I give up.... - Manned mission to Mars.

C.COMMARMOND (FR) · 2002-08-28 14:04:45

Hello all,

I am French and i really think NASA will not go to Mars because it is too big and lazy. I hope ESA and Russians and China and Japan will go on and after, NASA will maybe wake up. Spend 100 B$ to do ISS is just an insult to the face of the world... russians would have done it for 5 b$ (50% for ISS 50% for their pocket ?), but they'd have done this in 5 years. So i think you (americans) and we (europeans) should not hope in NASA. Open your pocket, and prepare yourself to give 100 or 1000$ per month to some private association who want to go there. We need from 1 to 3 million people to finance a 20 b$ program (over 12 years) to do this. Don't you think we can find these people?

So continue to hope, but not with NASA...

CC

PS: Phobos, any remaining thing form the moon program is outdated and rusty now. But if we can get the drawings, we may be able to make copies (even better ones) of these rovers.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-08-28 23:12:09

Trust a Frenchman to cut through all the bulls***t and get to the nitty-gritty ... such a practical people, the French!
CC, I've often thought it must be possible to find a few million people willing to reach into their pockets to support a private space initiative. I know I would DEFINITELY do so myself if I thought it was a serious effort.
Is there any practical way of organising such a project?
:0

C.COMMARMOND (FR) · 2002-08-29 03:06:30

I hope so...

In fact, i think about that since the MIR station was destroyed because of NASA which could not stand competitors...
I though it was possible to find private funds to finance 200 M$ a year for it... With all the advantages evry body nows...

About Mars though, we are not playing at the same level, it's a 10/12 years and 2 b$ per year effort.

I think about a kind of 'societal cooperative'. i explain:
- Create a cooperative/association where private individuals put (loose) money.
- Find company as sponsors for a maximum of secondary needed products (E.g. a food company for food, a beverage company for liquids, a transportation company to pay plane tickets...), make some TV programs or even a Mars channel to show common informations and all the process of preparation of the project...
- Locate and use as much from the shelves componants (we are not a research company)
- Sub contract to the cheapest on the base of auctions (who is the cheapest company to send 10 times 100 metric ton on LEO?)

If and when the first crew is on Mars, begin to SELL TV programs, stones from Mars (moon stones are at 10 000 $ a gram!!!), make mail stamps from Mars... and sell our 'image' to Cola companies...

At the end, convert this cooperative/association to a 'space company' based on Mars with taxes paid on Mars... and if there are dividends, pay them. Open capital on stock exchange of all the planet to draw money...

We are then a new 'multi planetary' civilisation.

So, what do you think of this dream?

(oh, don't tell i'm crazy, i now this allready)

turbo · 2002-08-29 08:36:04

I don't think it is at all crazy. I seem to remember something about a Dutch East India Company. (Cindy, I can't find my powdered wig, how about a little history lesson?)

I do have to agree with the idea that the lunar rovers are not worth salvaging. Photovoltaics are much more efficient now, and who would want to go bumping around on rocky Mars in a vehicle that has no shock absorbers at all?

About pulling out the old plans, would it be possible to reconstruct SKYLAB for Mars, with maybe Titan boosters?

turbo

Palomar · 2002-08-29 10:42:40

I don't think it is at all crazy. I seem to remember something about a Dutch East India Company. (Cindy, I can't find my powdered wig, how about a little history lesson?)

*Yes, there was a Dutch East India Company.

Unfortunately, matters of economics and trade of the 18th century isn't my strong suit [philosophy, politics, literature, theater, manners, etc. of the time are].

A note to our resident Frenchman: Have you ever visited Voltaire's chateau in Fernex [aka Ferney]?

--Cindy

Mark S · 2002-08-29 11:27:06

NASA is bureaucratically-bloated and lazy, but it's still our best ticket for humans to Mars. I suppose the Russians could do it, but they would need additional (Chinese?) sources of funding. The European Space Agency is developing the technology to go to Mars, but I won't be convinced that they can send humans there until they obtain the independent ability to put humans in orbit.

Sean O'Keefe is one of the best bean-counters in Washington. I doubt that he has the vision to put humans on Mars, but the agency will be streamlined by the time he leaves, and a successor administrator just might be able to pull it off.

Bill White · 2002-08-29 15:53:43

NASA is bureaucratically-bloated and lazy,

Is this really true if we compare apples to apples?

Does NASA really "waste" more than the military? Are the ISS cost over-runs out of line with cost over-runs at comparable military projects? The "NASA is wasteful" mantra is in IMHO political cover for de-funding civilian space while ramping up defense space projects for which efficiency and cost over-run data is not relevant, or published.

If NASA is widely seen as "bureaucratically-bloated and lazy" its because there are higher powers that be who quietly want NASA to be seen that way, perhaps to politically justify why we won't fund $30 billion - paid over 15 years at $2 billion per year - for Mars.

The farm subsidy enacted last spring, for those who forgot, was something like $180 billion. So, where is there more "waste and bureaucracy?"

Sorry - MarkS - for ranting, but I believe Sean Keefe's assignment is to cut, cut, cut since I also believe civilian and science space efforts rank about 257th on the current administration's list of priorities.

Sean Keefe's assertion that Pluto-Knieper Express works better if we cut $115 million this year and spend $500 million more in five years or ten - after we develop an unproven technology - thoroughly destroys any credibility he may have otherwise had. And Sean Keefe is not NASA - he is a beltway guy.

By the way, the "most wasteful" thing NASA has ever done is try and build the ISS using the Shuttle. For the cost of one shuttle launch - about $1 billion - the ISS partnership could have purchased 6 Energia launches and finished long ago for way less money. Another call made inside the beltway, not by NASA professionals.

Bill White · 2002-08-29 16:10:49

I suppose the Russians could do it, but they would need additional (Chinese?) sources of funding. The European Space Agency is developing the technology to go to Mars, but I won't be convinced that they can send humans there until they obtain the independent ability to put humans in orbit.

What about a Russian - European Union partnership?

MELISSA rides an Energia launched from Khouru?

Stronger political ties between EU & Russia would seem to benefit both parties.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-08-29 20:17:33

Yes, Bill!
I have often thought that the EU and Russia would make a good team for space exploration. (I think I may have even mentioned it somewhere).
And you're quite right to draw our attention back to the Farm Bill. When the powers-that-be can dip into the wallet and pull out $180 billion for a Bill which is totally counterproductive for world trade, and hence an appalling waste of money in the long term, $3 billion a year over 10-15 years is suddenly put into clear perspective.
I feel that Europe is quite capable of coming up with that kind of money in that kind of time-frame ... no problem. And Russia is a cornucopia of rocket know-how and experience in manned space flight. With maybe just a little input from the USA, (the EU could even pay for it up front if America can't generate the will to contribute) I think the EU and Russia might be a marriage made in heaven.
Do you think there could be a migration of US aerospace talent over to Europe if America's program continues to languish? I was thinking that in the end, it's probably a lot cheaper to import expertise rather than re-invent everything.
This idea sounds better and better to me all the time! It's a way of cutting the US government and NASA out of the loop and getting mankind to Mars sooner rather than later. Leave the beltway barons to their power struggles and luddite thinking, while we get on with humanity's future!!
Is there a chance it might work?

Palomar · 2002-08-29 20:43:34

Yes, Bill!
I have often thought that the EU and Russia would make a good team for space exploration. (I think I may have even mentioned it somewhere)...I feel that Europe is quite capable of coming up with that kind of money in that kind of time-frame ... no problem. And Russia is a cornucopia of rocket know-how and experience in manned space flight. *

*If that wouldn't awaken NASA from its decades-long slumber, I don't know what would. It'd definitely be a kick in the seat of the pants for both NASA and the USA, and I dare say we need it!

I'm so sick and tired of the much-vaunted shuttle "missions." So what? They deploy satellites, repair satellites, walk in space [how many dozens of times has that been now? Old story, I feel sleepy], dodge orbiting space junk, etc. Yes, I know there is some importance to the shuttle program; however, astronauts nowadays seem to be nothing short of glorified TV repairmen. ???

I remember when the Enterprise had its opening ceremonies on the tarmac, in 1976; William Shatner and Leonard Nemoy were signing autographs. I was 11 years old, and excited. The excitement wore off a LONG time ago; it seems like forever. It's 2002 and we've not been out of Earth's gravitational field for nearly 30 years. Yeah, I'd say that some sort of accomplishment -- NOT.

What a joke. I'll probably be drooling applesauce in the old folks' home by the time NASA gets its butt in gear and gets the first astronauts to Mars.

If the Russians and EU can pull it off before the US can, go for it! May the best team win.

--Cindy

C.COMMARMOND (FR) · 2002-08-30 07:36:53

Hello Cindy and all,

Cindy, I am sorry, I don't know anything of that castle... I visited much others but not this one....

All, I am glad to see that Euro/Russian team is welcome here, but I'd prefer Euro/Russian/USA/CHINA... team (in the order you want), so much I think another planet should not be the property of a country...

About talents in NASA, I read that 30% of their people an Europeans... so just have to call them back with big money and good Mars projects.

Bill, don't compare US army and US NASA, it's the same US administration which buy hammer 20000$ and toilets 50000$ !!! So statistics says that Euro spend 10 times less for the same results that US, and Russians 20 or 50 times less...

I heard a joke (?) about the space fountain-pen: NASA people arrives in space, the fountain-pen does not work, so NASA spend 10 M$ to develop a space fountain-pen. Russians arrive to space and the fountain-pen does not work. They just take a pencil at 10 cents... What a good ratio !

Just for info, ESA is building a pad for russian rocket (proton, I think), but I don't know the price they quoted...

So hope they will go to Mars...

Adrian · 2002-08-30 09:10:59

Now, I do like America-bashing just as much as the next European, but let me respond to some of the points you made before one of our American correspondants call a tactical nuclear strike on us.

The space pen story is completely false. Basically, astronauts don't like using pencils in space - bits of lead can snap off and mess about with electrical wiring, or clog up air intakes, or poke people in the eye. So they wanted something else - they wanted a pen. Fisher made one for them, a pen that could function in zero-G, in vacuum and in extreme temperatures (in case there was a depressurisation). NASA bought 400 for $2.95 each. It's a nice story, the whole 'million dollars' thing, but it's not true. Read more about it here.

To be sure, military and government spending can run away, and you can get contractors asking for ridiculous prices for apparently simple things. First off, America is not the only country that does dumb stuff like this - we do it plenty enough in the UK, and of course there are the famous EU regulations about how curvy bananas should be, and so on. It's not solely a US problem.

Secondly, sometimes paying large amounts of money for hammers and things is justified. On Navy ships, they often want multipurpose tools that will do the job perfectly; they're very specialised, and they don't need many, so consequently they have a high unit price.

About international Mars missions - right now, I've given up caring. I don't care who is involved in a human mission to Mars as long as there is one. Iraq could launch one, and I'd be happy. Realistically, I think that the fastest way to get a human mission running is for America to go it alone, with minimal assistance from Europe and Russia.

Mark S · 2002-08-30 15:29:08

Nukes Ahoy!

Military programs don't have to be wasteful. The Lockheed Skunk Works had a reputation for building fantastic new aircraft that were on time and under budget (Then the X-33 came along and ruined the company's reputation :angry: ) Many of the problems come in when politicians authorize unneeded military spending to help their districts, or the armed services change their requirements. And let's not forget companies "cooking the books" to hide their losses with the proverbial "$1000 hammer."

Compared to other federal agencies, NASA is pretty efficient. They receive less than 1% of the federal budget ($15 billion) but still manage to get by. But NASA isn't perfect, either, and America should not settle for leaving the agency the way it is. The books on the ISS and Shuttle were "cooked" to hide the cost overruns. When the errors were discovered, ISS parts were discarded to make up for the extra charges. I've also heard a myriad of stories about the inefficiency of the Shuttle program. Ultimately, the shuttle's failure as an economical launch vehicle is due to low flight rates. We need to find more uses for the shuttle, churn out more ETs, inspect the orbiters faster, and just LAUNCH that puppy! Just like an airliner, the shuttle isn't cost effective if it's not in space.

Phobos · 2002-08-30 15:31:36

I'm so sick and tired of the much-vaunted shuttle "missions." So what? They deploy satellites, repair satellites, walk in space [how many dozens of times has that been now? Old story, I feel sleepy], dodge orbiting space junk, etc. Yes, I know there is some importance to the shuttle program; however, astronauts nowadays seem to be nothing short of glorified TV repairmen.

I feel exactly the same way about the space shuttle and the ISS. Personally I think we should hurry up and build a space elevator that can get us to orbit for five dollars a pound than just let some private organization build their own ship. If the early polar explorers had NASA's attitude they would have just sailed around the dock all the time and never got anywhere. I can just see these early NASA-like polar explorers now: "No, we have to wait until a new breed of dog can be developed before setting out. Oh, we also don't think people will be able to survive six months of darkness, we better wait twenty years to make sure darkness won't kill them." Sorry, I'm just in a bad mood today, I really shouldn't be posting right now.

And you're quite right to draw our attention back to the Farm Bill. When the powers-that-be can dip into the wallet and pull out $180 billion for a Bill which is totally counterproductive for world trade, and hence an appalling waste of money in the long term, $3 billion a year over 10-15 years is suddenly put into clear perspective.

I always find it amusing to how we supposedly can't fund a mission to Pluto before it's atmosphere freezes out, but 180 billion dollars can just fall from the sky when needed for anything else. It's like this war with Iraq. We can't fund much research into utilizing the resources of space and making cleaner energy supplies but we sure as hell can settle some political scores in Iraq worth probably a 100 billion dollars! I bet we could fly to Mars fifty times over for what it'll cost to drop bombs in Iraq. Saddam's a has been. He's probably having a hard time just trying to get a can of Raid to conquer the anthills in his backyard.

Bill White · 2002-09-01 14:35:15

MarkS writes:

Compared to other federal agencies, NASA is pretty efficient. They receive less than 1% of the federal budget ($15 billion) but still manage to get by. But NASA isn't perfect, either, and America should not settle for leaving the agency the way it is. The books on the ISS and Shuttle were "cooked" to hide the cost overruns.

I can agree with this pretty much 100%.

My larger point is that I believe allegations of NASA "waste" are being used within the US political debate - by anti/space types of both parties - to justify less funding for NASA while in truth NASA just is not all that bad.

C.COMMARMOND (FR) · 2002-09-03 01:37:40

Hello all,

Adrian my joke was just to illustrate this :

"The lesson of this anecdote is a valid one, that we sometimes expend a great deal of time, effort, and money to create a "high-tech" solution to a problem, when a perfectly good, cheap, and simple solution is right before our eyes." (comment from the site you quoted).

And if NASA is able to get us in Mars, why don't they do it? Their first planning to do so is 40 years old... (russians ones too).

I agree with the fact that Shuttle would be more economically efficient if it flies, but it doesn't. Why? I think because NASA has no projects else than survive.

And I agree too that NASA ineficiency is probably due to politicians. (It's true that develop so much X.. costs a lot. Maybe it's better to spend the money on old technology programs with results than in X.. programs with no effects but lost money.) So what? Politicians don't want to move, NASA doesn't move and Mars is allways empty of Men.

So, only two solutions:
- Manifest to the White House who want to go to Mars. But the White House is just working to go to war...
- Hope (or act) to create a private foundation which could make all these agencies move...

Last thing: I don't think that now, Bush considers Europeans, Russians and others like 'friends', so I don't hope that NASA will be able to launch such a space program with them.

And it's make me really sad...

CC

Palomar · 2002-09-03 08:43:54

I always find it amusing to how we supposedly can't fund a mission to Pluto before it's atmosphere freezes out, but 180 billion dollars can just fall from the sky when needed for anything else. It's like this war with Iraq. We can't fund much research into utilizing the resources of space and making cleaner energy supplies but we sure as hell can settle some political scores in Iraq worth probably a 100 billion dollars! I bet we could fly to Mars fifty times over for what it'll cost to drop bombs in Iraq. Saddam's a has been. He's probably having a hard time just trying to get a can of Raid to conquer the anthills in his backyard.

*"Money is always to be found when men are sent to be destroyed, but when the object is to preserve them it is no longer so." -- Voltaire.

--Cindy

Phobos · 2002-09-03 18:45:44

*"Money is always to be found when men are sent to be destroyed, but when the object is to preserve them it is no longer so." -- Voltaire.
--Cindy

You know, I'm beginning to like Voltaire more and more.

My larger point is that I believe allegations of NASA "waste" are being used within the US political debate - by anti/space types of both parties - to justify less funding for NASA while in truth NASA just is not all that bad.

NASA is the last agency I'd vote to axe even though I agree with Mark S that they don't exactly get an A+ in the efficiency department. And NASA's budget is miniscule compared to other areas such as defense. If we want to trim the fat I say we start with the D.o.D. first.

C.COMMARMOND (FR) · 2002-09-05 12:40:12

Phobos 'If we want to trim the fat I say we start with the D.o.D. first.', I fully agree (but for now they increased 50% in last 3 months).
But increase NASA efficiency is an important goal too.

CC

TJohn · 2002-09-27 12:02:22

NASA is never going to go anywhere until they are given a direct order from the President-i.e. JFK. IMO, Pres. Bush would support the manned missions to Mars and more space exploration if it wasn't for the war on terrorism.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-09-27 18:52:35

You know, TJohn, I think you could be right about George W.
A few people have suggested on this site that George lacks a certain something in the cerebral cortex department ... Oh yes, synapses ... That was it!!
They've expressed the view that he has no understanding of , or interest in, space exploration and that, as long as he's president, we have no chance of a humans-to-Mars program.

But for some reason, I've never seen him that way. I think he's a little smarter than he looks. Call it intuition, if you like, but I can imagine him announcing something big in space travel before he's finished.

Gee whiz! I must be in an optimistic mood today!

kalizarin · 2002-09-27 23:25:47

NASA is never going to go anywhere until they are given a direct order from the President-i.e. JFK. IMO, Pres. Bush would support the manned missions to Mars and more space exploration if it wasn't for the war on terrorism.

What makes you think so? Has he said or done anything to suggest that he's a proponent of space exploration (say, pre-9/11)?

As a side note, everyone seems to assume that if the president calls for NASA to go to Mars, it will. Actually, President Bush Sr. *did* do this - he said, "NASA, design me a plan so we can go to Mars!" Unfortunately, the plan was very conservative and ended up being ~$10 billion (I think). Congress was horrified and nixed it from the start. But the point is that you need more than just a single person, even if it is the president, to make these things happen. JFK's endorsement of a trip to the moon was facilitated by a good political climate, the fact that he had already attained the support of Congress, and the national "race the Soviets" feeling. (I'm sure there were other factors, too - I don't want to oversimplify.)

RobertDyck · 2002-09-28 20:24:01

Actually, NASA came back with the 90-day report and a $450 billion price tag. Congress gagged at that. Robert Zubrin then came back with Mars Direct, and NASA budget guys estimate his plan with 7 manned missions to Mars would cost $20 billion. In the Case for Mars page 285, Robert Zubrin estimated that a private company could do a single manned mission to Mars for $3 billion in 1996. NASA budget for 2002 is $14.902 billion. Many Americans are expecting NASA to "go somewhere". With a reasonable mission plan, a manned mission to Mars could be NASA's next goal after the ISS without any increase in NASA's budget. That is, if Congress decided to actually do it.

Mark S · 2002-09-28 23:34:27

As a side note, everyone seems to assume that if the president calls for NASA to go to Mars, it will. Actually, President Bush Sr. *did* do this - he said, "NASA, design me a plan so we can go to Mars!" Unfortunately, the plan was very conservative and ended up being ~$10 billion (I think). Congress was horrified and nixed it from the start. But the point is that you need more than just a single person, even if it is the president, to make these things happen.

If anything, the 90-day plan was too ambitious because it tied each of the space program's goals to each other. You had to build SSF to return to the moon, you had to return to the moon before going to Mars, etc. But I think the spirit of the 90-Day plan was sound. "Don't leave flags and footprints, but make a commitment and get the nation to follow." The problem was that the nation wasn't convinced, the Congress wasn't convinced, and NASA's administration at the time (Richard Truly) was ineffectve, unsupportive, and unimaginative.

Almost everyone in this forum believes that space exploration is a worthwhile endeavour and a valuable investment of taxpayer dollars. But the majority of Americans, particularly those without technical backgrounds or great wealth, do not realize this. Without some kind of overwhelming impetus, like the Cold War or life on Mars, they will never support a grand one-shot like Apollo, let alone Mars Direct.

AltToWar · 2002-09-29 00:25:48

It takes less thrust to leave earths gravity well and get on your way to mars then it does to get to the moon. You can send more and it will be cheaper.

Mars has more resources available for manned missions to harvest. Fewer (if any) supply missions will be needed in order to keep any mars base active.

The problem is not the science or practicality. It's the politics of defense and aerospace contractors and entrenched camps in nasa.

Government funded projects generally make a % above the cost. Naturally, the larger the cost the more the contractor makes. Small and cheap missions to mars will fall in favor compaired to large and bulky space assembles super-ships.

This is the way things go for government funded beurocratic organizations.

Nasa will continue to be impotent as long as it's current political situation remains.

Two things could change this:

1: Privatization of the space program

2: Strong, Specific political demand for a small and cheap mission to mars.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2002-08-28 14:04:45

Re: I give up.... - Manned mission to Mars.

#27 2002-08-28 23:12:09

Re: I give up.... - Manned mission to Mars.

#28 2002-08-29 03:06:30

Re: I give up.... - Manned mission to Mars.

#29 2002-08-29 08:36:04

Re: I give up.... - Manned mission to Mars.

#30 2002-08-29 10:42:40

Re: I give up.... - Manned mission to Mars.

#31 2002-08-29 11:27:06

Re: I give up.... - Manned mission to Mars.

#32 2002-08-29 15:53:43

Re: I give up.... - Manned mission to Mars.

#33 2002-08-29 16:10:49

Re: I give up.... - Manned mission to Mars.

#34 2002-08-29 20:17:33

Re: I give up.... - Manned mission to Mars.

#35 2002-08-29 20:43:34

Re: I give up.... - Manned mission to Mars.

#36 2002-08-30 07:36:53

Re: I give up.... - Manned mission to Mars.

#37 2002-08-30 09:10:59

Re: I give up.... - Manned mission to Mars.

#38 2002-08-30 15:29:08

Re: I give up.... - Manned mission to Mars.

#39 2002-08-30 15:31:36

Re: I give up.... - Manned mission to Mars.

#40 2002-09-01 14:35:15

Re: I give up.... - Manned mission to Mars.

#41 2002-09-03 01:37:40

Re: I give up.... - Manned mission to Mars.

#42 2002-09-03 08:43:54

Re: I give up.... - Manned mission to Mars.

#43 2002-09-03 18:45:44

Re: I give up.... - Manned mission to Mars.

#44 2002-09-05 12:40:12

Re: I give up.... - Manned mission to Mars.

#45 2002-09-27 12:02:22

Re: I give up.... - Manned mission to Mars.

#46 2002-09-27 18:52:35

Re: I give up.... - Manned mission to Mars.

#47 2002-09-27 23:25:47

Re: I give up.... - Manned mission to Mars.

#48 2002-09-28 20:24:01

Re: I give up.... - Manned mission to Mars.

#49 2002-09-28 23:34:27

Re: I give up.... - Manned mission to Mars.

#50 2002-09-29 00:25:48

Re: I give up.... - Manned mission to Mars.

Board footer