From Henry Spencer:
In its early years, the only form of manned space exploration it favoured was an (international) Mars expedition. All other ideas that involved humans in space were counterproductive and undesirable, to hear the Planetary Society tell it.
This obsession with Mars was a bad idea then, and it’s a bad idea now. However, some of the reasons advanced against it strike me as poor – sufficiently poor that they weaken attempts to argue for a more systematic and balanced space effort.
An exclusive focus on Mars does have one thing going for it. If you believe that any resumption of manned space exploration will inevitably end the way Apollo did, with follow-on programmes cancelled and flight-ready hardware consigned to museums as soon as the programme’s first objective is met, then choosing the most interesting single destination makes sense.
However . . . haven’t we learned anything from doing that once? To me, it makes far more sense to try to build a programme that won’t crash and burn as soon as it scores its first goal. That means systematically building capabilities and infrastructure, and doing first things first even if they aren’t the most exciting parts.
Unfortunately, we don’t seem to have the societal patience necessary to do the unexciting parts, at least if the government is paying for it. Which is why we have to get private industry going ASAP.
[Early afternoon update]
I mentioned yesterday that Paul Spudis wasn’t impressed with Lou Friedman’s thoughts. He’s similarly unimpressed with The Planetary Society’s new roadmap.
[Another update a few minutes later]
Jeff Plescia has been leaving this message in comments at various places (I’ve seen it at NASA Watch and Space Politics]
As a participant in the workshop sponsored by the Planetary Society at Stanford University in February, 2008, I feel obliged to make some comments with respect to what is said in portions of the Planetary Society document “Beyond the Moon A New Roadmap for Human Space Exploration.”
Page 5 contains the statement:
“Among the conclusions of this group is that ‘the purpose of sustained human exploration is to go to Mars and beyond,’ and that a series of intermediate destinations, each with its own intrinsic value, should be established as steps toward that goal. The consensus statements and viewpoints expressed by this group of experts form the basis for the principles and recommendations contained in this document.”This statement is a blatant and intentionally dishonest misrepresentation of the recommendations and sentiments of the group.
We had extensive discussions about what the conclusion of the workshop might be. While the conclusion reported in the Roadmap was clearly the predisposition of several members of the group, particularly the organizers, it was definitively and clearly not the consensus of the group as a whole. In fact, when these words (or words to the same effect) were suggested, the group clearly indicated to the organizers that they should not be used because they were inaccurate. However, the organizers chose to ignore the group’s wishes at the end of the workshop, at the International Astronautical Congress and in the Roadmap in portraying the results of the workshop. This has occurred despite the fact that members of the group pointed out after the workshop press release that such statements were inappropriate and incorrect.
For what it’s worth. Thanks, Lou.
Maybe it’s like the climate change “consensus,” from which many scientists are now running.
Rand wrote:
Unfortunately, we don’t seem to have the societal patience necessary to do the unexciting parts, at least if the government is paying for it. Which is why we have to get private industry going ASAP.
I agree with you 100% on this, Rand. Just judging from our most recent election and political climate, there is no way that a project of this size and undertaking would be feasible if run by the government. There just isn’t the political will/structure to take on a multi-presidential (not to mention Congressional) government in DC.
As far as private industry, what do you think there is to gain for a company to take on an effort such as ‘Mission to Mars’ (or even mission to the moon)?
s far as private industry, what do you think there is to gain for a company to take on an effort such as ‘Mission to Mars’ (or even mission to the moon)?
Profit, by taking money from the people who actually want to, and are willing to pay, to go.
As far as private industry, what do you think there is to gain for a company to take on an effort such as ‘Mission to Mars’ (or even mission to the moon)?
You should ask Elon Musk. SpaceX was founded because of his association with Bob Zubrin and their joint desire to go to Mars.
In fact, it was Elon (and Frank Sietzen, who was then SpaceX’s Washington representative) who met with Sean O’Keefe and persuaded him that NASA ought to replace the Shuttle with expendable rockets and capsules so they could go to the Moon, Mars, and Beyond.
Elon undoubtedly (and naively) expected that SpaceX would get the contract to build those capsules and rockets. (They were already working on the Dragon design at the time.) COTS was not what Elon was after, it was just a consolation prize NASA threw at him.
Elon undoubtedly (and naively) expected that SpaceX would get the contract to build those capsules and rockets. (They were already working on the Dragon design at the time.) COTS was not what Elon was after, it was just a consolation prize NASA threw at him.
I’d be very surprised, if he thought he had a chance at them. Even assuming most of the Falcon 1 launches were successful, that’s a big jump from the Falcon 1 to a manned Falcon 9.
Well I personally am glad we don’t have the patience acting through our government to execute something as extensive and strenuous as colonizing another planet. Golly, if we were that good at marching in rank behind our leaders, what else would we be doing, down here on Earth? One shudders to contemplate it.
Let us not wish fascist means for a desirable end — the means have a way of breaking loose from their original ends and running amok. Just ask Lise Meitner and Otto Hahn about their fascinating little observation that uranium atoms occasionally split in half, releasing lots of energy, which could be put to constructive use if harnessed.
Well I personally am glad we don’t have the patience acting through our government to execute something as extensive and strenuous as colonizing another planet.
I agree, Carl, but that’s not really the point. I would like to see the government at least have the foresight to put policies in place that would make it more likely to happen, using the resources of those who want to make it so. Throwing up roadblocks such as the Outer Space Treaty, and implementing space policy that makes it seem impossible isn’t useful.
That was, after all, the idea of the Founders–to put into place a system that would allow a young country to grow, without demanding that the government make it happen by picking the pockets of taxpayers.
This is actually a good theme for an essay, or at least a column…
Well, write it, Rand, damn it. I sure can’t, and somebody’s got to try to reach that fraction of Obama voters — kind of a ‘special needs’ group, if you know what I mean — who are capable of learning.
Arguably these are more critical times for spaceflight than the 50s or 60s. Right now there are people wanting to make a private go of it, and so far the government is mostly not paying a lot of attention — which is perhaps the best for which we can hope, over the long run.
But that could very easily change. There’s all kinds of ways government, the big clumsy beast, could trample on the green shoot, from applying the clammy claw of regulation to sucking up all the oxygen on which private venture must thrive. It’s not that it won’t come back, sooner or later, but it might not be in time for any of us now living to see it. That would be sad.
Duty calls you!
The problem is the government has already picked the tax payers pocket. All they’re doing now is arguing how to spend it.
I 2nd Carl’s motion. Ok, this blog isn’t a democracy. The fact is you can make the case better than most anyone I know. That’s the problem with the 9th amendment. We shouldn’t need our rights specified in writing (being unenumerable.) But even when they are in writing and clear the government abuses them.
The idea that they can regulate the space industry away is certainly scary. I think Elon is too far along for that to be his major worry, but it could keep others from following. Bigelow has mentioned the difficulties he’s had for the stupidest things.
I notice that the SpaceX manifest includes an F9 maiden flight this quarter. Does anyone have better info?
Found it myself… June 2009 is planned maiden flight of the f9. Six months or so behind their initial schedule. Not too bad all things considered if it holds up.
Via Slasdot.org:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=red-planet-alert-massive
Glaciers on Mars? I’m surprised that Rand hasn’t commented on this, yet.