i see little overlap with sending humans to mars. i dont think its a great way to send people such a distance (and expect to get them back) by cutting corners in planning, redundancy, etc. And its my understanding that the bulk of the costs of going there is getting all the fuel and supplies from earth to there, which is not solved by paying rocket scientists 1000$ a month.
NASA already operates on a shoestring budget. the article makes it sound like NASA has lavish funds. And they do so with a really good track record.
NASA already operates on a shoestring budget. the article makes it sound like NASA has lavish funds. And they do so with a really good track record.