You are not logged in.
I have the latest version of Firefox, but IE is version 6 I think for me. The weird thing is I have been having problems loading up any pages I look for on the internet this past few days. Also Josh can you let me know what program you are using to get rid of the spam members? I'm an admin at Red Colony and MarsDrive and its getting highly frustrating with the level of spam that comes in daily.
August 30-September 2, 2007 at the University of California, Los Angeles The Mars Society was founded to further the exploration and settlement of the Red Planet. The International Mars Society convention presents a unique opportunity for those interested in Mars to come together and discuss the technology, science, social implications, philosophy and a multitude of other aspects of Mars exploration.
It is a useful get together for Mars researchers and enthusiasts to get updated on the latest in the effort to get humans to Mars and is a must for all who are interested in Mars.
I have the same problem Clark. I now use Firefox to get here. Hope it gets fixed soon.
I think the space community/industry has all the money they can get.
I'll try to make it clearer. In the first place I am talking about a readjustment/reformation of the way current space community funds are spent to focus more on public support issues. We are competing aginst other causes yes but how is that immoral? If you know anything about the benefits that have come from space travel/technology and the spin offs and the lives it has improved and saved it would be immoral NOT to seek better levels of funding. Using that argument we could then say that anything not used for eliminating poverty or providing better education is immoral. You are missing the point here. Space advocates support their cause because of the benefits it provides to humanity and the benefits it could provide in the future. It centers around hi-tech ideas and concepts but the end result is still beneficial to humanity.
The point in this thread is about increasing our numbers (of supporters and investors)so that we can achieve the goals we all hope for, including your "cheaper rockets" idea. Cheaper rockets are not being developed successfully yet. Why? Because overall the public don't care and don't support such efforts(and the investment community are staying away), and secondly because the research and development costs for such an effort are not small, just ask Elon Musk. His goal was to reduce the cost of rockets by a factor of ten but in the end he will be lucky to reduce it by a factor of 2 or 3. Lower costs also involve a thing called "Market Demand".
Significant investment will be needed to pay for any of the ideas you can think of to improve the appeal of space flight to the public. Currently, despite what you think, space advocate groups and altspace do not have anywhere near enough funds to accomplish even 5% of their lofty goals. I often read ideas like "If only we did this, or did that everything would be better..." but in the end all these ideas will still require large amounts of money to be spent in development and research costs. This money comes from the public at large (and the investor community within the public arena). The fewer supporters we have the more impossible any idea we have is in happening.
As to your comment about how well off we are, consider that in the past governments funded exploration programs (like the founding of America, Australia, etc) and also funded colonization of those places. With space it is radically different. The U.S government only spends 0.7% of its budget on space and most other national governments spend far less or nothing at all. When you compare say and NGO like World Vision with The Planetary Society who gets greater funding by far? The answer should be clear enough. I never said that people had to choose between feeding a starving kid or giving to a space group. I said that current funds need readjustment and any new funds need to used wisely in balance. The simple fact is if we do not raise greater numbers of public support and if we do not raise greater numbers of favorable investors then none of our ideas or goals will ever happen. Including cheaper/better rockets.
I finally get it that you are talking about FMARS.
Actually I was referring to all the hair brained "research" schemes dreamed up by altspace or space advocate groups in general with dubious scientific merit. Are we trying to get to Mars or not? As a PR tool it is not as good as you say it is anyway. If FMARS were our project? It isn't. It serves a purpose for the Mars Society and that is to raise some public awareness of Mars by having it look like it is on Mars, and as PR efforts go it is useful certainly. It has even helped with learning "human factors" which will have some value when people are on Mars but we do need to remember, Earth is not Mars. PR is about how to relate to the public, how to improve the popularity and image of something in the best way possible. So the question is, is FMARS the best possible way Mars groups could use to reach the public? When I compare FMARS to say the Red, Green, Blue Mars Trilogy by KSR I would have to say that the book comes out in front for influencing the public and popularizing human settlement of Mars. And that is just one book. Then there are other books like Arthur C Clark's "Snows of Olympus" or Greg Benford's "The Martian Race" or films like Red Planet and Mission to Mars or just take sci fi in general. Sci Fi (and real planetary missions like MER)has done far more to inspire the masses than FMARS could ever hope to.
Discovery don't show much when it comes to FMARS anyway. I would not scrap it, but it would not be on the top of my list. I'm more concerned with the job of actually getting humans to Mars first before I think about how they will play around on the surface. Do not take for granted that a human mission to Mars will be successful. What I am talking about is a readjustment of priorities in the way space groups spend their money. I agree that research is needed and I would hope it continues and improves, but if expanding our numbers is foundational to a solid future in space- and it is- then it is time space groups started to focus more of their funds on actually reaching the public instead of preaching to the choir.
Noosfractal, you are speaking like a true space advocate, and that's fine, I'm one too, but try to think for a second like someone who is not interested in space. Those are the people we need to reach, and currently we are failing. When I think of reaching the public, I try to think of what THEY would be interested in, not what I am already interested in. Here is the core problem, let me spell it out for you- The public, including you and me generally like to watch and follow human dramas, comedy, action, romance, etc. We like to watch other people and interact, it's just human nature. If we didn't there would be no Hollywood. I'll try to put it in a way you can understand. Do you remember a series not long ago called- "From The Earth To The Moon" or that film- "Apollo 13"? Tom Hanks was involved with both. Those were both very popular showings and the public ate it up. Why? Because it presented to them human drama at its best, laughs, terror and action aplenty. In short, they were great (and true) stories.
Great stories have immense power to shape public opinion and our world. But what is you suggestion?
No. It has to be all intrepid explorer and "one step closer to Mars." FMARS, X-Prize, Rocket Racing, Yuri's Night - all good stuff.
All good stuff to you and me and anyone already interested in space but what are those things? FMARS is a technical research project that also helps publicize what it might look like to be on Mars- literally. Ask your neighbor or someone on the street if they have heard of FMARS. The X Prize is an event that attracts the usual air show crowds (when it isn't sidelined by setbacks) and attracts the usual tech/space interested crowd, Rocket Racing hasn't yet started but when it does it might actually reach some of the motor racing fans although my guess it will just attract the X prize crowd mostly, and Yuri's Night, despite being a good thing (and something I support) unfortunately reaches mostly "the choir" of established space fans. How effective are those things at expanding our numbers? Answer me that.
What you are suggesting is more of the same and it doesn't achieve any of our objectives as far as I can see. Reaching the public involves wise use of a good story, famous celebrities and smart promotions. The PR world know how to do this, space advocates do not. Let's be real here. Space advocates are a certain demographic overall. Male, tech savvy, introverted, etc. I don't expect introverts or people who spend too much time at the computer to understand or desire to reach out to others but unfortunately we are all there is and this is something that has to be done no matter what smart arguments we try to muster against it. If we don't get off our asses and do something, who will? And if you think a bunch of highly underfunded and unprofessional space advocates or altspacers are going to usher in a bright future for us all in space then think again.
In the real world, if you want to make a mission to Mars happen it takes massive public support, loads of money- billions and loads of highly skilled specialists from all over the world. It also takes political will and private sector support too. At present all of these things are a mess, and at the foundation lies a severe lack of public sentiment and support. While the space community continues to display the arrogant attitude it has towards its "cashcow" of the dumb public it should never expect that same public to support anything it does in any significant way. By what you wrote Noosfractal you are poking fun at the public and at the drive to find new ways of reaching them. No wonder our numbers are so small.
As to films, games, TV etc paying for themselves, again, that's not the real world. Usually these things get funded by various production companies or investors and they try to put their investment in content that they think will actually be popular. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. If the space community used some of its brains and resources I am sure it could come up with some very good stories to tell that could be pitched to movie, TV and game makers. We could also make better use of the celebrities within our midst and often on our boards.
Just one side note- we have considered FMARS style projects but we prefer to spend our resources on researching things like actually getting humans to Mars first before we get too elaborate with the second step which is what to do on the surface. That's on the technical side of things. On the outreach side we are building an effort which clearly has not really been tried before from space advocates- to connect popularizing space to recruiting new space advocates- aimed at the non space public, not the choir.
We do have a presence in MySpace and Second Life, the YouTube production we are working on obviously needs more resources(as is the norm for most space groups). We are aiming to put something on in there that is worth watching and to be as professional as possible. Like I said in my previous post, if altspace and space advocates spent more of their funds, time and resources on actually reaching the public through things like this I'm sure we could improve things. As far as Marsdrive goes, we can only do what we have the resources for, but rest assured, once those resources are there we will do as much as we can to live up to our message. What alot of space advocates don't get is that we (space advocates in general) are the only ones interested in this topic, and if we don't help each other out who will? Most of our initial funds have gone towards things like website costs, advertising, legal and registration costs for becoming a non profit and so forth. Some organizations have quite a bit of money but waste it on small time or pretend research and development (which goes nowhere). Considering that we have fewer members than most of these other groups and are still quite young I am proud of the progress we have made so far. We will continue to improve our reach as our resources allow, that's all that's stopping us.
Regardless of where Marsdrive is at my message in the prvious post remains true. If we want to raise public support it's time we started spending some decent resources on the problem.
Raising public interest and support was the point of this thread X, yes. Politicians and business leaders alike do take their cue from public opinion and despite what they say they do follow the polls closely. Certainly there are politicians who get bribed or influenced by lobbyists with deep pockets but overall they are very mindful of public opinion, especially around election time. Business leaders in the private sector try to stay in touch with "market demand" and what is popular also. This all means that the public do actually have a say on many issues whether they know it or not.
This is not totally cut and dried, the public do also get influenced by advertising and trends of the day but generally the public are a potent force in determining political and private sector direction. This is why large numbers of the public can influence space policy as well. Your ideas of getting the public involved are essentially sound in concept, but expecting NASA to do it is off base. They exist for science and exploration, and they are professionals who answer to congress and DOD. The public would like to be involved and given the chance would like to travel into space but this will be for the private sector to fulfill, and they at least are starting on that track. Sure, NASA could try to do it now, but as GCN said, it would not help them at all in their mandate. The private sector- altspace as it is known could bring the public in and I think they will, but first they need actual working and safe spaceships/rockets.
The problem right now is that altspace is heavily underfunded and this means their dreams will not happen until those funds do come in. When you break it down, the only ways right now for altspace to get the funds they need is through the odd billionaire backer like Branson, Allen, Musk etc Or through public shares/IPO's. The first option means that all the other altspace outfits are hopelessly underfunded and all we can do is wait on the big names to succeed, which could be some years away. The reason they are not seeking shares/investors or are not succeeding is that public/market sentiment is most definitely against them.
It is a difficult problem for sure but there are ways through it. Public sentiment is against them for two reasons. First, the public have other priorities. This means that while the topic of human space travel remains unpopular altspace will always struggle to gain funds. So their first task should be to spend what meager resources they do have not on half assed research and development but instead on changing public opinion and sentiment which currently they are failing miserably at. For example, if development of a successful and safe rocket will actually cost a billion dollars but someone only has 3 or 4 million, what is wiser? To waste it on r & d which won't amount to anything more than a nice website or a few paper ideas, OR spend it wisely on entertainment and consumer/community based items like PR, games, movies, T.V, community events, non profit space advocate groups (who are full of passionate space advocates who have no money to do any of their ideas for reaching the public) and so on.
Space advocate groups are full of ideas on how to reach the public but lack both the money and the professionals to make their plans a reality. Yet when I see altspace outfits (or even advocate groups) waste their money on "pretend" research or publicity stunts it makes me angry. They should be using their resources to influence the public mindset about space. This might mean employing professional PR people, Hollywood style agents (to work within the entertainment industry and start producing high quality space based entertainment) and creating games, community events and more. If they get the foundations right, everything else will follow. Sure, the public could be inspired by being given the chance to go into space, but again, without professional PR and media attention (with tie in reality T.V, movies etc) even that sort of effort would not be as successful as you think. Jusdt look at the influence of sci fi for example. Books, movies, magazines, T.V shows etc, all have played a big role in shaping our modern world. This influence or creativity and art is not being used very well right now by space advocates or altspace.
Often the two are disconnected. For example, Star Wars and Star trek have done more to popularize space than all of the space advocates, altspace and even NASA could, but those franchises were not connected to any effort to raise public support for space and so were wasted opportunities. If altspace and space advocates took charge of producing their own space related entertainment (and started to become more relevant to average people) and connected it to recruiting interested members of the public, something like that would start to see results. We do need to try new ideas, the current way things are going is clearly failing.
Mr Bell also has critics, I found one blog that nailed down quite a few issues which continue to come up here too, one being private Moon missions but I'll keep this in here for now -
If you happen to have been reading this blog for the last year or so, you may have noticed that I sometimes find myself at odds with Jeffrey Bell, the occasional opinion writer at Space Daily.com. Here’s a link to his latest column, but let me summarize it for you:
“Back in my day, we solved all these darned ‘Centennial Challenges’ but you young’uns are too thick to pay attention.”
Seriously, that’s a pretty accurate representation of what he’s saying. For those not familiar with Jeffrey Bell, his tagline is
Jeffrey F. Bell is a former space scientist and recovering pro-space activist.
That just about sums it all up right there. Nearly every single column he writes attacks the current new space movement from the tired perspective of “been there, done that”. But let me tell you something Mr. Bell, your generation of space activists and engineers did not actually succeed in getting us all into space!
You say that Armadillo Aerospace’s latest designs were fundamentally flawed, and looked like a cheap version of the test-bed lander Northrup Grumman used in the 60’s. Even if that were true, what do you expect? The people that engineered that craft have been retired for years, and their expertise was not passed on to the current generation because of terrible national space policies. The people at Armadillo are actually building something, which seems a whole lot more than the Milspace contractors are capable of these days.
Frankly, I’m a little tired of Mr. Bell’s curmudgeonly attitude and his disdain for this new.space, or alt.space, or Space Race 2.0 thing we are entering into. His dismissal of the recently completed Wirefly X-Prize cup as a replay of old black-and-white newsreels from Germany in the 1920s displays his lack of understanding about the goals of the X-Prize Cup. The Cup and the Rocket Racing League do not exist to advance technology, they exist to reignite the imaginations of the next generations of aerospace engineers whose designs will finally take us into space. The Cup and its participants do far more to get us closer to space than all of the back-of-the-envelope calculations ever done on the feasibility of orbital colonies or any other such topic.
I admit, Armadillo’s Pixel will not orbit a single paying customer, but the folks there are creating the knowledge and expertise to build something that will, and to do it affordably. This is a period of infancy of the new private space companies, and before than can replicate the successes of the past, they must learn those lessons anew. No amount of reading dusty, yellowed technical reports and published accounts can compare to the direct experience of building, trying, and failing.
This isn’t the 1960s and we don’t have the support of the nation as we once did. But this time, unlike then, we’re going to do it right. Companies will make money on sending people into space, and the profit motive will do more for space access than any amount of government funding ever did.
The experience of writers such as Mr. Bell could be valuable for the entire space activist and commercial space community, but he chooses to use his experience to “hoot derisively” at modern efforts. Much of his writing serves little purpose than to pad his ego about the superiority of his generation while completely ignoring the reality forced on us by the events of the intervening decades.
If the new space movement actually succeeds, I think Mr. Bell would be disappointed–or maybe not, after all what will it matter if we send people to the Moon on a privately financed mission? I can see the column now: “Hell, we did that back in the 60s and we brought guys back using only duct tape and a few old spare parts. You guys have computers with all that fancy design software, there’s no excuse not to be exploring the moons of Jupiter!”
http://www.anthonares.net/2006/10/jeffr … cause.html
My own opinion as far as Jeff's latest comments go is that he is probably correct this time and it is worth taking note of. The next 2 years will prove to be crucial to the whole outlook of VSE so it's good to hear some critical examinations of it from some sectors, even from Jeff Bell.
First of all, you can't deny a private group funded the bulk of the Suez Canal, and you can't deny that the Egyptian Government would have done nothing without the private side starting the whole process. It was clearly initiated by the private sector with the government coming in as a minor partner. That is the whole picture with that. As to the Panama Canal, the private group that started the project could not finish it NOT because they did not have enough funds, they failed because the head of the project would not listen to his engineers and advisors. Study the history and you will see I'm right with that.
He wanted to build a canal just like Suez, flat and at sea level, but when they came to the mountainous regions his plan fell apart. That was just plain stupidity and narrow mindedness on the project manager's part. Plus did you take a look at that link I found for the privately finded warships? These examples merely prove the point that such things do get done, some are a success, some are not. Arguing that ONLY government can do truly big projects is a false argument if you look at the fine details of history. Every day private companies start up or work on multitudes of billion dollar mega projects, many times at their own expense with NO government involvement. Or don't you watch Discovery? The information is everywhere to be found. The reason I used Suez as an example was to show a positive case in point that proves private projects can work, even on large scales. They can also fail, but just becuase they have failures does not mean private groups cannot ever succeed at grand projects. The "only government" can do big projects view is flawed and it's time people become aware of this.
And BTW, many government projects are initiated by the private sector and completed by the private sector and as far as I know there are many private sector companies that now manage(or even constructed) large parts of our infrastructure like power supplies, water, gas, phones, etc. Governments might have more money to use than the private sector but all that money is useless because of the red tape and politics every decision has to go through, especially in the space travel sector.
Thanks for the ideas X. I looked that reference up and found this fascinating article here
It's good to know that such things have been done before. Like I said, people are capable of anything if they put their minds to it. We currently have 6.6 Billion people in the world. With this population I'm sure enough participants could be attracted. After all, the benefits of space can be theirs too, and any group that succeeded in putting humans on the Moon privately would definitely not have fundraising difficulties after that. Never say never.
Advocating in a vacuum is not advocating. Advocating to the choir is not advocating. So whatever such people are, they are not space advocates.
You talk about "Big" being the only way to do things in space then attack my ideas about "Big' alternatives as "not valid". You say that the point of having an alternative to NASA is to have radically cheaper manned space flight but you contradict yourself in the process. You can't have it both ways. If Big is the only way to do things then that's where it will have to begin. Once BIG corporations (or BIG NGO's)get into space travel and succeed then the smaller players will start to come in. The current way things are done won't allow that though. While Lockheed and others are funded by governments they will never do their own space missions. So the only other alternative is big corporations or NGO's not currently in the employ of governments.
In the commercial world, when a large corporation brings out a new product or service it doesn't take long before competitors arrive with cheaper versions of their expensive new thing. That is the way things happen in the commercial world. One company builds a tower of 80 stories for a Billion dollars, another builds the same tower for half a billion and makes a greater profit. It happens all the time. If Elon Musk succeeds others will try to emulate him with varying degrees of success. perhaps this is how AltSpace might take off. I doubt it though.
As to the citizen NGO idea, it's just that- an idea. The model is not unheard of. Lead by respected business names like the Suez Canal was, it can succeed, despite what you say. There are many companies on the stock market for example that have massive numbers of shareholders but those shareholders do not control every aspect of the company(in short- the company makes the rules, not the shareholders). A company is lead by its management team, not by the shareholders. (They get a vote on matters that the management team bring to them, they don't run the company). So as long as the rules are laid out before such a venture was started, and is lead by people who can be trusted and have their focus on the goal (like all effective management teams), then the problem of disparate directions within the shareholder base is not a problem. Governments and large corporations prove every day that large numbers of "disparate" people can be governed and lead. What you are describing is an organization where chaos and anarchy rule, with no leadership and no direction. That's not what I'm describing.
Space advocates like anyone else spend far more than 2500k a year on far more frivolous things than a future in space. You obviously don't understand the consumer mindset. If something has apparent value, people will pay for it. Maybe 2500k is too much, it was only hypothetical after all. Or didn't you you read that? Maybe there might be 300,000 people at $500 a year and it takes a few more years? So what? How do you go from a hypothetical idea to accusing me of wanting to do such a thing with Marsdrive? I don't know how such a thing could happen, or if it will happen, but that doesn't mean I don't keep searching for answers. Stop jumping on people with alternative ideas and sounding like a broken record with the "only NASA" doctrine. It's getting tired and old and is not the future in the end.
Other groups, other nations and other ways of getting humans into space are doing things about alternatives and NASA is not the only way into space. Even Russia is beating NASA with getting citizens into space. NASA should and could take the lead and they have done a great job at inspiring others. But their disconnect with the average public is staggering. If passing every idea by you first GCN was required for alternatives ways into space we would never get there. Thankfully we live in democracies that allow free speech and the free exchange of ideas. Why are you so bitter and angry with so many people here? Why do you hurl such hurtful insults to passionate space advocates when you could be encouraging them? People might have wrong ideas, but you draw more flies with honey you know.
Being a pragmatist and a realist I agree with you GCN in some aspects of what you say. Space programs and missions do require "big" everything and private AltSpacers are not facing that issue properly. AltSpace need a success like a dying man needs CPR. The problem is they are not being pragmatic about it. If they were to band together and raise public funds (like what was done in the private funding of the Suez Canal) along with their meager funds they might just manage to get a man into real orbital space for a start. (Instead of spending their limited funds on R & D they can't finish).
What I am talking about is AltSpace and space advocate NGO's uniting to form an organization with the "large minimum critical mass of scale, infrastructure, and skills" that all space missions require instead wasting their time and money on a million different ideas and directions. It is an unusual idea, but I think it will be required if private space is to become a reality. The fact is AltSpace do make claims they can't live up to, and doing that actually alienates them from their potential source of investors and supporters like space advocates. I wish they wouldn't. Their websites are littered with fantastical claims but no actual hardware or success(or money).
Maybe they should be called FalseSpace because the fact is a true, viable alternative is just that- an alternative. AltSpace is not the alternative to NASA. If they remain divided and cash and resource poor they will never be the alternative to NASA. The Russian Space agency is about the closest thing to a real alternative to NASA right now follwed by the ESA, China and Japan space agencies. Elon Musk is a great example of your point GCN. He has invested large amounts of his own money to the tune of tens of millions (and hundreds of millions eventually). And that is just for the R&D phase of things. Richard branson and Burt Rutan are on a similar path. This sort of financial committment is the minimum needed for real space programs/projects to even have small chance of becoming real. AltSpace should take notice and become more pragmatic in their approach. Stop doing what doesn't work and start searching for ways that do. Clearly big money, lots of skilled workers, infrastructure, etc is what IS needed to get anyone into space.
Why can't AltSpace accept this? Despite all their claims they have failed largely to do anything significant. There are great rewards out there in space, but only for those who are pragmatic enough to pay the full price of getting there. Whatever it takes.
The problem also is the AltSpace have big mouths and their PR and hype machine is in full swing and it takes many average space advocates in. It tricks them into thinking that cheaper space access is just around the corner but fails to DO anything real about such a goal. As far as I'm concerned GCN, one pragmatist in the space community is worth more than 100 CEO's of AltSpace companies put together. A pragmatist accepts the realities of human space flight and says"Let's do whatever it takes to get there". AltSpacers deny the reality of things and attempt to create their own style of space travel even though they don't have the resources to make their dreams come true. They are part of the problem, not the solution. I was an AltSpacer for a long time but due to personal conflicts with AltSpace and finding out first hand just how bankrupt and devoid of actual money, skills, hardware, etc they really are I agree that big is currently the only way to go, however that turns out to be.
The difference between me and an anti-AltSpacer is that I don't just revert to NASA as the answer for everything. Private companies and private citizens, when they band together can and do accomplish big things as I listed earlier. When they make themselves BIG (and professional)they can accomplish anything. The stock market is full of companies that have millions of shareholders and billions in capital and they use that money for mega projects like I described earlier. So this model of things is not unusual, just unknown to space advocates and AltSpacers. Space and the drive to get humans there presents many unique challenges which will require UNIQUE solutions, even financial ones. The sooner the space community accepts this, the sooner we can get out there.
Where do government taxes come from? From private citizens and private companies. So actually the private sector does pay for everything one way or the other. Can they do big, expensive and complex projects? Let's take a look shall we? (Just a few examples should be enough here)
Airbus A380- Development cost- 8.8 Billion Euros(about 10 or 11 billion U.S)- all private funds. As far as I know they are a long way from making back that investment.
Betchtel- Is the largest engineering company in the world. It was founded in 1898, is privately owned and has been managed by the same family for the last 4 generations. In 2002, they booked 12.2 Billion in new business on top of their annual average of 11.6 Billion in revenue. This company alone has taken on and completed multiple projects that were larger and more expensive than the ISS. Some of their most notable projects include the privately financed England-France Channel Tunnel which cost- 14.7 Billion. The Hong Kong Airport Core Program which cost 20 billion and was completed ahead of schedule and $1 Billion under budget and the Jubail Industrial City which cost 20 Billion and is recognized as the largest single industria development project in history.
Peter Kiewit Sons' Co. Kiewit is the second largest engineering construction company in the world after Betchel. Founded in 1884 it is also privately owned. They take on many projects in many sectors including transportation, telecommunications, power, marine, mining, etc Their 2001 revenues were in the mid 4 Billion range.
Many more examples like this can be found if you google around a bit. BTW, Lockheed Martin and Boeing are private and while the government does pay their contract and is the main customer, they are still private companies and compete in the private sector just like all other private companies. Government agencies(like NASA) have the following problems that hold them back from implementing any program of any sector- They need to be risk averse in order to protect their public image and the support they have from their bosses in congress, their decentralized organizational structure is a hinderance requiring a debilitating bureacracy that causes further delays and increased costs, they are no longer at the forefront of technological innovation and they are constantly struggling to gain support every time a new administration enters the White House.
Private companies can and do have the track record that shows they are cheaper and more efficient than government in large projects that they undertake- because they have to be. I stand by my statement though- AltSpace has the wrong people at the top mostly. Besides Elon Musk and Richard Branson and a couple of others like Jeff Bezos from Amazon, the people leading most of these start ups are NOT world class business people in the above category. Many of them are mavericks with little money and little experience in anything they are doing. Many of them (most in fact) are unrealistic in their business strategies and woeful with their knowledge (or respect) of the extreme difficulties in aerospace, rocket science, etc No one wants to invest in them- and rightly so.
They spend their tiny funds on half assed research and development which they usually fail in because they didn't take in the full scope of what they are trying to accomplish instead of in solving their most foundational problems- lack of knowledge, lack of public interest, lack of professional staff, lack of professional anything...The market is just not there for their services and THAT is their main problem (after rocket science 101). They are spending 95% on useless r&d and 5% on reaching/educating/preparing the public market's mindset to be in their favor and they reap what they sow.
Investors see no market= no profits. This= no investors in AltSpace. They have a lot to learn. Unfortunately many will become bankrupt before that happens. If you dig a bit you will also find AltSpace are mostly not about space at all. So again, I repeat- AltSpace is not the solution for the Moon, Mars or anywhere else. Not for a long while. Space advocates have the numbers, skills and the combined wealth to enact any space project they want. They just need to realize it and do something about it instead of passing the buck all the time. They are the missing factor here.
For example(This a hypothetical example only)- Let's say we(or someone with the professionalism and resources "we" don't have) can get 200,000 space advocates (from the 500,000 or so worldwide) to come together to put a man on the Moon. They could form a co-op of some kind and their investments would entitle them to all profits and benefits of such a mission. What would it cost? I can't give you that, but let's say it is $5 Billion to send 3 people there using the Mars For Less modified mission (at www.marsdrive.com). For $6.85 a day, about an hour or less work for most people, and 10 years of saving and investing they could easily raise the 5 Billion needed, just from their own funds alone, not counting corporate sponsorships and such on the side. With 10 years of development time, 5 to 10 billion in raised or sponsored funds and a massive number of space advocates behind it, it could be done. Humans are capable of amazing things when they put their minds to it. Never forget that. And if you say that space advocates are a joke, remember, you are one of them. A true space advocate is someone who does something about their cause beyond just spectating and armchair criticism.
You obviously don't know the difference between massive flaws and flaws then. NASA have and will continue to make mistakes as long as they are run by flawed humans like every other organization on earth. You are comparing apples with oranges. Let's wait and see where altspace is when they are spending 17 billion a year and have 50 years of hardware and flight experience under their belts. The simple fact is, the need to make a profit is something NASA will never understand and is a valuable driving force behind not just the private sector but all of society. I stick by what I said though- wrong people is the issue for AltSpace at this point. AltSpace is just starting up. Why do you expect them to be as good as NASA right now when clearly they are a long, long way from that? Anyway, there are other alternatives to private Moon missions than just AltSpace. How about we discuss those for once?
Perhaps it is a "wrong people" problem for AltSpace. One group I have heard no one mention yet is space advocates. They are the ones with the passion, skill and vision required for a bright future in space, but unfortunately space advocates have failed. Most in the space community view space NGO's (non profits) as a miserable failure at worst or an annoyance at best and for good reason. Maybe it's time space advocacy was recreated into a more citizen based group that had an appeal to more than just space geeks? With large and powerful space NGO's there would finally be a balance in this effort to get humans into space privately instead of just private vs government. There are flaws in AltSpace and they are massive, no doubt about it. NASA also has flaws. Time for a 3rd alternative- the people who actually want space.
Recently it was announced that NASA would be designing a new mission to Mars to be released in July/August of this year, 2007. Here is the report-
NASA will have a basic architecture for a manned Mars mission in late July, says NASA deputy associate administrator for exploration systems Doug Cooke.
The Mars work began in January and will build on previous design reference missions produced by NASA. What differs with this study is that the performance specifications of the Ares I crew launch vehicle and Ares V heavy lift vehicle will play a large part in the analysis.
“It won’t be as detailed as the [2005] Exploration Systems Architecture Study [that dealt with the Moon],” says Cooke.
However it will draw conclusions about whether NASA wants to carry out long or short stay missions to Mars, what surface power supply would be used, and what propulsion is required. At the moment NASA envisages a Marsship that is as large as the International Space Station and uses either nuclear or solar electric propulsion systems. Cooke added that NASA’s aeronautics centers were interested in working on the dynamics of Mars atmospheric entry.
Seemingly good news. A new Mars mission plan from NASA. What implications does this have for groups like The Mars Society and other Mars enthusiasts? Well, in another recent speech Mike Griffin spoke about what he thought would be the next 50 years for NASA. But even before that he appeared at the Mars Society Conference in Washington D.C last year and said a few sobering words.
He stated very early in his speech to the Mars Society (of which he is a member)- “I hope to provoke some thinking among you, as members of the Mars Society, to try to look at NASA’s overall mission, rather than the single goal of a voyage to Mars”. He then goes on to talk about how the VSE came to be and how important it is to the future of the U.S space program. In the 2005 NASA Authorization Act there were specific instructions for NASA to follow and he listed those as being a- 1. Return to the Moon no later than 2020. 2. Launch the CEV as close to 2010 as possible, and not later than 2014; 3. Increase knowledge of the impact of long duration stays in space on the human body using the most appropriate facilities available, including the ISS, 4. Enable humans to land on and return from Mars and other destinations on a timetable that is technically and fiscally possible”.
Note point 4 especially. “On a timetable that is technically and fiscally possible”. He also states- “NASA’s strategic goals are neither solely nor initially focused upon Mars.”. Seems pretty clear on that point doesn’t it? He then goes on to explain what this means and how that completion of the ISS, retirement of the shuttle and construction of the CEV are the main focus for NASA over the next several years among many “competing priorities”.
These plans are being followed in view of the “resources projected to be available to NASA over the next 5 years” or in other words- within current NASA budgets. There is simply no room for development of near term Mars missions in the NASA budget as it is and as it is projected to be any time soon. The only way a Mars mission could be brought forward is for there to an increase in NASA funding to the tune of an extra $5 Billion or so per year for the next 15 or so years. But with the way NASA has to struggle for every penny do you really believe it is logical or realistic to assume that such a thing could happen?
Let me be clear. For a near term Mars mission to happen, NASA would need billions of dollars added to its budget every year starting right now. And even if NASA’s budget does receive such a boost do you think that Mars missions will be the only priority they would spend such funds on?
Griffin states that the path NASA is now on is a “national imperative”. This means they listen their bosses in government first, not small space advocate groups. So realistically how does anyone expect the Mars Society or anyone else to get NASA’s funding radically increased in light of all these facts? NASA is not just about getting to Mars. As Griffin said they “are charged with carrying out a broad portfolio of missions in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research”.
Griffin states that completion of the ISS, safe and effective transition to the new ESAS (CEV, Ares etc) by completing the shuttle missions is “at the forefront of our attention at NASA”. So even with greater funding NASA will move to fulfil those priorities above all else, including a Mars mission. He goes on to talk of international partnerships and how that perhaps other nations might help “augment” a Mars mission like they have done with the ISS (not very successfully either). This is one option the Mars Society needs to seriously consider now. If they want near term Mars missions they need to take what Griffin said to heart and begin to reach out to other national agencies to help with development costs for a Mars mission now that we know NASA won’t have such funds at least for another 15 years.
In light of the current realities at NASA it is time groups like the Mars Society seriously reconsidered their approach on getting humans to Mars soon. Zubrin was quoted as saying- “The destination needs to be Mars and needs to be soon”. According to Griffin NASA plans to go there in around 30 years or so, and that is not “soon”. So what are the choices? What strategies could MS employ to try and bring forward human Mars missions?
They could try and lobby the U.S government to increase NASA funding and to allocate the extra funds to Mars missions but for this to succeed it would have to be in the next year or two at most. Development for a human Mars mission will take at least 15 years according to most serious estimates so every year NASA doesn’t get that extra funding puts a mission date out by 15 years. That 15 year period could be reduced to 10 years (if everything goes perfectly in r&d) but not without a doubling of the current NASA budget and sadly that is just not going to happen.
The problem is to lobby the U.S government for extra NASA funds will require NASA to be on their side as well. NASA have a plan and it will help them fulfil all of their goals over the next few decades and they already struggle just to secure current levels of funding so why would they rock the boat by demanding more funds from the government on the scale needed for a Mars mission? It would be counter productive to everything they have fought for and achieved over the last few years. It would also seem quite irrational to go off on a Mars tangent just as they are beginning their implementation of VSE and many members of Congress would see that. Under Griffin NASA has done their best to bring forward human Mars missions and I don’t think Mars advocates could ask for a better NASA Chief.
But the best they can achieve is 30 years- maybe. The decision for a real Mars mission has not been made yet and according to Griffin will not be made for another 10 or 15 years from now. We hope that when the time comes a Mars mission will become the next logical step and will receive a “national imperative”. But NASA will not be advocating a near term human Mars mission any time soon, and certainly not before they return to the Moon.
So this leaves just the Mars Society and a loose assortment of Mars enthusiasts to push for a near term Mars mission on their own. They won’t get NASA’s backing, and they definitely won’t get Congress funding because of that fact so what is left? The only scenario I can see that might happen is a private/international partnership that spends the next 10 to 15 years developing Mars mission components. So by 2022 NASA will be on the Moon and hopefully have a base there, they will have tested and proved the new HLLV systems and IF their international and commercial partners have spent their own money (over the next 15 years) on Mars mission development then at that time a Mars mission could be launched within a year or two.
Could the ESA, Russia, China, Japan and other nations develop Mars mission systems and build them ready for NASA in 2022? They could, but not on their own. They would still need to work with NASA and would need to tie their R & D into NASA’s own development path. Each of these agencies would need to be convinced of the severe importance of a near term Mars mission first and that does not look very likely either. Even if MS could muster the numbers needed to pressure these other nations into paying for Mars mission development costs it would take years from now (if they started today). If they can’t convince the U.S government to give NASA more funds what makes you think they could achieve that with several other nations?
This is a path they could follow, but it will definitely not lead to near term Mars missions. The quagmire of politics requires a lot of money and a lot of time to fight through, and MS has neither. So that leaves the private option. Private U.S based space companies (and approved international space companies) could pick up the tab for Mars mission development (at costs lower than NASA) and when NASA has tested and proved the new HLLV architecture they could marry the two development paths into a Mars mission, possibly even before a Moon mission. This would mean that those private companies would need to find ways of making some profits from the mission, perhaps with sample returns, media rights, patents, etc.
Yet there are problems with this option also and no doubt you can point them out to me. Private companies want quick returns and don’t like risks. They also won’t do anything that is not “in demand” and from what they can see no one wants a Mars mission beyond a few thousand Mars enthusiasts in the world. So before private support could be gained there would need to be a decent amount of the public in support of such a plan. This is the part MS and other groups could work on but so far do very little of. MS has stated in their charter that they do want to seek the private mission option but so far the obsession with NASA has left that option on the sidelines.
I believe that according to what Griffin has said that a private/NASA partnership could be forged for near term Mars missions but it will take a lot of hard work and public outreach by MS and others to bring this about. We could be on Mars in the 2022 to 2025 window if we can organize enough public support and private investment into this, and if we can get NASA to agree with such a plan (which they have hinted at anyway). I don’t mind if they go to the Moon first, but Mars can still happen within the next 15 or 20 years IF we work on strategies that do stand a chance versus the current “ it’s all up to NASA” attitude.
Near term Mars missions are a major principle behind the existence of the Mars Society and now it is time to take responsibility for that idea or abandon it. If it is abandoned then expect a dwindling of numbers and eventual death. It would be great that if by the time NASA does bring out their Mars mission plan this July that MS has a professional proposal of its own to bring forward a Mars mission at no cost to the budget. This would be the perfect time to gain support from NASA for such a plan but to do such a thing would require work to begin today.
Yes, however it's also the competition for the limited funds from other groups.
Competition for limited funds. Competition for funds would not exist if NASA were fully funded and that is the fault of many within and outside of the space community. Currently they get around 0.7% allocated to them and while you say it is a LOT of funding it is still way below Apollo era funding and way below many other priorities in the budget. Space advocates over the last 30 years have completely failed to get that budget substantially increased despite all the protests. Some of the reasons for that failure is our small numbers and our unprofessional approach to government lobbying. Certainly commerical contractors for NASA do their best in that field, but they are not what I would call true space advocates. Commercial interests are about maintaining and increasing profits. It is obvious then that it is in their interests to lobby the government for continued funding of the space program.
But the space advocates I'm talking about are the ones with all the grand visions of space settlements, space tourism, star travel, space cities, Mars colonization etc. They are clustered in groups like The Planetary Society, National Space Society, Mars Society and others like them. They are also workers within NASA (perhaps just trying to protect their careers) and bloggers online and general space enthusiasts all over the world. Yet in over 30 years of space advocacy these groups have failed to impact the funding of NASA in any significant way.
Competition for limited funds is not a reason for why there is no funding for Mars mission plans, it is a symptom of a larger problem. Beyond commercial space advocates the non profit variety fail miserably when it comes to influencing government policy on NASA funding (or anything else space related for that matter).
For example, Bigelow, Branson, Musk and other new space pioneers have had to deal with the government themselves on issues like ITAR and have had a hard fight much of the way due to the failure of space advocates to help create new laws and a more pro space political environment. Space advocates claim loudly that they want to see a future for humanity in space, colonies on the Moon and Mars and more, but what do they do about it beyond debating in forums, writing some papers, organizing conferences and working on badly underfunded projects that go nowhere? Laws need changing, funds for NASA do need increasing and the private space sector does need special support in this early stage of their formation and the only ones who express any concern are the current crop of space advocates.
Yet those same advocates can't agree on anything much and lack severely in presenting a united and loud voice to political leaders. Nothing much will change in the direction of space programs and ideas until the people that advocate all this step up and do something beyond just talking.
I understand that NASA are going forward with VSE and if all is well they will land people on the Moon and Mars over the next 30 years but NASA are not about colonization of space or commercialization of space. They are about trailblazing exploration and science and they will continue to do those things.
But who will mine the asteroids, who will colonize Mars, who will build cities on the Moon or send people to other stars? NASA may lead the way, but they won't be doing all the next step things. And after all, why were groups like The Mars Society formed? Was it to be another cheerleading squad for NASA or do they really want to follow through with their ideals as laid out in their charter? I know NASA will eventually get to Mars, but the VSE is not the whole picture. It is only the beginning.
The Purpose of the Mars Society:
To further the goal of the exploration and settlement of the Red Planet. This will be done by:
1. Broad public outreach to instill the vision of pioneering Mars.
2. Support of ever more aggressive government funded Mars exploration programs around the world.
3. Conducting Mars exploration on a private basis.
Starting small, with hitchhiker payloads on government funded missions, we intend to use the credibility that such activity will engender to mobilize larger resources that will enable stand-alone private robotic missions and ultimately human exploration.
It's great that NASA are going ahead with VSE but is basic exploration of the solar system by humans really the reason space advocates are so passionate about their cause? Go to any group and see what they are talking about and what they are interested in. They all talk of grand visions like colonies on the Moon and Mars or asteroid mining and trips to the stars. Even NASA has such dreamers. But thinking that landing a few people on another world or running some science outposts on Mars is the fulfillment of any space advocate's dreams is clearly only part of the picture. Those are the first steps and yes we do need NASA and others with the resources to take those steps but don't for one minute think that those missions will translate into colonies and the fulfillment of space advocate dreams.
NASA will not fund colonial expeditions to Mars or anywhere else. That is not their mandate and never was. So let's say we do sit around and wait for them to get to Mars by 2037 and as Griffin postulated there could be another 9 or so missions for about 20 years after that. That takes us to 2057. Maybe by then there might be colonial private efforts on the Moon or Mars but those efforts will not come about because we just sat around and did nothing for 50 years. If colonial expeditions(for average citizens) begin it will be the result of many years of struggles by true space advocates working within the commercial and public sectors. Of course none of this will happen if we spend the next 50 years talking about it from our armchairs.
The point of Mars Direct I thought was to bring forward a human Mars mission and colonial programs from the private sector (hence the reference by MS to "private missions"). It seems to have failed on almost all counts. To me 30 or 50 years is not "near term". VSE may go ahead but it is not the fulfillment of any space or Mars advocate's goals, only the beginning. The next steps are by no means a certainty and may well fade away as another 50 years of boring (to the public) science missions take their toll. We are already in crisis mode. The younger generations do not at all like VSE or NASA or much of anything in space. In time (the next 10 to 20 years) they will be voting for, running governments and space agencies. If we continue to bore this generation and future ones I can't see a bright future for humanity in space, not at all(except perhaps from other nations than the U.S). VSE is but one small part of a much larger picture and the sooner we focus on that fact the better.
It didn't get any further not because people were "shut up", but because there was no more funding.
So the question is- Why was there no funding? I would contend that the lack of funding for most space programs and ideas at NASA comes down to a shortfall among space advocates and Mars advocates. A numbers shortfall. Both inside NASA and outside. For example, I read a thread over at NASA spaceflight forums on the DIRECT launcher proposal and the official NASA guy (Dr Stanley) who came in to debate and answer questions made some interesting statements.
Normally he said NASA does not respond to alternative ideas but the reason this was different was that it had gained substantial qualitative and quantitative support within NASA and as a result needed to be addressed in some way. So when you say that advocates within NASA have been pushing for a new Mars mission plan I have to say that clearly not enough people within NASA having been pushing for it. That is the first problem.
The second problem is the people who do push Mars related ideas within NASA are dealing with a subject that is not much of a priority within NASA yet and Griffin has made that known anyway. The Moon is where they are focused now and for the next 15 or 20 years. So pushing too hard on Mars from those within NASA would actually be counter productive in the current agenda so it will never gain the kind of support that the DIRECT launcher did for example. Not until the Moon is behind them again and that excuse is removed. Griffin himself is a Mars advocate but not even he can disobey his superiors in congress. I think this plan is a good thing and largely pushed through by Griffin's Mars advocacy view and we should be thankful for that at least.
The real problem is NASA take their lead from congress and the President and they take their lead from their constituents and Mars advocates don't seem to understand or accept these basic facts. If very few of the public care about Mars (and they don't) then government leaders will continue to do whatever they want as long as the voice of Mars advocates is silent. Mars is never going to be much of a priority until the wider public make it so. Hoping that a few people within NASA can do it all for getting humans to Mars is not even something Griffin agrees with. NASA have repeatedly stated over the last three years that they do want international and commercial partners to "augment" the VSE, especially in the bigger elements like Mars missions and so far on the Mars side of things I have not seen Mars advocates respond to this very well.
The reason funding for Mars mission plans and missions is never or rarely there is because it lacks support on all fronts. Space advocates are divided about where they want NASA to go, Mars advocates seem to ignore opportunity after opportunity when it comes to raising public support levels and that needs to stop. Mars is the most frequently visited planet in the solar system and every time a new probe visits Mars the general public across the world tune in. Yet during those peak periods of public interest the Mars community seems to ignore these periods of opportunity and it rarely results in an increase in our numbers or lobbying strength. One of the big reasons for this is that from what I see many Mars advocates don't much like the public and don't relate very well to them.
For example, for many years now the position of many Mars advocates has been to hope on NASA and push them to achieve our dreams and when we deal with the public we tend to give them that same message. The problem with that is we are basically telling the U.S tax payer that we want more of their taxes spent on something they don't think is important at all. In short, Mars advocates are out of touch with the wider public and no amount of well thought out "reasons to go" will convince the public otherwise. Plus many Mars advocates just don't believe that we can succeed in raising public support so why bother? I hear it all the time. "It's too hard, too unrealistic, the public are fickle, etc etc". We are shooting ourselves in the foot with our own negativity.
With wide scale public support (not just passing interest) political leaders and business leaders do take notice. But with such small numbers as we have now within and outside of NASA in the Mars community we will have to continue to rely on "hopes" and other such bones tossed our way. There are three forms of funding for space programs as I see it. Government, the private sector and the foundation of both of these- the public- John Q Citizen, the tax payer, the consumer. If the foundation of funding is ultimately from the public then shouldn't we be focusing on them instead of less stable foundations like space friendly politicians or wealthy investors (rare as they are)? I don't know about you but I don't know of any space advocates that are 100% satisfied with the pace of space exploration and settlement efforts. But that slow pace will continue while we continue to rely upon the even more fickle fates of politics or business fads. The public, the people many space advocates think are brain dead morons ulimately pay for our dreams. Maybe it's time we started focusing on them a bit more and stopped being so scared and negative?
This current plan will come out and no doubt will be some kind of Battlestar Galactica type of thing and in the end it will not be too far removed from the original 90 Day Report. So after all Robert Zubrin and The Mars Society's efforts to achieve near term and streamlined Mars missions it seems that as expected, NASA will have the final say. I understand that Mars Direct had its flaws and NASA even came up with their own $55 Billion version of it but after this new study it will be worlds away from any of that. The point of Mars Direct was to create a cheaper alternative to a mega project like the 90 Day Report and to make it near term but it seems to have failed on both of these counts. The point of Mars Direct was to show that we could get to Mars without spending mega billions and that prospect excited people, especially the public. But in 2007 the reality is quite different. The wider public will never get excited about this coming plan, especially if they have to foot the bill. I know some here hate the idea of private Mars missions and laugh at even current private launch attempts like SpaceX Falcon 1 etc but private companies (with government partnership, public investment and support) could get us to Mars. Even NASA would like to see greater private involvement in human Mars missions according to Griffin. When the 90 Day Report and Zubrin's Mars Direct came out they created vastly different responses from space advocates and the public alike. What will this new plan do?
From the lack of response here and the lack of interest even within space advocate circles it doesn't look good. One or two people ranting in a forum is not qualified as a " good level of interest" either. You call it a "rock solid" committment but has George Bush announced a timeframe for it yet? Has NASA? How many administrations will come and go over the next 20 to 30 years, and do you really think they will all just "go with the flow"? What would stop the Moon from becoming another shuttle style 20 or 30 year side track? (the Lunar Siren as Zubrin put it). The reality is very few of us will live to see man land on Mars if we keep following the "only government can do it" way.
I think the coming design is a good thing, if only to push forward some official NASA plans for Mars into 2007 terms but it is still a long way from being a serious plan even according to Griffin. Sometimes I think these Mars mission plans come out every few years just to shut Mars advocates up and it is still NOT a rock solid committment to actually sending humans there and from other words of Griffin it may be the late 2030's or longer if NASA do reach Mars.
Remember though, many administrations will come and go between now and when they go back to the Moon and it is not really something to rely upon when you look back at NASA history. Going to Mars can be started at any time and from what I know it doesn't look good on when NASA might get there. For many years they said that a Mars mission was 20 years away and now that VSE has started they (or at least Griffin) are saying 2037 or beyond, maybe. From 20 years to 30 years, what's next? One prediction by Donald Rapp was that NASA wouldn't reach mars until at least 2080 and with everything going on I believe it. A new mission design is never a bad thing but because there is still no definite committment by NASA on Mars, this plan could be yet another DRM. It might help NASA commit to a manned Mars mission (we hope) but will it? Who gives NASA the go ahead to go to Mars?
Looking at those details though, it sounds alot like Battlestar Galactica 2.
I'm not sure what some people have against new private space groups like SpaceX but I would like to know. Is is that they hype themselves up to be more than they are? If so maybe you need to step back and understand the business side a bit better. Until recently all we had was large government contractors like Lockheed/Boeing etc. Now we have a new group of companies making claims that they can reduce the cost of LV's. In the business world that would be seen as a threat. If my competitor is going to bring out a product much cheaper than me, then action must be taken to stay competitive.
Living up to such claims is another matter though, as we can all see. Rocket science is not easy as they are finding out. But marketing their brand is a part of normal business strategy. I mean how many products and services advertise themselves to be more than what they are yet most of us don't worry about it? From a business perspective marketing is just as important as having a product that works right. Especially when trying to break into a market dominated by a few large government contractors. The reason I admire SpaceX is that they at least are trying to live up to their claims. Last launch was lost after 29 seconds, this one was an order of magnitude better, anyone with sense could see that. In the effort to create lower cost LV's I expected failures because I understand the nature of how complex any LV is. Plus you need to remember that Elon Musk has funded most of this out of his own pocket. As far as I can see there is no other game in town for new private launchers so lets cut them some slack. They are venturing into uncharted territory by trying to produce a low cost launch vehicle so let's give them some room to make mistakes and learn. Being a private business they don't have much room to move so their next launch will have to be perfect, we all know this. Beyond all this though, the effort by any company to try and reduce launch vehicle costs is to be admired, and I wouldn't care if it was Lockheed or anyone else. Or would you prefer that space remain the domain of large government agencies and a few select astronauts?
I wouldn't call it another failure. Compared to last launch it was a success and they have clearly improved in many areas. How many failures has NASA and its contractors had over the years? Failure is a part of the learning curve.
I don't think you are going to be able to change this with advertising or advicacy, so the only way to promote space is to make it less risky.
"less risky" refers to technology developments and putting our faith in technology alone. This has clearly been shown not to work. The public are fickle, and that is why a robust and creative means of reaching them that goes way beyond just great flight hardware is needed. Advertising and advocacy are needed, especially in the space arena. Sometimes technology works, sometimes it fails (like Challenger/Columbia/Apollo 1 etc). What I am talking about is the space/Mars advocacy community finding ways to change enough people's view on space with pro space entertainment, creative outreach ideas not tried yet and true "outreach" instead of the usual "inreach" we keep practicing. I am coming to the conclusion too that maybe space advocates are not the right people to be advocating their own cause. Possibly due to our demographics being the total opposite of the general public. (80% male, introverts, tech savvy, intellectual, idealistic etc). Maybe we could hire out the PR tasks to professional companies and individuals?
I'm talking about creating a foundation of sympathetic and favorable general public with the same techniques governments and businesses successfully use in their own marketing/PR efforts, no different. If it works for them, it can work for us.
I have some questions I was hoping to get your comments on and any MS members please chime in if you know anything. Where does the Mars Society stand with Mars Direct these days? Where does Zubrin stand with his plans from over 10 years ago? In light of all of the research in the last 10 years and lessons we are learning from the various robotic missions there has MS changed mission plans or Zubrin? If so what are those new plans, and if not, how does Mars Direct deal with all the criticism and new information over the last few years?
By "the public" I mean ALL non space interested people everywhere on Earth, starting with the U.S, Canada, Australia, U.K and moving out from there. For example surveys conducted in the U.S have shown consistently that between 50 and 70% of people are interested in the space program to some degree. That is a vast potential market to raise active supporters from just there. Governments can initiate their own space programs whenever they want, with or without public support, I understand that. But they can just as easily cancel space programs and this is where having a large scale and strong advocate lobby (in all nations) would ensure permanent and growing steps into space, not the halting, weak and low budget version we have today. But if the U.S public in particular cannot be brought back to supporting space projects in a serious way it makes it that much harder for all other nations. Plus as far as private space efforts/companies go, the U.S is still far ahead of all these other nations in that area alone and if there was much greater numbers supporting space projects (government or private) in the U.S the private space sector would benefit also.
I didn't say that I liked it.
I know that, and I agree with you about how those past Presidents did great things for the U.S. But that is not what I am talking about here. You say-
I am telling you how the world actually functions whether you like it or not.
I know the world functions this way. But the whole point of advocacy and activism on behalf of any cause is to CHANGE the world. To change the way things are. So I have a question for you. Do you believe that space advocates and those involved in the space industries CAN change things for the better? Do you believe that we can reach the public and raise levels of interest or not? Or must we wait for a new future super President or great new technologies to come along first?
The only thing stopping us from reaching out to the public is us and our attitudes. We don't need to wait on any development or any leader to do anything. This is something we can do ourselves right now. Maybe for a hardened and cynical forum member or disillusioned space advocate this is all too hard, but what amazes me is how many I hear from seem to take space exploration advancements for granted. Right now we have 2 wonders of technology driving around on another world (MER) and we are gradually stripping away the layers of mystery around Titan and Saturn yet I hear very little on these anymore. The public were interested in those missions and instead of using that interest and recruiting new members to space advocate groups they largely get ignored.
I read Steve Squyres book "Roving Mars" and it was astounding stuff. It gave me a new appreciation and a deep respect for the men and women behind these missions. Now we need to get the public to see what we see, and it's not an impossible task. We can reach the public and advocate groups do have that ability to influence the public when they put their resources and minds to the task. So far this is not happening, but it must or we will continue to have to live with "the way things are". If you don't like the way things are you have a choice- do something about it or do nothing and be a part of the problem. There is a saying which sums this up quite well-
"It is not the critic who counts, not the one who points out how the strong man stumbled or how the doer of deeds might have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred with sweat and dust and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, if he wins, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."