Unsurprisingly, Bob Zubrin is the latest to complain about our visionary new policy. Sorry for the light blogging, especially the light conference blogging, but I’m whipping up a presentation for this afternoon’s panel. But Clark is on top of it, probably with links to other posts.
43 thoughts on “On To Mars”
Comments are closed.
Rand,
Actually he makes several good points and there is nothing visionary about the President Obama’s space policy unless you consider turning New Space entrepreneurs into New Space Contractors visionary.
Quote from Gordon Woodcock on the subject.
There is no problem in going to Mars, rather than to the Moon, it just costs ten times more.
I’m in total agreement with Zubrin.
I agree with Bob Z’s position that a central goal with a short timeline is the only way to keep a government-run space program on task.
The problem is that the last time such a goal with a short timeline was set, the space program was viewed as ‘soft power’ in the cold war and had a much higher priority.
The position also assumes that a government-run program is the only way to ‘do’ space. While the closest thing we have to a commercial model of space is communications satellites (including a rather interesting start through COMSAT), the same scenario is unlikely to work for some sort of commercial/government partnership working for human spaceflight.
Of course, it will require a mix of relatively light regulation, relatively stable budgets, probably some form of indemnity, and some vision to see things that aren’t and ask “Why not?”
We may be sunk.
One thing Zubrin fails to mention about the ‘Apollo Approach’.
Once there, no-one cares. ‘Apollo Approach’ is synonymous with ‘flags and footprints’.
And then what’s the ‘next big thing?’ Alpha Centauri? Who budgets that one? Who needs a NASA if it can’t ‘Apollo Approach’ within a single generation?
It’s onto Mars and out. Or onto Mars and then right back to where we are now. Why not just deal with the inevitable now rather than charge down the rat hole of one more diversion?
Once there, no-one cares.
This has been true of all major NASA HSF projects, whether they were intended as “flag and footprints” or not. “Flag and footprints” is at least an honest assessment of what a government can actually get done. What more do you think they can accomplish?
What more do you think they can accomplish?
Much, much more. See the Charles Miller presentation on taking a NACA approach.
We don’t need more ‘big programs’, nor NASA picking and choosing the winners and losers or owning a monopoly on human spaceflight.
We should not be afraid to admit to ourselves that in 2010 we don’t really understand the ultimate goal of human spaceflight. Or to admit to ourselves that perhaps no such thing exists. Or to admit that we must rely on our government to make the determination for us because only it truly knows. There is surely room for more than one approach.
Or to admit that we must rely on our government to make the determination for us because only it truly knows
Oops, that should have read:
Or to deny that we must rely on our government to make the determination for us because only it truly knows.
Rand, if you can edit the above reply to state this you can remove this clarification.
I don’t disagree about the value of technology research. Usually when I see people dumping on “flags and footprints”, they are promoting as an alternative something even more idiotic, namely the idea that government can predict decades into the future the emergence of novel space markets and what “infrastructure” they will need. (Or at least that government could do so if these central planner wannabes were put in charge). The Soviet Union had a hard time getting five-year plans to work based on existing industries.
I don’t think Zubrin made his case entirely. I can’t see supporting Constellation.
‘Apollo Approach’ is synonymous with ‘flags and footprints’.
That’s not fair. In the past, Zubrin has explicitly said we need to avoid FaF by making time on the ground a mission requirement.
making time on the ground a mission requirement.
Like their peers back in Florida and Houston, it doesn’t matter what they accomplish, as long as they take their time doing it and make a nice living at taxpayer expense in the meantime.
That’s not fair. In the past, Zubrin has explicitly said we need to avoid FaF by making time on the ground a mission requirement.
I don’t see how you can call it anything else if you don’t creep the mission to include colonization as a mission requirement. If it’s not a permanent presence, the temptation to save the $$$ once the last human steps off Mars seems far too great to resist to me. Heck we stopped going to the moon even though we had hardware for 3 more missions! Given the time and cost why would we ever go >1 Mars mission?
if you don’t creep the mission to include colonization as a mission requirement
That’s would be one astounding mission creep, rather like trying to expand the mission of a little Cayman Islands tourist submarine to duplicating the land’s industrial and ecological systems undersea.
Astronomically easier to take an RV-sized module in which astronauts huddle and call it a “colony”. EuphemismsRUs.
This doesn’t mesh with what I’ve read elsewhere. What gives?
Close, but no cigar. The Constellation program itself was very harmful to America’s long-term interests in space, because it was intrinsically flawed, technologically compromised as it slowly shambled toward implementation, and too damned expensive. The problem is that it should never have been proposed in the first place; failing that, it should have been cancelled four years ago, with something else — hell, almost anything — proposed in its place. Cancelling it now is frustrating but necessary.
However … we have to make sure that Obama’s proposed replacement strategy actually does come to pass as advertised. My fear is that the new strategy is just a cover for keeping both government and commercial entities out of space, by gradually defunding NASA’s efforts and swamping commercial efforts with regulatory bureaucracy.
Some commenters seem to presume that they know exactly what will be found on Mars, and thus, they can predict that “Once there, no-one cares.”
A good crewed mission to Mars would take advantage of human’s (thus far) unique capabilities by giving astronauts the means to go places that orbital surveys and robotic landers couldn’t explore, and thus would allow them to find the unexpected. Mars may have interesting secrets to reveal. The history of exploring the solar system is that everytime you take a closer look, you stand a good chance of finding something new.
Ya know what, I don’t even need to read this article. Zubrin always says the same shit.. over and over and over.. often word for word. That same shit hasn’t gotten him anywhere in decades. Dear Mars Society, Zubrin is your biggest liability, GET RID OF HIM.
“As I have argued before in the pages of this journal, NASA has over its history employed two distinct modes of operation which, for shorthand, we can call the “Apollo Mode” and the “Shuttle Mode.”” [Standard argument follows]
Yes you have Bob, and the author of this blog has devastated your argument in the same journal. Instead of just repeating your same old bullshit, why don’t you retort the claim that you’re irrationally confusing cause and effect? That no matter how much you make your program look like Apollo and make the political speeches sound like JFK, you can’t recreate the cold war situation that made Apollo a national need.
I agree with Bob Z’s position that a central goal with a short timeline is the only way to keep a government-run space program on task.
So do I, but in that case you should choose to do the easiest target first, not the hardest one. That leads you to a Flexible Path which can start a lot closer to home than is generally advocated. Say by radiation shielding experiments in the lower van Allen belt.
I don’t see how you can call it anything else… If it’s not a permanent presence
These comments from all of you sounds like you’ve never read his book, which I refuse to believe. He proposed putting multiple habitats within reach of each other in multiyear missions. The whole point being a permanent presents that can be exploited in followup missions (not necessarily by NASA.) I don’t agree with everything Zubrin proposes, but to call it FaF just isn’t fair.
Presence… oops
Martijn Meijering,
NASA’s new focus shall be climate change studies with no beyond LEO missions until long after President Obama leaves office.
Also, if ULA declines to play ball on the fixed price versus cost plus funding model, I predict NASA and Congress shall cave in and give ULA whatever they want in order to assure adequate ISS logistics support.
Still a lot better than what we have today. Note that I don’t advocate spending tax money on manned spaceflight. I only advocate making sure whatever amount is spent is in fact spent wisely.
My take on Zubrin’s complaints:
http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.com/2010/04/robert-zubrin-is-wrong-again.html
Bill,
[[[NASA’s new focus shall be climate change studies with no beyond LEO missions until long after President Obama leaves office.
Also, if ULA declines to play ball on the fixed price versus cost plus funding model, I predict NASA and Congress shall cave in and give ULA whatever they want in order to assure adequate ISS logistics support.]]]
You have it right on. All commercial crew will end up is a replay of the OSP plane with new names. And more expensive since a “must” close the gap at all cost mentality will take root at NASA after the last Shuttle flight. Don’t underestimate how strong the “crash program to catch up” is within their cultural heritage from the Mercury and Apollo days. Expect a very expensive Orion lite on EELV as the solution.
I also would not be surprised SpaceX if eliminated from serious consideration with their first test flight anomaly and/or by making the human rating requirements impossible for them to meet. Unfortunately they have become the poster boy as the replacement for Constellation which makes them target number one for all in Congress and NASA who oppose the new space policy. I feel sorry for Elon and his workers as that is a horrible position to be forced into.
It will be interesting to see if Elon will be able to cut his burn rate fast enough when that happens and if SpaceX survives to reorient towards its original focus on commercial markets. Or if SpaceX joins RpK as a COTS victim. Either way it will be a mega learning experience.
Zubrin is certainly a mixed bag. But this latest opinion piece by Zubrin is more right than wrong.
I agree with everything Thomas says just above, except for this bit:
I feel sorry for Elon and his workers as that is a horrible position to be forced into.
There is nothing horrible for SpaceX about the big subsidies they have gotten to develop Falcon unless they have overly distorted the 9’s design towards NASA’s unique requirements. They also will incur no financial losses if Dragon never flies people since it is more than being paid for by NASA to fly cargo.
And nobody forced Elon into any of this. He chose to go down this path by choosing to lobby for and agree to big NASA HSF contracts. If his claims about lower launch costs are accurate, he still has plenty of chance to back off from irrevocably entering the Exploration Directorate morass and focus on the real market for launching unmanned spacecraft. Real space commerce is thriving regardless of the weeping and gnashing of teeth in the HSF community.
It will be interesting to see if Elon will be able to cut his burn rate fast enough when that happens
Contrary to the mythologies propounded by SpaceX fans, I heavily doubt that Elon has made huge HSF-specific capital investments in pursuit of fantasy markets that haven’t already been fully paid for by COTS. So I think that, other than the emotional trauma that HSF fans often go through when they discover economic reality, he will be fine. The Dragon workers will have to get new jobs working on Orion-Lite, or they can choose to pursue the private sector in which case they will still probably have a reputational advantage over the Shuttle and Constellation work forces.
The Dragon workers will have to get new jobs…
That’s a bit premature! Watching SpaceX grow has been fascinating. Many others would not have done as well. I really don’t believe NASA is going to derail any of their long range plans.
The Dragon workers will have to get new jobs…
I should clarify that this refers only to the (mostly mythological, I suspect) Dragon workers who are working on crewed features in anticipation of “Commercial” Crew or supposed space tourism. Dragon people needed specifically to accomplish the ISS cargo flights already contracted with NASA, and one or more probable follow-on cargo contracts, are in fine shape for at least the next few years.
Brad, how about telling us what you think he’s gotten right? “here here” comments are just worthless.
You know what Trent, I was just about to dive in and try to answer your question to me. But then I read your earlier comment.
After digesting that rant, I came to the conclusion I would be wasting my time trying to satisfy you. So why bother.
Example: your slant on what Zubrin wrote in the article about NASA funding is so astonishing, I must wonder if you even read the article.
Seeing as I didn’t say anything about NASA funding I can only imagine what you’re talking about is Zubrin’s continuous lie that NASA had the same budget during the Apollo era as they do today. Zubrin has been factually proven to be lying about this, repeatedly, and he keeps slingly the same line of shit. It is simply, factually, false that NASA has the same amount of funding today as they did during the Apollo era.. and it’s such an obvious lie that most educated people find it embarrassing. What usually follows it is a declaration that NASA is useless and hasn’t done anything worthwhile since Apollo… which, ya know, does a lot to win him favor with NASA administration after NASA administration.. with an attitude like that The Mars Society has no chance of ever having their goals receiving consideration.
Zubrin has no interest in anyone else’s opinion but his own. Let’s look at who he’s quoted in this article to support his position. First, there’s Burt Rutan, and Zubrin seems completely unaware that Rutan was misquoted.. in fact, Zubrin quotes out of context the letter Rutan published to clear the air from the original misquoting by Andy Pasztor of the WSJ. So not only has Zubrin demonstrated how disconnected from the rest of the community he is, he’s also pissed in the pool.
Next, there’s Senator Bill Nelson who Zubrin claims is one of several members of Congress who have voiced strong opposition to the new NASA direction. This too is simply ill-founded. In fact, Bill Nelson is perhaps the biggest supporter of the FY11 budget in Congress right now. This probably just indicates that Zubrin gets his space politics from the newspaper.
Finally, there’s President Kennedy. The quote is standard fare for the Apollo cargo cult and, in this case, is used to disparage and mischaracterize President Obama. Because he’s unaware of any of the many things Obama has actually said that he could quote to use against him, he’s attempting to put the words into his mouth which will most do the trick.
Now, some might say this is an ad hominem attack on Zubrin, but that presupposes that I have an axe to grind with Zubrin’s plan. That’s not the case. I think Mars Direct is great piece of work and think it might actually be workable if some of the key technologies were more mature. Artificial gravity using tethers for example, but for decades now it has been almost a thought crime at NASA to even suggest risk reduction of that technology. Why do you think that is? ISRU is only now leaving purgatory.
So I hope you can see, my problem is not with The Mars Society or even with the Mars Direct plan. My problem is with the ineffective, bitter and insulting way it is being presented.
Once there, no-one cares. ‘Apollo Approach’ is synonymous with ‘flags and footprints’.
Actually it was, “Once there, Nixon didn’t care.” He saw no use for a deep-space program after we planted the flag on the moon and quietly began winding things down after Apollo 11. Had we maintained a commitment to a lunar base and manned exploration chances are we’d be arguing today not about whether NASA should go to Mars but which planet AFTER Mars we should explore next.
Any company has to keep a close eye on it’s burn rate. I’m wondering if SpaceX might sell components to other companies down the road.
Zubrin has no interest in anyone else’s opinion but his own.
He has his fault’s like everybody, but even if that’s true you have to give him his due. His idea’s, not all of them, force thought outside the box. That’s a good thing. His plans are workable even if not optimal. I don’t like that he’s myopic about refueling and heavy lift. He’s a character. He has a can do attitude which is refreshing with all the can’t do that’s out there. It doesn’t even matter that his ideas are not all original with him. Just the fact that he points to the elephant in the room and get’s people squabbling works for me.
Assume we do want to colonize Mars. A heavy lift government program isn’t going to do that. So I disagree with Zubrin on that, but still, if we went from Apollo to Mars with planned Saturn V upgrades using ISRU we’d have been there in the 70’s. If somebody had thought of it soon enough we might have.
We need refueling to open it up to many companies so it’s not a government only project. But here’s where Zubrin has ideas that work. Start with the flight profile that gives a free return and a long stay. Next, the idea of putting habitat and fuel in place before any people follow. I’d go even farther and oversupply potential landing sites. Establish multiple bases within driving range to support each other but give maximum exploration area. Seeing Mars as not just a place to explore but to exploit.
Mars Direct was an economic fantasy on at least two levels. The idea that the same organization is going to go to Mars on the cheap that spent over a hundred billion on Apollo, had spent ludicrous sums to build white elephants like Shuttle and ISS, and would have had to spend even more on Constellation just to get back to the moon, was sheer fantasy. The idea that sending a handful of astronauts to Mars would lead to colonization is even worse, a fantasy astronomically far from the profound difficulties that would be involved in trying to create an economy independent of our global economy with its billions of people and fine-grained division of labor on which modern technology is based. Zubrin as with many astronaut fans is deep into his own sci-fi world and nowhere close to the proximity of reality.
is going to go to Mars on the cheap
Yikes, I slipped into astronaut-fan speak. I meant “is sending astronauts to Mars on the cheap”. NASA has already sent many useful spacecraft and landers and rovers to Mars which all put together still sum to only a fraction of the cost of Apollo.
This is just more pressure on the administration to actually set milestones and dates. Mars is the destination, but that destination cannot be realized, by all accounts, without a date to get there.
I’d be shocked and appalled if the administration does not in fact set dates, either after a 30-90 report, or at the space conference on the 15th (a suggestion for a 30-90 report on the 15th with a cursory set of dates would be acceptable, nothing less).
Trent
Two points
First
I’ve looked over the NASA budget numbers for myself rather than take anyone’s word in this superheated debate. The truth is that the current NASA budget accumulates in twelve years what NASA spent in eight years during the peak budget years of the space race and Project Apollo.
Obviously the current NASA budget is smaller than the highest year of NASA spending which was 1965. But NASA has plenty of money to try to accomplish truly ambitious space projects, which is the real point. As the national economy has grown over the decades, so have NASA budgets and this trend is likely to continue.
Second Point
Zubrin accurately related Rutan’s opinion of the current Bolden/Obama plan.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2010/02/burt-rutan-responds-to-buzz-al.html#more
Supplemental point
Zubrin is a jerk, and gets some things wrong. But when Zubrin is right, so what if he’s a jerk?
The “so what” is that Zubrin has been doing more harm than good for decades. NASA can’t seriously look at a Mars trip without people thinking of Zubrin.. when people think of Zubrin they think “but I don’t wanna buy a used car.”
“the current NASA budget accumulates in twelve years what NASA spent in eight years during the peak budget years of the space race and Project Apollo” .. that’s not what Zubrin says though, he says they’re *THE SAME* and when people relate to him that NASA does a lot more now than it did then he starts up the insults. You can set your watch by it.
But more importantly, you’re falling for the game, what’s the average got to do with anything? The peak is what matters.. if you don’t get the peak funding for a project you can’t complete the project, it drags out and dies in a mess of bureaucracy, most recent example: Constellation. Plus there’s the strawman of blaming it all on the budget. “People say the only reason NASA can’t do today what they did during Apollo is the budget…”, no, they don’t. They say it is *one* of the reasons, and a pretty damn good one.
Trent
When I spoke of Zubrin, I meant that being a jerk doesn’t make a difference in whether Zubrin is right or wrong about a fact. Zubrin is either right or wrong, period. And a jerk.
I agree though that his attitude can do harm to his cause. But that is irrelevant to the accuracy of the article in question. In fact even though the article is critical, it is relatively sober and fair, and far from the kinds of invective Zubrin sometimes indulges in.
Zubrin has been doing more harm than good for decades.
He has a point of view at odds with other points of view. Where’s the harm? You don’t have to agree whole hog to get some good from his ideas.
NASA can’t seriously look at a Mars trip without people thinking of Zubrin
For good reason. NASAs plan was battlestar galactica. Zubrin at least pushed in the right direction. Push a little farther and we’re there.
Ken, you might note that its swinging back to battlestar galactica.. there’s an appeal there that is more than just pork. It’s a capability to go into the solar system and develop it. Personally, I’ve never seen a sci-fi series with serious space industrialization.. I believe there’s some Manga that gives it a good shot.
Brad, where does Zubrin manage to say anything factual about Rutan? He repeats 3 quotes from the WSJ article.. all of which Burt subsequently retracted saying they were taken out of context. If Zubrin is right about that then so is Andy Pasztor and I don’t think anyone would say that.
Or are you still saying that Zubrin is factually correct when it comes to his claims of the NASA budget now and during Apollo? It’s really simple, Zubrin claims that NASA has just as much funding now and they did then so there’s no reason why they can’t do Apollo again with Mars as the target.. That’s simply wishful thinking and trivially wrong.
A similar claim he’s been repeating lately (I’ve only heard it about 3 times so far, it’s so refreshing!) is that “we” are closer now to getting to Mars than NASA was when the Apollo program started. I don’t know why he keeps repeating this one-liner, everyone who hears it says “huh?” What he means is that less technology development is needed for a Mars Direct mission than was required for Apollo. I expect this claim is factually correct.. but I wish someone would stop him when he gets into the rant about all the stuff they developed during Apollo and say “so what technology needs to be developed for Mars Direct”? Cause a productive discussion might follow…
you might note that its swinging back to battlestar galactica..
Perhaps, but I don’t think a general purpose spaceship need imply that. To me, B.G. implies load everything you need on one ship.
My view is you have different ships for different environments and not require everything to travel together. You have a ship for traveling between gravity wells but not up or down them. You have other ships for gravity wells that transfer to and from the ships that are not. Supplies can travel separately and be produced ISRU. Even the landers can travel separately and be docked with before use. It makes sense that landers be reusables, but that’s not a requirement. The important thing is that supplies can be sent ahead and accumulated so you don’t need a B.G. to accomplish a mission.