Paul Spudis expounds on a theme that will be a major one in the piece I’m working on for The New Atlantis — that we need to figure out what we want to do before we design the hardware to do it.
My only quibble is that I really dislike the word “mission.” Too NASA oriented. I prefer to ask, what is the goal?
Words like “mission” and “duty station” (or space station) and “base” as in “lunar base” are not originally NASA terms. They are military terms.
In his articles for Collier’s magazine the arch-Nazi and war criminal (unindicted co-conspirator and concentration camp operator) Werner von Braun used these terms to describe the “conquest” of space. Of course, such terms, and the whole militarisation of the space arena are in stark contrast to tourism and economic uses of space. Given that von Braun used to enjoy building missiles to blow up children in London, one has to wonder why so many space enthusiasts chose to idolise him.
“Given that von Braun used to enjoy building missiles to blow up children in London, one has to wonder why so many space enthusiasts chose to idolise him.”
That is a libel against von Braun. In fact von Braun was almost executed by the Gestapo for saying outloud that he would much rather be building rockets to explore space than in hitting London.
I prefer to ask, what is the goal?
The problem is that when it comes to space policy, a lot of people equate “goal” with “destination” rather than “purpose.”
The problem is that when it comes to space policy, a lot of people equate “goal” with “destination” rather than “purpose.”
Indeed.
Mark,
I don’t know von Braun’s true attitudes about the Blitz (although if the “Not my department” quote is accurate I might describe it as malicious indifference), but I do know your argument doesn’t hold, logically. Your postulate that “he would much rather be building rockets to explore space” only describes relative preference, not absolute attitude. Both your and Jim’s assertions could be true, for all I know.
Although, I might add, your record on certain matters makes me weigh your argument in low regard. I know how you felt about Dr. Griffin (pbuh) and how he ran NASA, so I suspect you may be inclined to give other Great Men of Government Space a pass (a predilection I do not share).
———–
As for the topic at hand, I think “mission” is fine in the context of the article. I’m in favor of any “mission” to see to it that the Moon is industrialized by private industry and the solar system at large opened up to exploration and economic activity.
That is a libel against von Braun. In fact von Braun was almost executed by the Gestapo for saying outloud that he would much rather be building rockets to explore space than in hitting London.
So, if someone bombs London but says he’d rather build rockets to explore space, that means he’s not guilty of bombing London — and it’s libel to say otherwise?
Where do you practice law, Mark? There are some IRA terrorists who could use your help.
Okay then, let us state our purposes or objectives for undertaking human spaceflight.
Bill White has several:
1st: Becoming a space-faring species – which I choose to define as acquiring the ability to safely and routinely conceive, bear and raise children at multiple celestial locations. Of course there are a great many capabilities we must first acquire to achieve this objective such as affordable spaceflight, in situ resource utilization and very high efficiency closed loop life support systems.
2nd: Harvesting the resources of space to improve standards of living for all human beings while preserving the ecological integrity of the Earth.
3rd: Assuring that people sharing my principles (primarily Quaker if we employ the categories found in Albion’s Seed) participate in the above.
How to best get there is yet another bucket of worms altogether.
Re: Werner von Braun, I find Mort Sahl persuasive.
He aimed for the stars but often hit London.
That said, I am grateful that we Americans used “our Germans” more effectively than the Soviets used “their Germans”
At all levels of humanity… man dominates man to his injury. If we have any significant presence in space we will have war in space. Our rock throwing heritage is secure.
von Braun was certainly a flawed character but his vision and achievements can not be denied especially considering the times in which he lived. All humans have the capacity to normalize horror (in different ways.) History turned Hitler into a monster, but at the time he was charming politician (that many wanted at their dinner parties) giving hope and change to his people.
I agree that mission is a term that grates, but mission statement and it’s use to focus is not such a bad idea. Industrializing the Moon for hydrogen and oxygen might be viable. I think we need to think in terms of turning recurring costs into one time cost (which changes the picture significantly) because of our gravity well. We may do many things in parallel but this is why I believe our mission statement should be…
“Colonize”
I would say this should start with the most Earth like environment..
“Colonize Mars”
I don’t think we should give ourselves artificial barriers of “we need x first”
“Colonize Mars Now!”
That’s just one man’s opinion of course.
I believe if we set that as our goal, everything else will follow at a much quicker pace. Decades if not centuries quicker.
A real economy happens when you have trading partners… that means colony.
Oh, and arguing that it’s just trading one gravity well for another misses the point. The Martian babies will breed faster than the Lunatics. That’s what will build a solar economy.
Ken –
I am of the opinion that mars is the second safest place in the Solar System to raise a family and therefore Mars should be the first place we send a settlement tasked to the bearing and raising of children.
The Moon? More like a North Sea or Gulf of Mexico oil platform. Terrific for economic exploitation but not a place to have kids.
NASA as it exists today cannot safely undertake a Mars mission. And I say this as a former Zubrin-ista.
The problem is that when it comes to space policy, a lot of people equate “goal” with “destination” rather than “purpose.”
I’m certainly not since my purpose is to build a solar economy. How to best achieve that purpose then includes a question of destination. No matter where you go, you’re going to a destination.
We could be going to many destinations; but they are still all destinations.
I completely agree the destination, goal and purpose should not be confused (even though they will be.)
NASA as it exists today cannot safely undertake a Mars mission.
I believe it’s worse than that. I believe NASA wants on many levels to kill free access to space. They’re not evil, just turf building.
I always figured Elton John had that wrong.
Brock – Wrong on several counts. Griffin is not just a “great man of government space”, but also a great man of entrepeneurial space. His experience is wide ranging and skill undoubted, except for some of the nut cases who like to yell on the Internet. I also am on record as thinking that Dan Goldin (speaking of men of government space) was bat sh-t insane.
Brock and Edward – It takes nothing away from the evil of both the Nazis and the Japanese militarists that the allies slaughtered far more civilians in places like Dresden and Hiroshima than the Nazis ever did in London. Hitting civilian targets was a standard strategy of both sides in WWII. Von Braun has more to answer for his tolerance of the use of slave labor in the building of the V rockets than in what those rockets were used for (though what he could have done about it escapes me.) In any case, for whatever sins he committed, I regard helping put men on the Moon as more than adequet community service
So Mark worships the uber government man.
Griffin is not just a “great man of government space”, but also a great man of entrepeneurial [sic] space.
What did he do in entrepreneurial space that was so great?
What did [Griffin] do in entrepreneurial space that was so great?
He got over $100 million from NASA to build a suborbital vehicle and failed — twice!
“Great” does not necessarily mean good. 🙂
It takes nothing away from the evil of both the Nazis and the Japanese militarists that the allies slaughtered far more civilians in places like Dresden and Hiroshima than the Nazis ever did in London. Hitting civilian targets was a standard strategy of both sides in WWII.
Ah, “moral equivalence.” I guess that’s what one learns while getting a BA in history. 🙂
As someone once said, the difference is that we bombed cities to end a war, the Nazis bombed cities to start one.
Von Braun has more to answer for his tolerance of the use of slave labor in the building of the V rockets than in what those rockets were used for (though what he could have done about it escapes me.)
Not surprising. A great many things escape you, Mark.
He could have left Germany, like Willy Ley did. Or simply said, “No thanks. I do not care to build weapons for Herr Hitler.”
for whatever sins he committed, I regard helping put men on the Moon as more than adequet [sic] community service
Sin is a religious concept, Mark. Community service is a legal concept. You do understand the difference, don’t you?
Please tell us what religions believe in the absolution of sin through “community service”?
“missions” and “mars” sounds a bit like “flags” and “footprints”
NASA is a government body which refuses to adopt a supporting NACA like role, it is not and never will be an industrial revolution for space (well maybe if it dies and all that talent becomes a plethora of space start ups).
If one can get people to and from space cheaply enough, then one can also get habitats to space cheaply enough. So extra terrestrial resources is kind of a moot argument – earth resources are initially better.
So make the first objective many large habitats in LEO (orbital assembly). It is the first step, the first space base camp, and the economic opportunities (markets) there are far greater. Further, achieve this, and the market will I suspect quickly achieve the rest.
But this is industry building and space settlement thinking, not Apollo thinking…
Pete.
Let us make the first objective getting the transportation costs low enough to let the rest of it happen in a rational manner.
Let us make the first objective getting the transportation costs low enough to let the rest of it happen,,,
I agree with the sentiment while being struck by what is missing in this statement. The best way to get costs down is having many players competing for a market. So getting the cost down *can’t be* the first objective. By making it the first objective you take the wind away from the sails. Taking away the driving force for making cheaper sails.
Now let’s suppose we make creation of a trading partner the first objective. Obviously this is a much bigger and more complex objective and getting there is likely to be very inefficient, ridiculously inefficient, compared to how we will be able to do it later as a result of competition to meet this driving force of trade.
Before a colony becomes a trading partner it provides a driving force for competition to supply it’s growth needs. The sooner we get that growth curve started the faster we create a market which will drive costs down.
NASA as it exists today cannot safely undertake a Mars mission.
Anybody give me odds if I wager that SpaceX puts humans in Mars orbit before NASA?
I can’t say on Mars because I don’t see anybody doing serious work on a Mars lander (unless I count Bezos???)
Re: Von Braun
Arch Nazi? Good grief. The effort the Nazi’s expended on the V campaign materially damaged the German war effort by diverting resources. That ‘arch nazi’ helped the Germans to lose the war.
Re: Griffin
As bad as the errors were that Griffin made with ESAS and the Ares rockets, at least he is responsible for one great decision which may end up his true legacy, his full support for the COTS program. In part thanks to Griffin we may soon see a Dragon capsule delivering cargo to the ISS.
…his full support for the COTS program.
I never noticed that he was that strong a supporter of COTS, unless by that you mean lip service and not stealing the funds from it for Constellation as he did many other programs. COTS was driven by the White House.
COTS was driven by the White House.
Any idea why funding for COTS-D never materialised? I can understand why NASA doesn’t want COTS-D, but if the White House wanted COTS, why didn’t they follow through?
“COTS was driven by the White House.”
Really? That’s fascinating as that’s the first I have heard of that. So who was the White House personality who micromanaged NASA into accepting the COTS program? How little did Griffin really have to do with the COTS decision? And why didn’t that same White House personality micromanage NASA into evading the awful ESAS choice?
According to my source, it was Rove. As to why he let the ESAS disaster occur, perhaps he didn’t realize what a disaster it would be.
Thank you for that information. But until someone from the Bush administration (Rove, Griffin or otherwise) publicly acknowledges that information is accurate, I will have to qualify it as a rumor.
So Rove gave the order and Griffin jumped to obey? I find it hard to believe such a prickly bureaucrat as Griffin would allow someone like Rove to boss him around regarding detailed management decisions that fell under Griffin’s authority. I can see the rules obsessed Griffin obeying any standard public command in the chain of authority from the White House, but obeying some secret beyond the chain of command shadowy political command? Unlikely. If there was one thing Griffin was not, it was political.
How confident are you yourself of the accuracy of your source? Is it colored in any way from a desire to see Griffin as some devil from whom no good can flow? Clearly the ESAS path has been a disaster for NASA, but is it so hard to believe Griffin recognized the merits of COTS and pushed it on his own volition?
How confident are you yourself of the accuracy of your source?
I’m confident of the integrity of my source. He could be mistaken, of course.
Is it colored in any way from a desire to see Griffin as some devil from whom no good can flow?
No.
Clearly the ESAS path has been a disaster for NASA, but is it so hard to believe Griffin recognized the merits of COTS and pushed it on his own volition?
I’m not saying he was opposed to it. I’m just saying that I have been told that he was not the driver for the policy, and that he wouldn’t have been allowed to cancel it if even if he’d wanted to.