Eggs from men, sperm from women: how stem cell science may change how we reproduce 
The brightest object in the universe is a black hole that eats a star a day 
Six space missions to look forward to in 2024 
The rising flood of space junk is a risk to us on Earth – and governments are on the hook 
Why is the universe ripping itself apart? A new study of exploding stars shows dark energy may be more complicated than we thought 
If life exists on Jupiter’s moon Europa, scientists might soon be able to detect it 
Black hole, neutron star or something new? We discovered an object that defies explanation 
What is minoxidil, the anti-balding hair growth treatment? Here’s what the science says 
Dark energy is one of the biggest puzzles in science and we're now a step closer to understanding it 
Orbital resonance − the striking gravitational dance done by planets with aligning orbits 
Our survey of the sky is uncovering the secrets of how planets are born 
Genetic diseases: How scientists are working to make DNA repair (almost) a piece of cake 
Why now is the time to address humanity’s impact on the moon 
A Nasa rover has reached a promising place to search for fossilised life on Mars 
As a US government organization funded by the taxpayers, one would think that NASA is one of the most well-funded bodies in the world. However, it turns out that the space agency is far too broke to send people to Mars, contradicting what the Trump administration recently touted. Now, the only hope of humanity becoming a multi-planet species is SpaceX, which does have money.
There’s no denying that an endeavor like sending people to Mars would be a costly one and with the US political climate being what it is, committing resources to something that a lot of people believe is non-essential would be incredibly unpopular. In the case of NASA, the agency recently admitted during a meeting that even landing on Mars is beyond them.
"I can't put a date on humans on Mars, and the reason really is the other piece is, at the budget levels we described, this roughly 2 percent increase, we don’t have the surface systems available for Mars," William H. Gerstenmaier, the head of human spaceflight at NASA said. "And that entry, descent and landing is a huge challenge for us for Mars."
As Ars Technica notes, there were plenty of skeptics and naysayers who doubted that NASA even had the time or the capability to send people to Mars when the goal was announced. After this admission, those people just got, even more, ammunition to hurl towards the space agency.
For the most part, it would seem that some of the biggest obstacles that prevent the US space agency from achieving such a goal are the costs that its current rocket technology would incur. Unlike what SpaceX has already achieved, NASA does not have reusable rockets.
This would make launches incredibly expensive, and landing on Mars would be out of the question. Basically, as of this moment, Elon Musk’s private space company is the best hope that humanity has.
