The new edition of The New Atlantis is out, and editor Adam Keiper has what he says is a "bold new vision" for the nation's space agency. He wants to go to Mars or, to be more accurate, he wants NASA to send a few people to Mars while we stay home and watch.

Yawn...

Not that Mars is boring, but the notion that this is a bold new vision is kind of silly. It's a vision, and a flawed one, as old as the space program itself.

It's a long piece, and has some good history of the space program, but it also contains a lot of conventional wisdom.

Space tourism is often put forward as a viable industry, although no one has yet convincingly made a case that explains the economics of how it would work. Two tourists have already been in space: American Dennis Tito in 2001 and South African Mark Shuttleworth in 2002 each paid $20 million for a stay on the International Space Station. Some companies claim to have data that show that a vast percentage of the population would pay to go to space, and some studies have estimated that the market for space tourism might reach as high as $20 billion in the coming decades. But it just isn’t clear how space tourism will transition from the exploits of a few adventurous millionaires into an industry with any hope of making profits.

Flashback to the early 1980s:

Video cassette recorders are often put forward as a viable industry, although no one has yet convincingly made a case that explains the economics of how it would work. A few people have already bought them, but they cost thousands of dollars each. Some companies claim to have data that show that a vast percentage of the population would pay to have one, and some studies have estimated that the market for VCRs might reach as high as several billion dollars in the coming decades. But it just isn't clear how the VCR will transition from the entertainment of a few adventurous millionaires into an industry with any hope of making profits...

>> Space tourism is often put forward as a viable
>> industry,
[...]
> Video cassette recorders are often put forward
> as a viable industry, although no one has yet
> convincingly made a case that explains the
> economics of how it would work. A few people
> have already bought them, but they cost
> thousands of dollars each.

You do seem to have a soft spot for apples-vs-oranges metaphors, Rand.
---
Sometimes, certain modes of transportation actually remain too expensive and/or impractical despite rosy predictions to the contrary. The 1950s vision of personal helicopters springs to mind, or routine hypersonic air travel. Both would be technically feasible today, but there are economic and legal barriers.
---
Is space tourism for the masses a similar case? I don't know, but the Concorde or supersonic bizjets would seem to be a lot more relevant to this discussion than the history of VCRs.

MARCU$

Supersonics suffer from our lack of understanding of supersonic aerodynamics, not (as is the case with space launch) lack of economies of scale. I'm simply making the point that there is a case to be made for how one gets from a few millionaires to a mass market. One might not buy it, but that's different from saying that no one's explained how the transition will work.

"Sometimes, certain modes of transportation actually remain too expensive and/or impractical despite rosy predictions to the contrary. The 1950s vision of personal helicopters springs to mind, or routine hypersonic air travel. Both would be technically feasible today, but there are economic and legal barriers."

Which suggests that the answer, in both cases, is to remove the legal barriers and see what happens.

And if all we get is rich guys being able to go to space for a while, that's still an improvement over what we have now.

The article is an opinion piece which may have no coorelation to any NASA policy or plans. However, it seems like NASA is making contingencies with regard to Mars, but they insist on corrupting a very simple vision. They seem to be modifying Mars Direct in the direction of more complication (orbital launches and dependance on a return vehicle that's been orbiting Mars unattended for 4 years) adding unneccessary risk.

As for your other point, "he wants NASA to send a few people to Mars while we stay home and watch." You still haven't made me a believer in your vision that their's really another way in the near term to get that accomplished.

Probably because we talk past each other (I think Mars is the next logical step, you don't; I think the government can, since they are stealing our money anyway, blaze a path for entrepeneurs to follow... which you seem to reject, am I wrong?)

If there were some way to get the money government wastes into the hands of entrepeneurs (who do waste money individually, but like a colony of ants usually gets the job done more efficiently overall.) You know I'd be all for it.

Now I'm going to reread the article (I just skimmed it) Thanks for the link.

NASA doesn't blaze paths, Ken--they blaze ruts, in disastrous directions.

For all the talk about using space stations for scientific research, there seems to be a lack of interest in anything of real practical value.

For example, at some point, someone on a trip to Mars is going to need some surgery. Or be treated burns or pressure related injuries. We should, by now, have started to develop the techniques and tools necessary for such medicine. That we haven't even come close shows what's wrong with the NASA science first mindset.

Ken Anthony, I'm think Mars Direct is a good starting place but I think leaving a ship in orbit is a better plan. Or to be more precise landing the ship on Phobos and using the little moon as a beachhead. There are a number of advantage to this beyond simply learning about Phobos itself.

(i) Equipment can be launched to Phobos in advance and then recovered when the crews arrive. This is true about in orbit as well, but landings on Phobos ensure the equipment is collected in one spot instead of distributed throughout the orbit of Mars or worse yet jostling together. (ii) A ship landing on Phobos would be far less complicated for an early mission than landing on Mars. Aerobraking is still possible but the variations of wind and the high gravity are not an issue on Phobos. The initial landing on Phobos and return to Earth wouldn't be as wonderful, but it would still be an amazing first step and proving ground for a lot of tech, and could be done with a far smaller crew at risk. (iii) It's possible that hydrogen could be mind out of Phobos rock and used as fuel. If so the need for sending a ton of hydrogen to react with the Mars atmosphere is lessoned considerable. Hydrogen, etc, can still be generated for Mars to Phobos transit but that should be a lot less saving weight. (iv) A base on Phobos can be easily shielded from solar radiation in ways a ship in orbit could not be. A base that could be used and expanded by subsequent missions. (v) Follow up missions that went to Mars would leave behind the Mars to Phobos transfer vehicle(s) for future missions as well . Leaving infrastructure behind makes each subsequent mission less expensive and makes it less likely that we'll abandon Mars as we did with the moon.

Of course that's just my opinion I could be wrong and I'd love to hear any holes in my theory.

ruprecht, my kneejerk reaction is to disagree while finding it interesting... but after thinking about it, I just plain disagree.

The problem is losing focus of the goal.

NASA proposes the same type of lost focus strategy which Rand appropriately describes as a rut. Thinking like that is just spinning the wheels and going nowhere.

Stopping on Phobos or putting some of your vehicles in Mars orbit does nothing to further the goal of putting a team of people on the surface of Mars, but it does complicate the mission and diminish it's survivability.

Pilots need to be able to hit their mark. There's no way around it, and everything else is just a distraction from that point. Stopping at Phobos doesn't make it easier to land on Mars, it makes it harder because now you've introduced more variables.

If you're suggesting we just land on Phobos and return to Earth without landing on Mars, then we've just wasted a trip (and several billion.)

Those 500+ days on the Martian surface are about learning how to live in the environment. Wasting time with Phobos just takes away from that.

We might be able to extract hydrogen from Phobos, but I'll let you in on a secret... there are oceans of hydrogen to extract right on Mars, but the success of the missions should not depend on finding it either.

Engineers know how to do the job. They can hit the mark, just like the pilots and for the same reason... not losing focus.

...I'm deleting the rest of my comments...

I disagree, the idea of going to Mars should be an idea of (i) going to stay (ii) planned as a series of missions, not a single one. With those two points in mind:

It was not taking their eyes off the prize when Apollo 8 circled the moon and returned, it was a proof of concept, just short of the actual landing. There is a lot to be gained simply in proving that the journey isn't as bad as some claim, and landing on another world, and in this case the habitat and Phobos to Mars shuttle would be left behind for future missions to use.

Because of its size Phobos could easily be explored with fewer astronauts allowing them to take more supplies and equipment to leave for future parties. There is science to learn from Phobos and astronauts sent could remote control probes and such on the surface of Mars as metioned in Zubrin's Athena plan (http://www.nw.net/mars/docs/athaiaa.rtf)plan.

There a couple of problems with Mars Direct that the Phobos First plan solves. (a) Mars Direct leaves the equipment from each mission at an unusable distance. The Phobos Direct plan leaves a good deal of that equipment on Phobos. (b) Mars Direct requires two rockets, one for inbound and one for outbound both of which must have the size and ability to make the Earth Mars crossing. The Phobos first requires only one rocket necessary to make the Earth Mars crossing allowing only a Mars/Phobos shuttle on Mars allowing a larger habitat or supply/equipment load sent to Mars before hand.

There are a couple of problems with Mars Semi-Direct that the Phobos First plan solves. (a) Semi-Direct leaves the ship in orbit vunerable to solar radiation for the length of the stay. Phobos First leaves that same ship under as much soil as NASA wants to pile on it for radiation protection. (b) Semi-Direct requires orbital docking with any unmanned equipment put into orbit while Phobos First has that equipment landed on a rock that will hold its position until astronauts arrive.

Mars direct is still cheaper, and Phobos is fairly high in orbit which makes certain things more complicated. Still I think going to Phobos first is safer and provides better logistics for followup missions. Its not as cheap as Mars Direct but can't be much more than Mars Semi-Direct and certainly a lot less than the Battlestar Galactica style missions.

Wouldn't the analogy have been better if you had referred to Betamax? Trying to have it all for yourself is not always the best business plan.

There is not a single argument that Statists have used to bash privately-funded space projects that they could not have used with equal force against aviation around 1910. And I think it fair to note that after hitting the heights - literally - in the Moon landings, we have not seen the kind of surging improvements and innovations as we have in aviation.

It goes without saying that folk should read the excellent recent CATO collection of essays on free market space ideas, including one by Buzz Aldrin, former astronaut and by all accounts, a match for Mike Tyson.

ruprecht, regarding your paragraphs:

P1. Yes, a series in which we stay. Agreed.

P2. The moon is three days away and we were learning (in the age of vaccuum tubes.)

P3. Just because it's parked in the vicinity and we could do it, doesn't make it any less of a distraction from the primary goal.

P4a1. Define unusable? I though Zubrin was a little ambitious regarding the spacing of modules, but that's easily adjustable.

P4a2. Talk about unusable distance, putting something in orbit is considerably more unusable than 50 miles walking or driving on the surface.

P4b. Mars Direct is a series of missions with focus and redundancy and more safety build in than any alternative I've heard. The most important being a return vehicle on the surface of Mars, fully refueled and checked out before any astronaut leaves the Earth. It also proves the resource need to explore the planet exist, again before a single astronaut leaves the Earth.

Larger habitats and supplies are not required, but if we thought they were, we just send more and confirm that what we send is waiting before launching any astronauts.

P5a. Or door number three, we don't bother with things in Mars orbit at all. Yeah, I'm pigheaded.

P5b. Semi-direct is just a net to catch those that can't wrap there minds around the real mission (which would include most of the NASA Battlestar Galactica crowd.) It's a consession, or actually just a way to compare and contrast the pitfalls so that people don't go down that path. Phobos First, is what happens when people do go too far down that path.

Phobos is a distraction only slight better than saying we should use the Moon as our staging ground for Mars. Having stuff sitting on Phobos is not going to make one iota of difference as far as our commitment to Mars. But having multiyear missions over a decade certainly will.

BTW, I don't see any reference to 'Phobos First' when I googled it. Do you have a link?

I am only a neophyte in discussions of this sort but I would imagine that a base of operations in orbit on Phobos would present better access to a larger area of the Martian surface and an ability to further evaluate eventual landing sites.

Phobos First is my own idea as far as I can tell. I'm not an engineer so I could be off on lots of things but I've read a ton about the subject and don't think I'm far off. Even your own arguements tend to be ideological and not on technical grounds which gives me hope. I developed the idea after reading The Case For Mars and the Athena project plan (I linked to above) both by Robert Zubrin. NASA would never go for a pure Mars Direct (Zubrin realized this in Case for Mars and compromise with the Mars Semi-Direct plan). I think Phobos First is a better plan than Semi-Direct because it has all of the positives and few of the negatives.

The idea of having the totally ready ship on Mars has a lot of value but you need a very large ship capable of making the return trip which lessons the value considerably. I think its better to specialize: one ship stays in space and is built to handle the crew for a long time; the other is a lander combined with transhab-type inflatable and far more equipment than the Mars Direct would allow. More of a LEM Command Module situation except they travel to Mars seperately.

Don, it also has the advantage of being close enough to allow for remote control of various probes on the surface that could be sent seperately from Earth. This can be done now from Earth itself with a significant delay that means a lot of power fritters away waiting for orders. This is one of the points of Zubrin's Athena plan.

Phobos has value on its own as well. Nobody knows its origin. Is it a captured asteroid in a near perfect circular orbit? If not, how did it form? If so it can provide answers about asteroids without us running off to the asteroids right away. The Delta V to get to and from Phobos is far easier than nearly any other accessible rock in the solar system. It's a perfect beachhead and I think putting Human boots on another planet, even a small moon, would generate a lot of positive momentum with far less risk.

I guess it can be seen as taking your eyes off of the prize but I don't see it that way. I think any plan to Mars should have an incremental approach and this makes the first step right off of Mars. After the second mission Mars/Phobos landers are no longer required because two should be left on Phobos by then so more equipment, larger habitats or something else can be sent instead. Mars Direct has the exact same mission profile for each mission. There is no advantage with time.

"But having multiyear missions over a decade certainly will."

Perhaps you misunderstand me. Phobos First would be a multiyear mission over a decade (like Apollo). The first mission would go to Phobos not Mars (similar to Apollo orbitting the moon prior to landing). Every other mission would go to Phobos First, then down to Mars leaving equipment at the beachhead so that Mars access becomes cheaper and easier with each mission (very unlike Apollo or Mars Direct).

Enjoy Phobos ruprecht.