I agree with Bob Zubrin, and I don’t disagree with his speculation about the motives behind it.
75 thoughts on “Obama Wrecks The Mars Program”
Comments are closed.
I agree with Bob Zubrin, and I don’t disagree with his speculation about the motives behind it.
Comments are closed.
This poses a grave crisis for the American space program.
Crisis ? It clips the wings of mars mafiaa that has been strangling the planetary exploration budgets for far too long ( *ahem* MSL overruns ) but crisis ? Whats the big hurry of probing the hell out of Mars anyway ?
Mars is by far the most interesting target of study for interplanetary space science. It deserves to get the lion’s share of space science funding. Venus, Mercury, the asteroids, Jupiter, Saturn, comets, etc. are all interesting but none hold a candle to Mars. Not least because Mars is still the best off-Earth locale for self-sustaining long term human habitation.
By the time we get around to sending humans to Mars it will be clear to all the most fantanic followers of Dr. Zubrin that the future of humanity is in space itself, not at the bottom of gravity wells. The only thing interesting about Mars is its potential to harbor life, but the same is true of Europa and Titian.
Its far past time for this generation of Mars researchers to retire to their labs, as the Moon researchers were forced to do did after Apollo, and start to analyze the huge haul of data that has been generated since the mid-1990’s. Then when the economy recovers to use that time out to plan a new campiagn.
The only thing interesting about Mars is that you can bootstrap a self-sustaining technological infrastructure on the planet, you can grow food, build habitats, fab microchips, etc. Also, you can build reusable SSTOs with 1960s technology. But that’s not a big deal right?
you can bootstrap a self-sustaining technological infrastructure
Yes, any day now. We are so close ..
Is there anything a self sustaining facility in orbit would need that wouldn’t also be needed on the surface of Mars?
Robin,
Nope, its not.
You are able to do all those things on the Moon as well and since you don’t having to deal with the 20 minute time delays or months long transit times you could start now with a robotic program that’s an order of magnitude then has been spent on Mars over the last two decades.
And if that was the goal of the Mars program I might even support it, but NASA’s Mars program is all about the search for microscopic life not about living on Mars. So it really has near zero value to the goal of space settlement.
If there was a thumbs up or like button i’d click that, mr. Matula.
Finding life on Mars might be the justification for a space settlement. Yes, finding life on Mars could be a reason for humans to stay away, lest we contaminate a biological site, but say we find the equivalent of Lake Vostock on Mars — that is to say, a site which is biologically isolate from the surface, and indeed, is rather hard to get to from the surface, but which contains life.
The life would be scientifically invaluable, but it could be a economic resource as well — I recently commented about a new bacteria found in the Pine Barrens of New Jersey which led to a new antibiotic. Well, that’s one bacteria. Imagine finding a whole new microscopic ecosystem which is adapted to the problems of living on Mars — it could give us insights into solving all sorts of biological problems. Just as the Gold Rush led to the development of the West, you might have a Microbe Rush on Mars….
…Too fanciful? Well, at the very least, finding isolated life on Mars could lead to permanent bases, as in Antarctica.
And thats why I think exploration can (and should) be a precursor to development.
Is there anything a self sustaining facility in orbit would need that wouldn’t also be needed on the surface of Mars?
Water. Carbon. Oxygen. Iron. Thorium/Uranium. Silicon. Copper.
Thus: food, water, air, rocket propellant, building materials, electric power production, microchips, plastics. You know, relatively minor things needed for sustaining an exponentially growing population and industrial base.
Bring a small chunk of a NEO (or loose surface material gathered in a large bag) into an Earth orbit, and the argument is undone.
I think a big difference is that solar energy is more available in high orbits than on the martian surface. This has powerful implications for both industry and agriculture.
And in orbit you are able to provide 1G for the occupants, eliminating the many problems that are likely to be associated with 1/3 even if humans are able to reproduce in it.
Really future generations living in space will wonder why we ever crazy enough to consider Mars as a place for space settlement. The Moon at least makes sense as an interim step, as a source of raw materials, to building space habitats, but Mars, due to its vast distance, atmosphere and deep gravity well makes no sense at all.
“And in orbit you are able to provide 1G for the occupants, eliminating the many problems that are likely to be associated with 1/3 even if humans are able to reproduce in it.”
One do this with rotation or hanging [as something like space elevator] in a gravity well- though getting close to 1 gee would difficult- and 1/3 to 1/2 gravity less challenging.
It seems that lifeforms that develop in 1/3 gravity would different than those which grow up in 1 gee worlds. But doesn’t seems that multicellular life in this universe is limited to 1 gee worlds.
It seems a martian could have some handicaps if visiting earth, as would earthling visiting a 2 or 3 gee world.
Water of course is somewhat similar to zero gee- on macro level. For example it seems to me a whale wouldn’t notice much difference between living in ocean on Earth or Mars- and there unlikely to be any significant development or evolutionary change if whales would allowed live on Mars.
“Really future generations living in space will wonder why we ever crazy enough to consider Mars as a place for space settlement. The Moon at least makes sense as an interim step, as a source of raw materials, to building space habitats, but Mars, due to its vast distance, atmosphere and deep gravity well makes no sense at all.”
Well future generation may consider the idea that Mars is it some vast distance as hard to grasp.
I agree that Moon is much closer and obviously should a be more significant focus in the near term. But it’s the shortage of rocket fuel, which makes Mars so far away. But in space there is no shortage of available rocket fuel. So once we mining water on the Moon and making hundreds of tons of rocket fuel [which could be a much higher rate such as tens of thousands of tons or hundreds of thousand of tons of rocket fuel per year] Mars will appear much closer.
Yes we could develop some kind catapult on the Moon which gives 1 or 2 km per second [there no need to make it equal lunar orbital speed- it can be the first stage- a reduce rocket fuel use]. But also there isn’t really a limit to how high velocity it could achieve, e.g, one could have one that gave 10 km/sec. Nor would such device need to be solely on lunar surface.
And this such developed infrastructure, getting to Mars in week or two, wouldn’t need to have much cost [energy cost being somewhere around current flight to Europe]. And then we fancier ways moving such fusion drive. But returning to the near term- within the 21 century- we go Mars in a bit more than couple months, using same types chemical rockets we using now.
So, in terms of faster than current timeline, explore the Moon by 2020, start human mars exploration by 2025, finish NASA exploration of Human Mars by 2040, and at this point Mars and Moon has human settlement.
By 2040, thousand of tons of rocket fuel per year could made on the Moon- thousand of tons of rocket fuel over the years have already been made on the Moon. And at this point thousand or so tonnes of rocket fuel has lifted from earth- some of this used relating to manned lunar and perhaps Mars Manned exploration. So by 2040 more than 1/2 rocket has comes the Moon- Earth and Mars are other half of market. And increases in Mars rocket fuel production, the lowering of earth export of rocket fuel, and perhaps NEOs/asteriods/or elsewhere are target as new sources.
So at that point getting to Mars could easier than it is today to get to the Moon, and the Moon could cheaper than getting to ISS.
I have a friend in aerospace. She was retiring from JPL and gave her manager a letter stating same. He tore it up. Instead, he said he would lay her off – thereby giving her over 20 weeks of severance pay and allow her to go on unemployment. She was very thankful. As a taxpayer I wasn’t.
Government programs suck – even if they support your pet hobby horse.
Maybe after the Mars folk stop crying they will do what SETI did and find private funding for their Mars research. After all, exactly what value is there from Mars research that is worth taxpayer money?
Not much in there about the Moon or Commercial Space. To Zubrin, ‘human space flight’ equals Mars and nothing else.
And seeing Mars is fine, seeing *nothing but* Mars, and treating anything that doesn’t somehow support reaching Mars (even if those things also lend themselves to breaking the ‘Limits to Growth’ paradigm) as an unnecessary, costly diversion…isn’t.
To Zubrin, ‘human space flight’ equals Mars and nothing else.
It’s called focus Frank. I can’t speak for Zubrin, although I do note that he advocates other space activities besides mars (ie. Hubble repair.) People may disagree, but I believe that focusing on getting mars colonized will result in the fastest move into the solar system. Mars becomes an anchor tenant for every other activity. Making flights to mars cheaper, which a mars colony will encourage, makes every other destination cheaper; where an unfocused improvement of capabilities is more like one step forward, another step back.
For example: we debate fuel depots. Focus on mars and the debate is over. It becomes ridiculous not to have fuel depots. Yes, I know Zubrin’s mars direct didn’t call for depots, but that doesn’t reduce the point one iota. Zubrin sees the light with Falcon Heavy (this doesn’t mean he wouldn’t like bigger rockets, just that he keeps his focus and is more flexible than others claim him to be.) I prefer we leave the government out of it, but that makes me the weirdo, not Zubrin.
someone must be empowered to enforce the constraining
Yes I do think somewhere in the background this is a motivation. Tyranny usually doesn’t call itself that.
It’s called focus Frank.
No, its called “Kalnienk vision”.
Mars is a dead end in that regard simply because of the long time delay. There is nothing on Mars that is not available on the Moon, in a gravity well half as deep and close enough for easy telebotic support from Earth. Add to that the advantages of the EM L1 and L2 for launching for launching nuclear powered ion and Plasma spacecraft to the Solar System and its easy to see just what dead end Mars is in any startegy for developing the Solar System.
I don’t like the idea of ending Mars exploration. But, I agree that, unless we are going to revisit nuclear propulsion, the reach for Mars exceeds our grasp. The Moon is much easier, and a permanent colony there would make it easier to build support, whether public or private, for expanded spacefaring options.
Small moves, Ellie. Small moves.
Bart,
Actually this is only the end of Mars exploration if the Mars science community insists on ever more expensive and grander missions like it has recently. I think that is the real message Administrator Bolden is sending.
I expect the money would be there if they proposed missions at the MER level of funding, maybe even a MER 2 series with similar size rovers with upgrades based on experience. Two such mission per launch window targeted at different parts of the planet might provide a fairly high ROI given what MER has accomplished to date.
>>MER 2 series with similar size rovers with upgrades based on experience.
+ sized for most economical launch vehicles available, that can still put enough mass through TMI.
Mars has abundant nitrogen, which is kind of nice to have if you plan on ever eating again. It also has an atmosphere, which means you only have to climb *up* that twice-as-deep gravity well; on the Moon you have to use rocket thrust both ways. More generally, Mars has had a more interesting geologic history, which probably means economically useful concentrations of a broad range of materials only present on the Moon in trace concentrations.
If the goal is to create a self-sufficient human civilization in isolation, Mars is almost certainly an easier place to do that than Luna. If the hypothetical Martians or Loonies are going to be trading with the rest of the solar system, the case is less clear – how much trade, with whom, at what cost?
Ultimately, of course, there will be people living on both, trading with each other (and beyond), but where the initial steps will be made, I don’t think you, I, or Zubrin are really in a position to say.
A series of unmanned Mars probes might do quite a bit to help pin that down. Instead, we get Webb.
John,
From everything I read the Martiam atmosphere is more a curse for folks designing landers than an asset. Look at the Rube Goldberg system for MSL. And the friction you have with an atmosphere increases the fuel needed to get to orbit above the simple difference in gravity wells. The Moon by contrast is simple, half the gravity and no need for extra weight like heat shields or parachutes. No high winds to fight (both MER mission were almost lost due to high winds… ) On the Moon its just refuel and go.
As for the Moon, the more we learn the more we see that the simple Apollo era model is incomplete. If I recall Mars was thought to have a simple geological history as well before the current string of missions. It may turn once we invest money in exploring the Moon we will see that it also has an “interesting” and complex history as well.
“The Near-IR spectrometers on the LCROSS shepherding satellite detected abundant water (H2O) but also hydrogen sulfide (H2S), ammonia (NH3), methanol (CH3OH), methane (CH4), ethylene (C2H4) and sulfur dioxide (SO2). The uv-vis spectrometer found carbon dioxide (CO2), sodium, silver, and cyanide (CN). Aboard the distant LRO spacecraft, the ultraviolet LAMP imager detected hydrogen (H2), nitrogen, carbon monoxide (CO), sodium, mercury, zinc, gold (!), and calcium. But water, present in quantities between 5 and 10 weight percent, is the most abundant volatile substance present.”
http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/2010/10/strange-lunar-brew/
It seems to me if you need to grow tons of food- as farming as an industry, than Mars is better than the Moon. And it seems if there any amount people living on Mars, you will need to do a fair amount of farming. I would say more important than nitrogen, the large amount CO2 is big advantage. There more CO2 on Mars than on Earth.
So it seems that food export from Mars to rest of space, is likely.
With the Moon one could grow some fresh vegetables, but most of food you probably import from Earth [or Mars]. Most people on Earth live in places where food need to be imported.
Another advantage of no atmosphere is that you could eventually switch to electromagnetic propulsion (O’Neill’s mass driver) to both launch and land spacecraft without expending fuel.
For the moon, a 6G accel (the peak force in an aircraft carrier’s catapult) for one minute on a 15 mile rail gets you to orbital velocity. The linear motor on the new Gerald Ford class aircraft carriers can already handle the job. A similar system could also be used for landing, where you make a de-orbit burn so the flight path kisses the surface and meets the maglev arresting system at Mach 5, followed by one minute of decel at 6G’s.
That allows for unlimited cargo and material transport to and from the moon without depleting any of the lunar volatiles.
Venus is also overlooked, but it has more carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen than the Earth, sufficient atmospheric water to fill one of the Great Lakes, and twice the amount of sunlight.
George,
Yes, electro-magnetic mass drivers are a great idea, especially given the dust problems from using rocket engines near the surface. I expect there would be an early transition to such systems for that reason.
Thomas,
The Martian atmosphere is thinner than you’d like for aerodynamic entry and landing, but it will get the job done – for all the complaining JPL et al do on that front, they aren’t even trying to develop all-propulsive landers. The propulsive delta-V required for a round trip between low Mars orbit and the surface is about 4.6 km/s, compared to 4.1 km/s for Luna. In practical terms, the gravity wells are roughly equally deep.
As for interesting geology on the Moon, that also would be a place where more probes would be helpful, but don’t get your hopes up. No air, no running water ever, no plate tectonics, and no chance for biology leaves much less room for surprises on the Moon than Mars. When you put together the full list of raw materials a human civilization will need, in quantities inconvenient to lift out of Earth’s ~10 km/s gravity well, Mars does look like the better bet. The bigger question is whether Mars is where we put the cities, or just some of the mines and farms. Anyone who says they know the answer already, doesn’t know how much they don’t know.
And we won’t know, until we go and look. That’s not going to happen on Obama’s watch, obviously, but it probably doesn’t need to.
John,
I seem to recall folks believing there was no water on the Moon. Now we have craters with ice. And then there was the argument there was no major volcanic activity and now we find there are numerous underground calderas, one the size of San Diego with thick ceilings, just waiting for conversion into settlements – just add atmosphere and heat, the shielding is already there 🙂 Believing the Moon’s geology is simple is just a bias some folks have because we have spent so little time studying worlds other then the Earth.
The Moon still has an advantage even if Delta V is similar as it doesn’t require streamlining of the spacecraft, nor do you have to allow for wind or friction heating. And most importantly, mass drivers allow you to export your products to orbit or the near by Earth for the basically the “fuel” cost of the electrical energy to run them.
John, I believe Thomas is referring to this:
http://www.universetoday.com/7024/the-mars-landing-approach-getting-large-payloads-to-the-surface-of-the-red-planet/
and http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/39664/1/05-3869.pdf
The argument is that we currently don’t know how to land more than one or two tons on the Martian surface, due to the nature of the atmosphere.
OTOH: Henry Spencer suggests that the SpaceX Dragon abort rockets are configured the way they are to contend with the challenges of Martian re-entry.
John,
I assume they’re sticking with parachutes, which are very light. Wings just wouldn’t work well. In the Martian atmosphere the Space Shuttle’s landing speed would be around 1000 mph, which is really hard on the tires. To get the landing speed down to 120 mph with a lift coefficient of 1.2 you need a wing loading of 2 lbs-mass per square foot (taking into account the reduced gravity). Such a vehicle would need the wing area of a 747 but the mass of a P-51 Mustang (about 11,000 lbs). That’s a difficult proposition.
Bob-1,
Thanks! That was the link I was looking for, which confirms discussions I have had with engineers on the difficulty of landing on Mars.
Thomas, I’ve posted those links so many times to Rand’s blog, to find them now, I just google the following keywords: transterrestrial Bob-1 mars landing
What’s new is what Henry said about the Dragon – might want to look into that.
If the goal is to create a self-sufficient human civilization in isolation,
Where does this fantasy of self-sufficient human civilization in isolation comes from by the way ? What colony our outpost anywhere has started out as a “self-sufficient civilization in isolation” ?
I guess Leif Ericson tried that, didn’t go so well. Spaniards came somewhat later and relied on abundant supply of critical things like gunpowder and bullets from motherland.
Complete self-sufficiency is a bounding case, as is the other extreme of a cosmopolitan solar system where resources are extracted from wherever they are most readily available and freely transported to wherever they are desired. Neither of these extremes will actually represent the early stages of human space development, but establishing the bounds is still useful for understanding the middle ground.
At the complete self-sufficiency bound, the logical place for settlement is probably Mars. At the free-trade bound, L-5 looks pretty good. Luna is sort of like L-5 but with some resources underfoot, Phobos is close to Mars but with easier access to the rest of the solar system. Where you want to build the first extraterrestrial city, depends on how much trade you expect to be going on early in the process.
No, you want to build your extraterrestrial city close to home, so you can do a lot of teleoperation, iterate your evolving technology fast ( you are trying to live off world ffs ), and get home quick if the poop hits the ventilator.
Trade ? Self sufficiency ? We are so far away from that discussion its not even funny – for all the talk there has not been a single actual experiment of ISRU, and none are in the planning. Call us again in 100 years.
Zubrin fails to even mention the Webb telescope overruns. He simply says, disingenuously, that “there is no justification for the proposed cuts.”
Assuming this is a disaster, what is the solution?
The obvious answer would be to cancel the Webb telescope which is eating everyone’s lunch — but Zubrin does’t have the guts to say that.
Cancel other space science programs? There aren’t many left.
Increase the size of the space science budget? That would mean less funding for things like human exploration, which is supposedly Zubrin’s goal.
Increase the overall size of the NASA budget? Sorry, Bob, it doesn’t matter how many times you say NASA is less than 1% of the Federal budget. There are hundreds of programs that are less than 1% of the Federal budget, and their advocates all say the same thing you do. That adds up to a lot more than 100%. An engineer should be able to see the problem with that.
I’m not sure why Zubrin gets so hot and bothered about these Mars science missions anyway. They are not a necessary precursor for human missions to Mars. Zubrin himself admits that. The science is interesting if you think humans won’t be visiting Mars any time soon, but a single geologist on Mars could do more science in a week than one of these missions does in a year. So, if Zubrin succeeds, the current Mars science missions are largely redundant.
“That adds up to a lot more than 100%.”
Ah, no.
Ah, yes. It is mathematically impossible for hundreds of special interest groups to be guaranteed 1% of the Federal budget.
If you don’t understand that, you’re qualified to run for Congress. 🙂
Leaving aside the issue of whether government should be running the show in space (it shouldn’t, of course), I think there is something interesting in the idea that some among the left fear a resource-rich society. It goes along with the anti-consumer “Too many choices” arguments we hear.
If the left were serious about wanting to improve the human condition, with no one being left behind, the one obvious thing to focus on is advancing science and technology. Yet they seem opposed to doing that, except in politically acceptable areas (like some alt energy). Why? It’s hard not to think that their principal goal is social engineering and control. Limit resources so that a central authority can easily be the sole distributor, and limit choices for individuals.
Except the “wealth” of Mars will contribute very little to human economy. Its too far to export raw materials, its too far to operate mines with telebotics systems, we don’t know if humans will be able to reproduce in 1/3 G. Mars, like Antarctica, is a nice place for scientists to play but there is nothing there, except many some microbes to exploit, that will serve to increase the collective wealth of humanity.
Well, I suppose we could just rely on the Russians for Mars, the way we’re relying on them for ISS access; their last two Mars probes have been highly successful (at voyaging to South America and its environs).
Or… how about axing the Senate Launch System and the crew capsule, saving three billion a year, and use a billion of that to fund more commercial performance-based contracts, and you’d still save two billion a year. Nah, too logical.
Rand,
I honestly don’t think President Obama even spent two minutes thinking about the NASA budget or killing Mars. OMB probably just gave NASA a number and NASA was forced to choose between Webb and Mars. Webb won probably because its in house and is seen as a flagship program like the Hubble. Also I really don’t think the Europeans will be crying over this except in public. Given the sad financial state of Europe they are probably glad for the excuse to save some money while being able to blame those unreliable Americans for it. Really, it doesn’t get any better then that if you’re an European bureacrat 🙂
I honestly don’t think President Obama even spent two minutes thinking about the NASA budget or killing Mars.
Who said he has? Not me.
Rand,
Gee silly me, I thought that was the title to this thread “Obama Wrecks The Mars Program”. So why did you call it that if you don’t believe that is the case?
Maybe because that’s the title of Bob’s article he’s linking to?
Rand has correct other misleading headlines when he linked to them. Why didn’t he do so this time?
This is about Obama’s budget
But Rand doesn’t say “Obama’s Budget Wrecks” which would be the accurate headline. Instead, like a typical sensation seeking journalist, he says “Obama Wrecks” implying that its personal.
Is it your contention that a president bears no responsibility for his proposed budget?
Your headline was not referring to his President Obama’s Budget, merely to President Obama.
That stated a President is responsible for everything their administration does, from good things like getting Osama Bin Laden and the Somali hostage rescue, to the administration’s budget. As President Truman stated, “The Buck Stops Here.” But it is good journalist form to not make things sound personal when they are not.
Well Obama has a few solar power companies he not done paying off yet. So he needs the other science programs to turn out their pockets and cough up some spare change for this Sputnik moment that’s sure to happen any day now.
OT: OMG NASA decides to kill Bigelow Aerospace: NASAWatch reports NASA “is offering free rides up, free downlinks, and other services to potential users” of the ISS, because they can’t think of enough uses within NASA: http://nasawatch.com/archives/2012/02/iss-users-wante.html
Yes, its hard to compete against the government giving things out free you want to charge for. The good news is that the NASA safety requirement hoops it will probably require for potential users of the ISS will probably still make it more expensive then contracting with Bigelow Aerospace. The other issue of course is that the ISS has been living on borrowed time ever since the Shuttle was retired and if Mr. Bigelow is lucky it may not be up there when he launches his station.
Surprising that Obama didn’t just kick the funding can down the road like he has with everything else. Sure, he probably did this to make his 10 year debt projections better but when we wont have deficits under $1t unil after the Obama is gone, who cares. It is all meaningless.
The real damage here seems to be the loss of long term stratevies and goals not funding.
Anyone who knows Bob has probably heard his story about how nuclear fusion research was destroyed. In short: international cooperation was the culprit. Ask Bob what he thinks of the ISS and you’ll get the same argument. Now, for some inexplicable reason, international cooperation is a good thing and Obama is a bad guy for choosing not to enter another feel good adventure with the lesser space powers.
And where are the cuts going? JWST and SLS. Bob couldn’t care less about JWST, but he’ll tell you that SLS is a fantastic step forward. That alone should be enough to see why Bob is still his usual mixed up self.
This part is really important:
George Orwell may have foreseen this, in a way:
Which is all spot on, except this has nothing to do with rest of Zubrin’s agenda or the budget cuts.
Almost none of the martian exploration budget to date has really contributed towards the goal of space un-constraining our resources eventually.
And if Zubrin was serious about any of that he would shut up about his manned Mars fantasies and would campaign heavily for immediate and aggressive space tech R&D with focus on ISRU, while putting science goals and manned sorties on a backburner for a while. And if you think about actual space resource utilization ( never even been attempted yet ) Mars is the least convenient place to start at, with Moon, NEOs and even main asteroid belt being far less challenging and useful near term.
Rickl,
The weakness both you and Dr. Zubrin are making is the assumption that Dr. Holdren actually sees space in general and Mars specifically as options for human expansion. I expect he would laugh himself silly at the idea, just like the public did at Newt Gingrich’s lunar colony idea. Consider, if he did take it seriously he would probably be going after CCDev and the NASA Technology budgets, projects that might produce technology for off world expansion and not some joint experiments with the Europeans to search for life of Mars. The former are actual threats to the finite Earth model while the latter is merely “noble and proper” scientific research. Beside if life is ever found on Mars it would be far easy to get an international treaty closing it off forever to settlement and economic development. So if Dr. Zubrin’s thesis was correct Dr. Holdren should actually be in favor of funding both missions, not against them. That is why Dr. Zubrin is wrong on the motives behind cutting these missions.
OK, Holdren wrote about the limited carrying capacity of Earth’s biosphere over 40 years ago–when he was in his 20s. That was along time ago; there are plenty of things I believed in my 20s that I disavow now, and I’m not even as old as Holdren. Secondly, a belief that the exploration of Mars is wrong just doesn’t follow from the belief that Earth’s capacity if finite. Even assuming he’s still attached to his 1971 view, maybe he thinks we should explore so we can add its carrying capacity to Earth’s.
In short, the evidence presented just doesn’t support the view that the Mars budget was cut because Holdren is a limits-to-growther. Congress insists on continuing JWST, which has eaten astrophysics budget and is now munching on the rest of the science budget: that’s a much more plausible cause for the cut to Mars missions.
P.S. I happened recently to listen to the Space Show for 26 September 2010:
http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/1430-BWB-2010-09-26.mp3 ,
wherein Republican space consultant, lobbyist and former Congressional staffer Jim Muncy states quite plainly that all this stuff about OSTP and Holdren trying to kill HSF, etc., is just nonsense. Bear in mind that Muncy knows space, knows these people, and doesn’t in general have many good things to say about the Obama administration.
By the time we get around to sending humans to Mars it will be clear to all the most fantanic followers of Dr. Zubrin that the future of humanity is in space itself, not at the bottom of gravity wells.
Again captain Asimov (it is captain right? your vision doesn’t have you an indentured servant right?) resources are the issue. You build in space and I’ll build on mars. Let’s see who has the first thousand people thriving in an ever expanding colony.
In space, power would seem to be an advantage, but I’d even wager my martians will outstrip your spaceship in power production and usage by magnitudes and for centuries.
From everything I read the Martian atmosphere is more a curse for folks designing landers than an asset.
Talk about tunnel vision. That atmosphere is an extremely valuable resource. See other comments above yours. Just because it has issues that need mitigation doesn’t take an ounce away from its benefits. It doesn’t seem to be a curse to Elon. He’s planning on putting ten tons on the surface with a vehicle not too varied, if at all, from his LAS dragon (hardware built and tested… Just waiting for FH and potential but not required NASA mission funding.)
the “wealth” of Mars will contribute very little to human economy.
Yep. Just like the new world did so little for the old. What part of working backward from a solar system teaming with humanity did you not understand?
Ken,
Actually Dr. Issac Asimov was usually referred to as the “good doctor” since he was one, not Captain.
But once again you gloss over the key problem of Mars. First is its vast distance from Earth and the problems it creates. Its taken the MER rover Opportunity eight years to cover a distance of 20 km on Mars, while Russia’s Lunokhod 2 covered 37 km on the Moon in only 4 months using early 1970’s era Russian technology. The reason? The huge time delay allows only small distances to be driven each day.
The short distance to the Moon means your industrial operations will be able to get extensive telebotic support from Earth. On Mars, you are basically out of luck in that regard.
And then you have the minor problem of even getting humans to Mars. We will skip over the months long journey. I am sure most of the Mars faithful see that as a “solved” problem, even if its not. But then once in Mars orbit you need to over come the dual problem of the deep gravity well and atmosphere to get to the surface. Why do you think they are using the Rube Goldberg method of a “skyhook” for MSL? Because they have NO other way to land a payload that large on Mars. And its still smaller then the minimum size craft needed to get a single human on the surface. Bottomline, the technology to land humans safety on the surface is unknown at this point.
Third, there is the problem of 1/3 G. No one knows yet if humans will be able to reproduce successfully in anything less that 1G. Experiments in Zero G with mice shows it won’t work there so its an open and serious question if you will be able to do so in 1/3 G. It kinda puts a cramp in your exploding population of Martians plan if humans are able to have babies on Mars 🙂
How many Mars settlers do you think you will get if they know they won’t be able to have kids on Mars?
In a space habitat by contrast you will be able to have 1G and unless Dr. Einstein is wrong (and he may be) there will be no way for human biology to tell the difference between it and being on the Earth’s surface. Of course if research shows mammals are not able to reproduce in a 1G space habitat modern physics will have an interesting problem to contemplate on the nature of gravity:-)
And even if humans are able to reproduce in Martian gravity what other biological issues may emerge? Yes, muscles will likely degrade in Martian gravity? No problem you say, we won’t ever return to Earth. That is fine, but what about your grand kids, your great-great grand kids. Do you want them barred forever from Earth by the curse of Mars gravity?
At least the Moon is close enough that the 1/6 is not an issue. Most jobs needed for building space habitats will suited to telebotic operation from Earth, while the humans that will be needed on the Moon to build them will be able to return to Earth regularly to eliminate any biological problems resulting from prolonged exposure to 1/6 G.
No, Mars is not “Little House on the Prairie with a red sky” like Dr. Zubrin sells it, its a radically hostile environment, one humans may just not be suited to living in. Visiting for short periods yes, but not living in.
[[[Yep. Just like the new world did so little for the old. What part of working backward from a solar system teaming with humanity did you not understand?]]]
Perhaps you need to study a bit of economic history. The Moon is the equivalent of the New World in terms of the development of the Solar System economy. Accessible with existing technology and holding vast resources. Mars is the equivalent of Antarctica, too far and hostile to be a permanent home to humanity.
Even today the only ones going to Antarctica are scientists and tourists. And no, its not because of the Antarctic Treaty system. If there was any real wealth in Antarctic beyond tourist vistas and scientific knowledge the treaty system, especially the mineral agreement, would be out the door overnight. The only reason nations placed their land claims on hold was because there was nothing economically worthwhile to develop.
I wasn’t referring to Asimov; I was referring to your Asimov captain fantasy… and the fact that you don’t seem to understand the politics of ship life.
First is its vast distance from Earth and the problems it creates.
That’s a feature, not a bug. I actually agree that the moon should be explored telerobotically and even suggested we send thousands of simple rovers and let [any] people operate them from a web page.
the technology to land humans safety on the surface is unknown at this point.
There’s a vast difference between unknown and never tried (a gloss if I’ve ever seen one.) Elon seems to be certain he can put ten tons of supplies on the martian surface with his upgraded dragon. A dragon that could as easily put a half ton of people there. To say it’s unknown is a bit disingenuous. I’m sure dozens of commentors on this blog could do the math for ya.
No one knows yet if humans will be able to reproduce successfully in anything less that 1G.
Yep and there is really only one good way to find out. This reminds me of the time when all planes would be destroyed by the sound barrier.
How many Mars settlers do you think you will get if they know they won’t be able to have kids on Mars?
Send kids from my old neighborhood in Phoenix. I guaranty they’ll be poppin’ out kids by the bushel.
there will be no way for human biology to tell the difference
The headaches might be a giveaway unless you are postulating habitats that require strength greater than a space elevator ribbon to achieve.
what other biological issues may emerge?
I’m so scared! OTOH, it might lead to health breakthroughs we would have taken forever to reach. You sound like we’ve solved all the biological issues right here on earth… uh, no we haven’t. I guess we should abandon this planet as well then? Let’s kill off all those that can’t go and join you in your rotating cylinder in space.
a radically hostile environment
Which is just what the next home of the brave and free needs to be. Like the unofficial state motto of the Dakotas… “40 below keeps our the riff-raff.”
Mars is the equivalent of Antarctica
That BS has been refuted right here on this blog. Why do you keep repeating it?
Your assumption that there is no wealth on mars is invalid. I’m not alone in pointing this out. Ignoring it just weakens your argument. I welcome you dealing with it directly.
Ken,
Asimov Habitats are not ships so why do you try to misrepresent them that way? Are trying to take Ed Wright’s place?
[[[Let’s kill off all those that can’t go and join you in your rotating cylinder in space.]]]
You are thinking of O’Neill habitats, and that is one of the reasons they are impractical. Again, why do you confuse the two?
[[[Send kids from my old neighborhood in Phoenix. I guaranty they’ll be poppin’ out kids by the bushel.]]]
You really need to study about the effects of zero G on reproduction in mammals. Not to mention the effects its has on plants. Those are two big unknowns that need to be addressed before any space settlers go to Mars.
[[[Mars is the equivalent of Antarctica
That BS has been refuted right here on this blog. Why do you keep repeating it?]]]
Really? Links? Like Antarctic, Mars is isolated by its vast distance. Like Antarctica its resources are too expensive to compete economically against lunar or NEO resources. Like Antarctica the scientists will fight development of it to prevent interference with their research. That is why Mars is a non-starter for space settlement.
Thomas, Ed Wright is a real engineer. I just play one on this blog.
Call it a rose, it’s still a ship in space and the politics apply.
Zero G has nothing to do with low G reproduction. Even the smallest amount of acceleration makes a huge difference to everything.
We do not even have a constant G on this planet.
You look at mars and see antarctica. That’s a mental problem and I really can’t help you there. Do you look at Raquel Welsh and see Phyllis Diller? (We’re both old farts kids.)
Ken,
One of the sad mistakes of the 70’s generation of space advocates is they seem to believe space is just the American West with spacesuits and Mars is the promised land like the Salt Lake Valley was to the Mormon, but neither is true.
The American West was inhibited by humans for thousands of years and its settlement was more a change of management than anything else, that is why the U.S. Calvary had such an important role in it. And Mars is no promise land like the Salt Lake Valley as it makes the more hellish environment on Earth seem like a paradise. But that is the Lowell Curse. Ever since he wrote about those dying civilizations on Mars over a century ago generations have pictured it as a habitable planet despite all evidence to the contrary. I guess a few waves settlers will have to demonstrate the falseness of that idea by dying on it before it sinks in.
Thomas, it looks like you conceded my other points so let’s have a look at that last one.
Mars is not the wild west. Absolutely true and for none of the reasons you gave. Mars is a harsh environment. What you fail to realize is that taming harsh environments is what humans do… everywhere, including right here on earth. Where I live today I would die of exposure if not for humans taming the environment. …and tame the environment actually means, do nothing about the environment as a whole, but provide protection from it using materials and energy and human knowhow.
Guess what? Materials and energy and human knowhow is all it will take to tame mars. Collect your material for a book Thomas, because future martians will make it a best seller… in the humor category.
Correct: That should be “if humans are not able to have babies on Mars”
I am going to skip attributing motives to the Obama Administration, but whatever their motives I certainly agree with this statement:
“Indeed, what is truly remarkable about the Obama administration’s NASA management is that it has managed to wreck both the human-spaceflight program and the robotic planetary-exploration effort without saving any money.”
You are not paying attention. The wrecking at NASA is largely self-inflicted. JWST, SLS.
I am paying plenty of attention, that my opinions do not agree with yours; is another matter.
I find these conversations that start with questioning someone’s motives, intelligence, level of attention, etc. because they happen to disagree with you to be exceedingly boring.
So, have a nice day.
Joe,
However the reader is correct. NASA’s problems predate President Obama’s Administration, both in terms of its inability to send humans to ISS without paying the Russians, and over budget megalithic programs like the MSL and Webb Telescope that have squeezed out science funding.
Indeed, I suspect that is why OMB targeted these two Mars missions, because they show every evidence of being similar money pits.
Oh, and things like MSL as well.