There’s a discussion going on in the comments here and here about whether or not we should set a national goal of sending people to Mars a la Apollo (though hopefully with more staying power–a subject I’ll get to in a minute). Thomas James believes we should (not surprising, given the name of his blog…)

I don’t agree, for several reasons. First of all, I don’t personally care that much about Mars myself, so even as a space enthusiast, it would be hard to get me motivated to make it happen. And I’m symptomatic of a much larger problem–we can’t get a focused national space policy because we can’t get a consensus on what that policy should be, even in the space community. And no, I don’t want to get into the argument about whether it makes more sense to go back to the Moon first, or go after asteroids, or build space colonies at L-5, because it’s all beside the point.

Those pining for Apollo redux are yearning for a past that never was. Even in the 1960s, there was no public push for great achievements in space per se, other than as a way of defeating the Russians for propaganda purposes. If we could have done that by digging the deepest hole, or sending a man to the bottom of the Marianas Trench and bringing him safely back to the surface, then we would have done that. Support for space is a mile wide and an inch deep–polls always show that people think it’s cool and important, but they also show that when they have to make choices, it always gets shoved down onto the stack. I believe that given that basic public mindset, and the fact that we can’t get a consensus even in the space community renders such a goal futile.

I’m also opposed to grand government enterprises in general, partly on general libertarian principles, but also because they’re a very inefficient way of accomplishing the goal. There are certainly things that the government can do to make such things possible, but if we simply make the goal putting people on Mars, I think that it’s likely that it will come to tears just as Apollo did, with no sustainability, because it will once again happen before the technology is in place to make it practical.

When Jefferson sent Lewis and Clark to the Pacific, he didn’t have to make a major investment in R&D. It required bravery and strength, but not technology. We need to get to the same point in space, at which point, as I’ve said in the past, the National Geographic Society (or perhaps more appropriately, the Planetary Society) can sponsor a trip to the Red Planet. And if there are people who want to settle it, they’ll be able to do so as well.

What we need to do, as a community, is to foster government policies that will make that possible, so we don’t have to squabble any more over which is the best goal. We can all seek our own fortunes and desires. In my opinion (and it’s one that hasn’t changed in well over a decade), the key to this is developing a vibrant infrastructure to, from and in low earth orbit, and the financial engine for this will be, at least initially, public space travel.

NASA should certainly be doing research on things like reforming Martian atmosphere into propellants, and nuclear propulsion, and other techniques for in-situ resource utilization (things that have been underinvested in to date, because too much money has been going to pointless prestige programs like Shuttle and ISS), but they should be doing so because no one else will, and the goal should be to provide technologies that non-NASA people can utilize for their own purposes.

I don’t want another socialist state enterprise going off to Mars. I want to see our federal space program reoriented toward one more reflective of American (rather than Soviet) values, and one that empowers us all to seek our dreams in space, whatever and wherever they may be.

[Update a few minutes after posting this]

John Carter McKnight has a similar take (at least that’s how I choose to interpret it), but from a different angle.

[Friday morning follow up]

Thomas James has a thoughtful response.

As I said in his comments section:

Forget the socialism versus non-socialism, if one finds those confusing or a matter only of degree.

My point is that in one case, it’s of the government, for the government, by the government. I’m trying to get something that has broader purposes. I want to see NASA return to the role that it had as NACA, before things got entirely perverted by the Cold War and Apollo, in which the development of the space industry became a (democratic) state enterprise to beat their (totalitarian) state enterprise. Sadly, it was never established as capitalism versus communism, because that would have made it harder to get the left, both in the US and Europe, on board.

My other problem with having NASA actually mount such an expedition is that it continues to promote the myth (as have Shuttle and station, for years) that only governments, and large governments at that, are capable of such things, and discourages private investment.