Mike Griffin defended the budget averaging $8 billion/year for a Moon return (0.05% of 2018 GDP) by saying, "We Don't Cancel the Navy" as MSNBC headlined. Actually we did cancel the Navy after the Revolutionary War and didn't start it up again until 1794.
--
I spoke to my dad, the pre-civil war American History Professor Emeritus and he had forgotten that the Navy had been cancelled. I respectfully withdraw my media criticism. I guess it needs to be refiled under media witticism.
Update 2005-09-21-10:55:00

Wow, going back 200 plus years to prove Griffin "wrong". At any rate, I guess the fact that the Navy was re-created and has survived ever since proves that canceling it in the first place was a stupid move.

Thus proving Griffins point.

The Navy was disbanded after the Revolutionary War; for all the treasure spent during our Revolution the return was dismal; all but two ships captured or sunk. The Continental Navy never did much; the victories at sea in that war were from privateers or state (militia) navies. The ultimate victory at Yorktown was only possible because of a French fleet.

They had their reasons for disbanding the Navy; too expensive for no return, Naval officers were percieved as autocratic and so on. Not in hindsight good ones but good 'nuff at the time.

I'm not so sure NASA PR has been portraying this right, they should say that this is money that will be budgeted to NASA anyway, so the 100 billion price tag will not be an increase of what we're spending, it's just a redirection of that money towards something other than ISS or the shuttle.

The real idiocy of Griffin's comment is not that the Navy was cancelled once upon a time, that the Navy doesn't get cancelled because it has a non-speculative purpose. We've actually seen benefits to having one.

Whereas the only outcome we've seen so far to letting NASA put a man on the moon has been ... what, again?

So no, I don't think Griffin's point is "proved" as the nameless commenter at the top of this thread alleges. The only thing proved is saidcommenter is incapable of recognizing qualitative distinctions.

Colonizing the Moon is a Good Thing. Hopefully, we can support it with good facts and arguments.

(1) Colonizing the moon is a good thing under certain circumstances. Under other circumstances, it's wasteful and useless.

(2) What exactly does NASA's roadmap have to do with colonizing the moon? The hardware being proposed will be manifestly incapable of supporting a colonization effort.

Quote: "What exactly does NASA's roadmap have to do with colonizing the moon? "

Well for starters one of the primary missions is to find the water and explore technics to extract said water to produce useable commodities for future space flight mission. Sounds like a good enough place to start.

The whole thing seems to come down to "Because Its There" reasoning. Going back to the Moon is a stepping-stone to Mars, and we're going to Mars because we haven't been there before.

Maybe its the capitalist in me, but I'd like to see more of an emphasis on the practical benefits of space travel. Griffin's "look, its either this or give up space travel entirely" doesn't qualify. It would have been good to have had at least some emphasis on developing an early-warning system for identifying large objects in danger of colliding with Earth, for example.

Why does exploration (of ANYTHING) have to be practical? By definition, exploration involves discovery of the unknown. No one knows what we'll find out by doing this, but I'd consider it highly likely that whatever we find, some of it may well be commercially useful, thus allowing our progeny to remark about how foresighted their ancestors were to bravely push out into this new frontier in search of fame and fortune.

You know, there's a lot of debate about the hows, but folks need to put the why question to bed. And the answer to the when question is the same one I use for planting trees: Yesterday, or if that wasn't possible, then today.

> I'm not so sure NASA PR has been portraying this right, they should
> say that this is money that will be budgeted to NASA anyway, so the
> 100 billion price tag will not be an increase of what we're spending,
> it's just a redirection of that money towards something other than ISS
> or the shuttle.

To paraphrase Nixon, they could say that but it would be wrong. NASA got a substantial budget increase (6% in one year) to start this program, and it's asking for more modest but sustained increases to continue it. They are not redirecting money from ISS or Shuttle, which continue to be funded, for no apparent reason except to "finish what we started."

More importantly, you can't justify spending by comparing it to the worst alternative use for the money. You need to compare it to the best alternative use.

For example, NASA could spend $20 billion to create a series of prizes for suborbital, orbital, and lunar spaceflight; $20 billion to create a market for low-cost launches by purchasing commercial services; and $20 billion to lease orbital and lunar facilities from Bigelow (or any other vendor that emerges to meet the demand). Another $20 billion could be used to create tax incentives for investment in low-cost commercial space ventures and $20 billion could be given to the Department of Defense to develop and deploy Military Space Plane.

> Quote: "What exactly does NASA's roadmap have to do with colonizing the moon? "

> Well for starters one of the primary missions is to find the water and
> explore technics to extract said water to produce useable commodities
> for future space flight mission. Sounds like a good enough place to start.

At what cost? If NASA spends a billion dollars on a mission that produces 1000 liters of water, that may be a usable commodity but it won't be useful commodity.

Also, we already know that any water that exists on the Moon will be at the poles. Only 2 of the 9 "high priority lunar exploration sites" identified by NASA are at the poles.

The whole thing seems to come down to "Because Its There" reasoning. Going back to the Moon is a stepping-stone to Mars, and we're going to Mars because we haven't been there before.

You'll find that Robert Zubrin has developed an excellent argument against using the Moon as a stepping stone. I think the key points are:

1) Putting in a huge precondition for Martian exploration ("we need to have industry on the Moon first") is a bad idea, we should have the capability now. Delay is bad.

2) What do we need from the Moon that we can't get from Earth directly?

3) Mars is more hospitable to human life. The environment is gentler (atmosphere, some radiation shielding, stronger gravity), there's ready access to carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen (yielding oxygen, water, methane, complex hydrocarbons, etc). The Moon is severely lacking in carbon and hydrogen.

4) Mars is a more interesting world from the point of view of scientific observation. The potential for life alone makes it one of the most interesting spots in the Solar System. A manned presence would greatly facilitate scientific study of this planet.

Some additional points to consider:

5) Lunar colonization might yield knowledge that would be useful in Martian habitation, but why not then do both so that the synergies can work both ways?

6) The Moon has greater economic potential in the short term than Mars does (and maybe in the long term as well). It receives more solar radiation, has lower gravity (so easier to move products off the surface), and is only 1 light second from the most valuable real estate in the Solar System.

> I guess the fact that the Navy was re-created and has survived ever since
> proves that canceling it in the first place was a stupid move. Thus proving
> Griffins point.

It might prove his point, if the Navy's only job was to send four guys to the Moon, or if NASA was fighting terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq, patrolling the high seas, and doing all the other things the Navy does.

Arguing that NASA deserves something just because the Navy gets it is nonsense. NASA is not the Navy and does not do the same things the Navy does.

This is a variation on the old argument that NASA is underfunded because Americans give more money to pizza and beer companies. Of course they do -- because those companies produce more pizza and beer than NASA does.

> 1) Putting in a huge precondition for Martian exploration ("we need to have
> industry on the Moon first") is a bad idea, we should have the capability now.
> Delay is bad.

Not necessarily. That presumes our only goal in space is to go to Mars as soon as possible, at any cost. That may be Bob's goal but, to Bob's constant frustration, not everyone shares his goal.

> 2) What do we need from the Moon that we can't get from Earth directly?

A new planet to explore. Is this a trick question?

> 3) Mars is more hospitable to human life. The environment is gentler

Not really. Your life expectancy without a spacesuit on Mars would be exactly the same as it is on the Moon.

> 4) Mars is a more interesting world from the point of view of scientific observation.

That depends on which scientists you ask. Biology is not the whole of science.

More importantly, science alone is insufficient to justify the cost of a manned Mars mission. If it was, the National Science Foundation would be funding Zubrin's mission right now.

> 5) Lunar colonization might yield knowledge that would be useful in
> Martian habitation, but why not then do both so that the synergies
> can work both ways?

We will do both. However, it remains to be seen whether "we" will include NASA. Their current plan is so expensive it will preclude any significant activity on either, let alone both.

> 6) The Moon has greater economic potential in the short term than Mars

And that is the gripping hand.

It might surprise Ed Wright, but this is one time I completely agree with him.

I'm currently reading Zubrin's "The Case for Mars" (the book that came out in 1996 and coauthored with Wagner). Zubrin engages in a good bit of hand waving to justify going to Mars ASAP. His treatment of human factors is, to be charitable, cavalier and difficult to believe. He talks about using 19th century chemical engineering on Mars. The formulas might be basic, but will the factories that use them be simple and easy to build?

But most importantly, one must wonder about the economics of settling Mars now. The nearest market is several months travel away. What does Mars offer people who remain back on Earth?

Zubrin likes to talk about his knowledge of history. One wonders if he noticed that the European voyages of discovery centuries ago were started as attempts to make trade with distant nations (e.g., China, India) easier and more profitable. Columbus et al. weren't just going exploring for the sheer joy of it.

Yes, exploration does benefit us all. But, personally, I think we'd do better to exploit the Moon and Earth approaching asteroids before hightailing it off to Mars.

We've never canceled the Navy...yet. But we keep up the current rate of social spending, and something's gotta give. DOD budget has declined continuously as a percentage of GNP ever since the Korean war--NASA even more so since Apollo. No one who seriously looks at the budget projections can imagine continuing the current trend. Something's gotta give. The only question is will it be our social1st 'retiree trust fund' or our civilization?

hmm. that's weird. Your spam blocking comment filter won't allow the word 'social_ist' because it contains with it the name for a constantly spammed competitor to the 'little blue pill' (that would be 'cial1s')

Private Enterprise has had 36 years to go back to the moon and on to mars and has not yet done so. They have not done so due to a percieved lack of low risk economic justification. Katrina has shown us how little Ma Nature cares for the human race. The boy scout motto, "Be Prepared" is as good as any justification Zubrin came up with in his books for going to mars. We could be percieved as a peristant infection if we "form a new branch of humanity" on the fourth planet. Pundits quibble over the existance of NASA "spinoffs" and just how valuable they are to the rest of us. I for one am pleased that NASA has set for itself the goal or returning to the moon. I will be happy if Mr. B. decides to buy the ISS and actually ends up making money with it.
If water is found on the moon's poles a permanent base may be justified there. And we will have done the homework required to get to mars. Columbus may have come west looking for a trade route, but with 500 years of hindsight, I think it is wise to conclude that this founding of a "new branch of humanity" was the true value.