[HN Gopher] Giant Volcano Discovered on Mars
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Giant Volcano Discovered on Mars
        
       Author : belter
       Score  : 52 points
       Date   : 2024-03-13 16:33 UTC (6 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (phys.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (phys.org)
        
       | robwwilliams wrote:
       | Terrific and motivational discovery/uncovery.
       | 
       | Now would be a time for great exploratory progress, if only NASA
       | and other space agencies world-wide were not having budgets cut
       | to boost national defense and offense.
        
         | leesec wrote:
         | NASA has been incredibly wasteful for a long time. You give it
         | more money then suddenly the timelines become longer. Private
         | companies like SpaceX will save us
        
           | BlueTemplar wrote:
           | Where's Helios when you need it ? ;)
        
           | nullindividual wrote:
           | Private companies will never save us. They exist only to
           | extract wealth. SpaceX is no exception, surviving off of
           | taxpayer funds.
        
             | szundi wrote:
             | This is pretty shortsighted.
             | 
             | Private money is perfect to make the same cheaper. Then
             | consultants bring the knowledge to other companies. 20-50
             | years and everything is a commodity.
             | 
             | After some time in kind of free markets the common people
             | win.
        
               | rqtwteye wrote:
               | I think with corporations becoming bigger and bigger the
               | common people will win less. Markets only work with
               | meaningful competition.
        
               | swatcoder wrote:
               | > After some time in kind of free markets the common
               | people win
               | 
               | Any time now!
               | 
               | It's a very elegant idea, but maybe not the most
               | empirically robust.
        
               | JanSt wrote:
               | SpaceX already is cheaper than NASA
        
               | mmustapic wrote:
               | Cheaper how? NASA doesn't fly their own rockets or
               | spaceships, so there's no comparison.
        
               | DarmokJalad1701 wrote:
               | Cheaper compared to what NASA used to spend (in R&D
               | and/or launch costs) to put one of their astronauts or 1
               | kg of mass into orbit.
        
               | rich_sasha wrote:
               | Sort of, except not always. Compare to medical insurance
               | in the US. Medical care in the US is both one of the most
               | expensive and most privatised in the world.
        
             | leesec wrote:
             | You have an insane view of the world and SpaceX will be
             | wildly profitable
        
               | nullindividual wrote:
               | No private company has saved me yet.
               | 
               | We've all been waiting. For more than 100 years. Private
               | companies will save us... like we'll have Linux on the
               | Desktop.
               | 
               | Any year, now.
        
           | sandworm101 wrote:
           | >> Private companies like SpaceX will save us
           | 
           | Well, all the previous private companies that built
           | spacecraft for decades didn't manage to save us. (Space
           | Shuttle = Rockwell, Apollo capsule = North American, Saturn V
           | = Boeing, Mercury Capsule = McDonnell Douglas.) The fact that
           | a device was designed/built/operated by a company with
           | shareholders doesn't make it magically more efficient. What
           | matters is how the entire operation is managed, something
           | more tied to the identity of the customer than that of the
           | contractor.
        
             | DarmokJalad1701 wrote:
             | > Well, all the previous private companies that built
             | spacecraft for decades didn't manage to save us.
             | 
             | That is more of a cost-plus contract vs fixed-price
             | contract thing.
        
             | leesec wrote:
             | operational management is influenced by the pressure it
             | takes to survive. Nasa doesnt need to make money to
             | survive. SpaceX does. but agreed theres more too it than
             | that
        
           | itishappy wrote:
           | SpaceX?!?! The company promising to take us to the moon this
           | year in a rocket that has yet to experience space let alone
           | refuel in orbit? The company that has claimed this same
           | rocket would be doing human test flights in 2020 and carrying
           | cargo to Mars in 2022?
           | 
           | There's a lot to be impressed by from SpaceX, but accurate
           | forecasting is about the last thing on my list...
        
         | readthenotes1 wrote:
         | You should look at the budget. It has changed since the 1970s.
         | 
         | https://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-where-do-our-
         | fed....
         | 
         | And it will continue changing as The Little slice for paying
         | interest on debt becomes the largest piece
        
           | georgeecollins wrote:
           | Fact: In 1973 interest payments 6% of the federal budget and
           | today they are 10%. At that rate of % growth interest would
           | become the largest expenditure category in 175 years.
           | 
           | I am not disagreeing with you. I just think its good to keep
           | these things in perspective with facts, not worries.
           | 
           | Source: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/files/docs/publications
           | /usbudg...
        
       | alanbernstein wrote:
       | I would have thought geothermal (martiothermal?) power would be
       | the biggest long-term potential result of this. No mention of
       | that in the article, though.
        
         | AnimalMuppet wrote:
         | If it's been dead long enough to have eroded like that, the
         | potential for geothermal power may be quite low.
        
         | causi wrote:
         | The pedantic term would be "areothermal". I hate the practice
         | of replacing "geo" in every word when used with other planets,
         | though.
        
           | jvanderbot wrote:
           | Areo for Ares, god of war, for those wondering. Mars is the
           | romanized version of Ares, IIRC
        
           | alanbernstein wrote:
           | Why is that? They're similar conceptually but very different
           | environments, so the distinction seems reasonable. If there
           | were companies building geothermal equipment for Mars, it
           | would likely have quite different requirements versus earth,
           | right?
        
           | Karellen wrote:
           | Well, we could use the prefix "astro-" for generic celestial
           | objects, including planets. So you could go with
           | "astrothermal".
           | 
           | And then the study of those objects, cf. geology, would
           | be.... no, wait.
           | 
           | (Is there a generic prefix for just planetary bodies that we
           | should be using? If so, what is it? If not, why not?)
        
             | itishappy wrote:
             | Lithothermal?
        
               | yetanotherloser wrote:
               | I like that. A nice generalisation.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-03-13 23:01 UTC)