Alexander.

    6. Re: Good attitude by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You might find that the city on the moon is far more capable of supporting Mars exploration, than trying to do it from earth (less gravity and no atmosphere).

      It is my understanding that there is not an astounding energy difference between a moon landing and a mars landing. The big difference is time. As such, the moon is unlikely to be useful here. It might be useful for learning more about habitations and dust (fines.) The moon has sharper dust, and on Mars it goes sideways much of the year, so the challenges are different but still related. It might be a useful place to practice growing plants in low-G with low light (which can be controlled down to Mars standard.) But it's not going to help us get to Mars unless we figure out how to make both the heavy parts of the craft and the fuel on the moon.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re: Good attitude by Rei · · Score: 1

      The short distance matters a lot in terms of:

      1) The amount of shielding and supplies needed in-transit
      2) Ability of Earth to assist, via low-delay communications, and via emergency shipments (requires a lunar-landing-capable rocket be left available for launch with little advance notice).

      The moon also has lower delta-V requirements for return (arrival is surprisingly similar, though, thanks to aerobraking at Mars, and can even be less with direct aerocapture)

      The moon's surface, however, leaves a great deal to be desired as a habitation location versus Mars.

      --
      "He's a god; it'll take more than one shot." â" Lady Eboshi, Mononoke Hime
    8. Re: Good attitude by NotAPK · · Score: 2

      "The moon's surface, however, leaves a great deal to be desired as a habitation location versus Mars."

      Rei, I like your posts and you are well read/educated in rocketry and planetary science. But what are you basing this on? The 6 mbar CO2 atmosphere on Mars may as well be hard vacuum. Exposure to cosmic rays will be similar in either location. And it's a tough call between the abrasive dust on the moon and the perchlorate-laced soil on Mars. Neither is going to grow you some potatoes. No actual hard evidence for water has been discovered in either place, and until a robotic rover actually picks up a chunk of ice and melts it into water, no one in their right mind is going to travel there on the assumption that they can find water and use it in some way. OK, I'll concede, the gravity on Mars will feel more normal for the astronauts.

      The moon is closer, which makes it much easier to get to.

    9. Re: Good attitude by cjameshuff · · Score: 1

      The need for huge energy storage systems or nuclear power from the very start is a significant problem for the moon. The game-breaker though is ISRU propellant production. Getting enough water on the moon to supply return craft will require large scale mining and regolith processing facilities...meaning any return propellant will have to be imported until the colony is well established. On Mars, it should involve little more than drilling into a glacier and lowering a heat source to sublime the ice, which makes it a lot easier to get your spacecraft back so you can use it on another trip. The relative ease of delivering mass to Mars and greater proportion of the delivered mass that can be productive colony hardware can do a lot to compensate for the greater distance and travel time.

    10. Re:Good attitude by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      SpaceX has a budget to go to Mars, NASA does not. So they are NOT competing to get to Mars.

    11. Re: Good attitude by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      The reasons to go to the moon are currently limited to: Astronomy, power generation (direct or satellite), chip fabs (low gravity increases yields).

    12. Re: Good attitude by cjameshuff · · Score: 1

      It's enough atmosphere to be a substantial assist in landing mass on the surface, and actually does provide significant radiation protection while also moderating temperatures. The perchlorate issue is massively overstated: they are not that toxic, and are easy to remove, and there's entire glaciers of water on Mars.

    13. Re: Good attitude by Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Indeed. And that's just one reason. Here's a few more.

        * We don't know at what gravity levels negative health consequences will occur and at what rate. But the moon's significantly lower gravity will certainly compare poorly to Mars in this regard, regardless of how Mars fares.

        * Mars's atmosphere may be thin, but when it comes to radiation, it's a big help. Radiation levels on the surface of Mars are fairly similar to those aboard the ISS, and much lower than on the moon.

        * For long-term sustainability, Mars has a much more diverse surface mineral distribution. The moon's surface is certainly not uniform, but it's been altered by notably fewer and less diverse processes than Mars. It's also relatively depleted in volatiles (aka, elements that tend to be important for life) and low in heavy metals and dense minerals (often important to industry).

        * Attempts to work around the problems tend to butt up against each other. For example, "peaks of eternal light" (questionable how "eternal" they are - SELENE suggests no more than 89%) where you can get more steady temperatures and light levels, are tiny and scarce, while areas with a significant hydrogen signature (water or hydrogen-bearing minerals) are very unevenly spread (aka, not particularly likely to be associated with a particular peak's permanently-shadowed adjacent crater floors), and even if so would require long transports to and from the peak. The only real hope for that appears to be Peary Crater, which has "eternal light" peaks on its northern rim, and some indication of hydrogen enhancement, mainly in craterlets in its southeast. But it's 79km across.

        * Having hydrogen alone isn't enough - you also need nitrogen, carbon, and other compounds that the moon is extremely depleted in. If they can't be found on the surface, another prospect might be drilling for trapped volcanic gases. But that's speculative, and the technological challenges in doing so render it anything but near-term.

      --
      "He's a god; it'll take more than one shot." â" Lady Eboshi, Mononoke Hime
    14. Re: Good attitude by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      Well there is a key different in culture between government and private industry.
      Government: When you make a mistake and failed. You get punished. Successes are treated as minor rewards quickly forgotten.
      Private Industry: When you make a mistake you get a minor punishment and it is quickly forgotten. While Successes are touted and reasons for promotion.

      There is a good an bad for both methods. Government needs to error on the side of caution this means things will move slower... However there will be less collateral damage.
      Private Industry you can get things out much faster. However mistakes on the way can have a large cumulative cost to them.
       

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    15. Re: Good attitude by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Really ?what resources has he stolen?

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    16. Re: Good attitude by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      For any Mars-related endeavors, It seems much more meaningful to simply provide cislunar space with lunar oxygen than to build a city on the surface (what would its citizens be doing?). Even for methalox propulsion, this reduces fuel lifts from Earth by 77%.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    17. Re:Good attitude by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      For example, they're already investing money and R&D effort into Mars-suitable propulsion; NASA isn't.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    18. Re:Good attitude by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      The press, dominated as it is by a liberal arts culture that doesn't really get science, is trying to understand the whole Mars exploration effort as being analogous with the Cold War race for the Moon. Zurbuchen is just pointing out that that's not how this is going to work.

    19. Re: Good attitude by Rei · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Indeed - if you can't get volatiles like hydrogen (water does appear to be available in some locations, but there are limits, and we really don't know how accessible it is), your options for propellant become extremely limited. Without H, He, C or N, your best propellant option would be something like extremely fine aluminum dust burned with oxygen in an extremely oxygen rich environment (would probably need a ceramic engine). It'd have to be oxygen rich because Al2O3 condenses out of the exhaust stream at very high temperatures and can thus no longer be put to work via expansion; it needs to transfer its heat to a working fluid, and you don't have a lot of options apart from oxygen. Another potential working gas would be metallic sodium (from sodium/aluminum powder fuel burned with O2, very fuel rich). The obvious downside is that your "gas" would condense out at 1156K, so you wouldn't be able to expand it as much as you'd like. But at least you'd get a good chunk of the energy, including the heat of condensation of the Al2O3 - and it's a lighter gas than O2, so that's an advantage.

      In both cases you face a challenge of how to burn the fuel and oxidizer, since you don't have a binder for a traditional hybrid, nor a liquid to gel powders into. And you wouldn't want to have to keep aluminum in a molten state; that's totally impractical. Your best option is probably taking a cue from ALICE (aluminum-ice): they have the aluminum powder embedded in an ice matrix, burned as a solid rocket. In the case of LOX as the oxidizer (aka, you don't have ice), you could use solid oxygen as the binder. So, 54K or less. As a last option, I suppose you could try fluidizing the powder and spraying it into a combustion chamber along with turbopumped LOX... but I've never even heard of an attempt to make a rocket like that.

      Lots of options open up when you have carbon and/or nitrogen even without a source of hydrogen (for example, on Mars without ice mining or Venus without acid harvesting), such as burning carbon monoxide or cyanogen. But without volatiles... rocketry is tricky.

      --
      "He's a god; it'll take more than one shot." â" Lady Eboshi, Mononoke Hime
    20. Re: Good attitude by khallow · · Score: 1

      The 6 mbar CO2 atmosphere on Mars may as well be hard vacuum. Exposure to cosmic rays will be similar in either location.

      Not really. The Martian atmosphere does provide significant protection. Mars also has a full spectrum of elements needed for plants and animals. The Moon is notably deficient in hydrogen, carbon, and nitrogen.

    21. Re: Good attitude by khallow · · Score: 1

      In both cases you face a challenge of how to burn the fuel and oxidizer, since you don't have a binder for a traditional hybrid, nor a liquid to gel powders into.

      Sulfur would work as a binder, assuming you need one.

    22. Re: Good attitude by khallow · · Score: 1

      The need for huge energy storage systems or nuclear power from the very start is a significant problem for the moon.

      Also, there is geothermal power. That gives you the huge energy storage system and it works even better during night. As to the thermal transport fluid, oxygen is readily available anywhere on the Moon. Argon and CFCs may be available as well.

    23. Re: Good attitude by Rei · · Score: 1

      Sulfur is rare in most lunar regolith, although it's fairly common in high-titanium lavas. Question as to whether the landing site would happen to have such a source near it yet still be able to meet other mission parameters - but it is a possibility. I've actually seen the possibility of sulfur-based lunar concrete discussed (although there's significant concerns about its durability under thermal cycling).

      Sulfur can be used as a rocket binder for a hybrid rocket (aka, what you'd have to do, since no non-cryogenic volatile-free solid oxidizer is available). Mind you, sulfur isn't not exactly ideal due to its ignition sensitivity and strong pressure dependence of burn rate. I've never seen a hybrid use it, but sulfur-zinc used to be fairly common in hobby rocketry for solids. You had to compact it just right; if not tight enough, it'd burn too weakly, while if overcompacted it would explode. But of course, we're not talking hobby rocketry here...

      --
      "He's a god; it'll take more than one shot." â" Lady Eboshi, Mononoke Hime
    24. Re: Good attitude by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      The city on the Moon has to exist first.

      Yes, and books by Paul Spudis and Dennis Wingo go into great detail. However, when you talk of the Moon then you gotta come up with some money (lots of it) now for hardware. That's why everyone loves to talk about Mars because real money for real hardware (transfer stage, habitat, lander) can be deferred 20 years into the future for some other smucks to deal with that. Yes, Musk has plans to send something big in less time than 20 years but much of that is demonstration. Maybe he has grand plans but it seems much is missing from public view.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    25. Re: Good attitude by cjameshuff · · Score: 1

      You could use a silicone binder. Primarily silicon and oxygen, neither of which is exactly scarce. Major downsides include being yet another fuel with solid combustion products (and a pretty terrible fuel apart from that), and requiring a rather complex chemical industry to produce.

      And all of these options have the really major downsides of very poor performance, the complexities of producing large solid fuel cores, and inability to refuel the craft landing on the moon. If you want to reuse the same craft for multiple trips, your task is much, much easier on Mars.

    26. Re: Good attitude by cjameshuff · · Score: 1

      Astronomy is better done away from the gravity, dust, and temperature extremes and without the obstruction of half the sky by a giant ball of rock. Power generation is better done in open space where you can have constant direct sunlight. And semiconductor fabrication can be done at whatever effective gravity you desire in orbit.

      The biggest reason to go to the moon is to study the moon. When space infrastructure and technologies are more advanced, it'll be a useful source of raw materials in Earth orbit. But at the current early stages of actually developing that infrastructure and technologies, it's an expensive distraction.

  2. Puts on "Insanity Wolf" head by DivineKnight · · Score: 1

    Do It Anyways

  3. Humility and Empathy by _archangel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Just because somebody doesn't agree with us the first time we open our mouths doesn't mean that they're stupid, or we're smart, or the other way around. I think it's really important to create, bring some empathy to the table," I wish this was the de facto attitude people took when communicating about all aspects of life, not just science.

    1. Re:Humility and Empathy by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 2

      What you describe is a quite standard behaviour among reasonable people and, presumably, scientists are reasonable. But one thing is being tolerant and understanding with a poorly-communicated sensible idea (or even with a not-that-sensible idea built over deep knowledge or perhaps just good faith or hard work); and a completely different story is being tolerant with a complete nonsense generated from a poor understanding (and, even worse, egoism and shortsightness).

      NASA is very grateful for what SpaceX and people like Elon Musk can bring: fresh air and popular support to a field which is starting to find difficulties to justify their huge budgets. The recent Elon's claims have put them in a very delicate situation; they are a scientific and objective-correctness-driven organisation which cannot agree with impossible fantasies, but they also want all the associated support.

      I have personally been very tolerant and understanding with people who throw a pure nonsense, want to be heard and, when all the results are wrong, don't want to take responsibility (or blame anything else). BTW, these people tend to misunderstand the word "empathy" as "I can do/say anything. Until proven wrong, I expect my opinion to be considered and to be part of all the important decisions. Once proven wrong, I expect my actions to be forgiven and forgotten because I didn’t know what I was doing or I was angry or I thought whatever, etc.", whose better definition would be "spoiled kid"; empathy means putting yourself in others’ shoes and, in that case, I would feel really ashamed, would expect to bear all the responsibility on my shoulders and would feel even bothered by anyone trying to unfairly reduce the impact of my actions. Note that these people tend to buy their way in and seem to be actually required, but this is only an illusion (precisely created by others like them). Engineering, science, objective-correctness should be exclusively managed by knowledgeable people; and big idea and money individuals should focus on what they are good at (enjoying their money and making more). If everyone focused on their specific field and, for anything outside it, relied on "I will let the experts there take care of everything, because I want to get a proper result", the world would be a much better place.

      In summary, I don't think that NASA (or any other knowledge-prone organisation) should be tolerant or request some understanding for what doesn't make any sense. If NASA failed at anything, nobody (much less that kind of people; always asking for understanding, never delivering it) would be tolerant with them. If NASA started making shoes and they did a terrible job, everyone would merciless and rightfully attack them.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    2. Re:Humility and Empathy by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected and do apologise for the generalisation (even positive generalisations aren't that good); for me, a properly-understanding-prone person, the aforementioned behaviour is quite logical.

      By default, I do always try to adequately understand others by disregarding irrelevant side issues. But some bad past experiences have taught me that being over-understanding isn't the ideal proceeding when dealing with certain people, because they tend to misinterpret such a behaviour as a validation of their actions. On the other hand, being very clear about evident issues (e.g., I know that you are wrong and expect you to take responsibility for what you did) seems an excellent proceeding to avoid these problems.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
  4. of course it isnt' a race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    When NASA gets to Mars, SpaceX will happily welcome them in to see how the colony has been progressing and offer them some tea.
     

    1. Re:of course it isnt' a race by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      Because of the cold and dry, almost non-existent atmosphere, tea actually has a chance to stay unspoiled on the crash site.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    2. Re:of course it isnt' a race by Rei · · Score: 1

      Ignoring the troll-baiting parts of your post: you have it backwards. SpaceX came first. While running SpaceX, Musk heard about the tzero electric sports car, which had really redefined what electric cars were capable of (from slow lumbering short-range things to sporty, much longer-range vehicles). He sought to get AC Propulsion (its inventor) to build him one, and was willing to pay a lot of money, but they had no interest - instead, they referred him to Martin Eberhard, who had already been working on the idea of commercializing the tzero, under the name Tesla. Eberhard needed money, so Musk invested in his company, gaining a majority stake. As time went on, it quickly became clear that Eberhard had grossly misstated the cost of building the vehicle, as well as getting the company embroiled in unfavorable arrangements with manufacturers that led to penalties, hiding information from the board, etc. Ultimately Musk had enough and booted him (creating a lot of upsets with Tesla fans, who were very loyal to Eberhard), thus taking a much more central role in the company himself.

      Getting involved in an electric car company had not been his plan; he had wanted to dedicate his efforts to SpaceX. But he kind of just stumbled into it. You still see him regularly nearly-stumbling into new ventures but trying to resist, such as Hyperloop and electric airplanes ;) He's just that sort of person - "Oh, wouldn't it be AWESOME if I made X!!!"

      --
      "He's a god; it'll take more than one shot." â" Lady Eboshi, Mononoke Hime
    3. Re:of course it isnt' a race by MrLogic17 · · Score: 1

      That theory doesn't line up with the $4.2 billion in NASA contracts they have lined up. Plus tons (pardon the pun) of other launches lined up from non-NASA sources.

      Nuts, a quick google shows that most financial experts say that SpaceX isn't just making money - they are likely making a whole lotta money. And will be likely raking in a 40% profit margin on future launches.

      If Elon wants, Earth orbit launches could fund past Earth launches - until those start making a profit. Tell me that NASA wouldn't love to pay for payloads to Mars that get there faster & cheaper than in-house rockets.

  5. Re:Of course they would say that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    NASA had mars lander in 1976.

  6. Re: Of course they would say that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    China is surpassing America pretty much everywhere. Surprised you Americans still think you have a chance.

  7. Maybe so by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    However, is SpaceX is racing NASA to Mars?

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    1. Re:Maybe so by MrLogic17 · · Score: 1

      This. When NASA gets to Mars, they will be going to visit SpaceX infrastructure to refuel.

  8. Re:Of course they would say that by HuguesT · · Score: 1

    That does sound like a stretch goal.

  9. Good article in Nat Geo re SpaceX/NASA by turp182 · · Score: 3, Informative

    The current issue of National Geographic has a good article which already explains that SpaceX and NASA are basically partners (SpaceX shares everything with NASA for instance).

    It's paywalled, but here's the article (I read the tree based version):
    http://www.nationalgeographic....

    Anyway, nothing to see here, move along.

    --
    BlameBillCosby.com
  10. Either way we win by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    Either way we win. I am sure we will have a Mars colony by 2027. And I will be one of the first, sipping wine looking out over the valleys of Mars.

  11. Re:Of course they would say that by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

    I'd be happy if India got there first. With China or Russia, their intentions may worry me, but I'll be happy for the fact we, as a species has got there.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  12. Maybe not wine by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    Grapes won't grow on Mars, but if you substitute in a glass of recycled-water from urine, you'll be OK.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    1. Re:Maybe not wine by Rei · · Score: 1

      "To Kaylee, and her inter-engine fermentation system!"

      --
      "He's a god; it'll take more than one shot." â" Lady Eboshi, Mononoke Hime
  13. Re:SpaceX isn't going to Mars by MrLogic17 · · Score: 2

    You must be new to space news. NASA has blown up more rockets that SpaceX has ever built.

    If you need a refresher:
    https://www.google.com/webhp?q...

  14. remember kids... by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    first person that licks it, it's theirs.
    It's the LAW

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  15. Yes, you are by Bugler412 · · Score: 1

    Whether you acknowledge it or not, you ARE racing SpaceX and others. You might be cordial, collegial and supportive while doing it, but it's still a race and the first to achieve it will reap at least a large public relations reward, a place in history, and in business world a significant "first mover" advantage. Denying that the competition exists doesn't change the fact of whether a competition actually exists.

    1. Re:Yes, you are by Bugler412 · · Score: 1

      SpaceX not existing without NASA today means nothing, the can surpass them. And it doesn't have to be "colonization", first boots on the ground may be all that matters for what I describe.

  16. Re:Physically by MrLogic17 · · Score: 1

    A lot of experts disagree with you.

    In terms of Delta-V, Mars isn't that much further out than the moon. Most of the cost is getting into Earth orbit.

    In terms of environment, moon dust is extremely hazardous, especially over the long term. Air-tight seals are going to be a serious problem on the moon. Mars, on the other hand, has some atmosphere, and dust there is nowhere near as abrasive.

    If you want a good rabbit-hole, research how we got moon dust samples back from the Apollo missions. Many of the air-tight sample containers failed, due to the evil nature of moon dust. Look into how moon dust got deep under fingernails, and took weeks to grow back out. Moon dust is straight up evil-toxic-hazardous.

  17. Bummer by Dishevel · · Score: 1

    NASA did its best work when it was racing the competition.

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  18. No competition by lapm · · Score: 1

    Of course NASA is not competing.. NASA has too much politics and too many internal interest groups that wants their favorite technology included in trip to mars.... Only hope we have to go to mars is some private corporation to actually do it...

  19. Good Scientist+Good Attitude != Good Bureaucrat by rocket+rancher · · Score: 1

    I like his humble, collaborative attitude, befitting a true scientist. I expect that, in practice getting there in a repeatable way will be the result of various international cooperations where different organisations will bring their own skills. Empahy and dialogue can only accelerate the process.

    He is no longer a scientist. He is a bureaucrat, now, so he is faced with problems where the scientific method and its associated toolbox are sub-optimal, as are his attitude of cooperation and collaboration. They are still useful, to be sure, but he will get more use out of a couple chapters of Machiavelli's The Prince than Newton's entire Principia.

    The NASA director's primary challenge is to find compromises acceptable to groups of people who have divergent goals. Congress, DoD, private industry, various scientific orgs -- all of these have claims on, and thus have influence over, NASA's ability to function. Unfortunately for the director, their goals are not the same and are often opposed.

    For example, the chair of the House sub-committee that controls NASA's budget, Representative Lamar Smith (R, Texas) denies the existence of AGW and has threatened to withhold funding from NASA if NASA continues to support projects that investigate it. Smith has already dismissed science-based reports on AGW as "biased" and has set up a committee funded by and staffed by the petroleum industry to "review" all AGW data before it is presented to Congress. In a bucket, if the man controlling your funding denies the very existence of what you are trying to investigate, then no amount of cooperation and collaboration on your part is going to produce anything but incredulity and anger on his part, so your funding will evaporate.

    This is just one sample of some of the problems NASA's director faces. There are others, similar in scope and nature, including the conflict among scientists and engineers over manned vs unmanned exploration, and the re-emerging conflict over extraplanetary colonization now that Elon Musk has decided to colonize Mars. None of these problems are unsolvable, but they may not be amenable to collaboration or compromise, or yield to the scientific method. They may require a different set of tools and a different mind set, ones more often to be found in career civil servants, IMHO, than in scientists or engineers. It will be interesting to see whom he appoints to various roles in his administration; I'd wager it will be people more familiar with Machiavelli than with Newton... :)

  20. You can't fart at NASA... by downright · · Score: 1

    without some director whipping out a credit card and throwing a party...

  21. Re:No, we're not racing... by painandgreed · · Score: 1

    But if SpaceX gets humans (alive, that is) on Mars first, I'm sure at NASA you'll see the then-Director move his/her/it? gaze skyward and yell at the top of 'their' lungs: "MMMMUUUUUSSSSSKKKKKK!!!!!!!".

    If SpaceX gets humans to Mars, they'll probably be NASA astronauts in a project that had funding help from NASA and uses lots of tech developed by NASA. That is, unless ULA/Blue Origin don't get their BE4 engine and accompanying rocket done and beat them using those same astronauts, funding and tech. However, I think ULA is more interested in commercial missions rather than grand stunts that might pay off. The way I bet this works out if it happens, is that SpaceX will land an unmanned mission on Mars that will confirm their ability to land and mine the atmosphere for rocket fuel, and use that to generate the interest and funding from government interests which will put NASA on the track of helping them get it done.