Challenge: reasons for Moon, Mars, space - WHY ?

clark · 2003-11-08 18:42:49

You'll never find a justification or rationale for a *government* to colonize mars, the moon, or the stars. Unless of course there is some irrational reason for doing it, such as a spiritual or ideological 'destiny' of some sort. Or, if there is some weird competition between groups to do it (assuming that each group has the capability)

Colonization, like the kind people generaly imagine with Mars or space won't come for another fifty to one hundred years after the 'exploration' phase. Sorry kids, but the stars are for another generation to live on, not ours.

All of that aside, I still don't quite understand why anyone would choose to go off into space. Most fantasies people have about the adventure really won't be the reality you will experience.

Now, why would the average person support exploration or exploitationm of space? YOu bring good points against doing such things, but for some reason, people think space exploration = progress. It's something, adn somewhere we haven't gone or done before. It's new. Everyone likes the new car smell, same thing.

But let me put it to you this way:

Space = security. Technology = security. Science = security. Space, science, and technology all equal new opportunities.

Maybe not for Joe Six pack, but his kids, who he wants to be an engineer, or a doctor, or an astronaut.

Our nation is leader of the pack in terms of science and technology in most areas. A large part of the reason for this was Apollo. We invested in science and math back in the 60's, using Apollo as a catalyst. The Chinese are doing the same thing now.

We now live in the shadows of Apollo- the fast changing world we see around us is due in large part to what happened during the 60's.

But the times, they are a changing. Or more precisely, we're getting older. Those kids from the 60's grew up. Some are starting to retire. We still need those engineer's, those, scientists. So we need to replace them, and if we must, we will more than likely do it the same way we did it last time...

Proclaim a major goal, and use it to spur people to action, and give them something to work towards.

The Moon is not Everest, and while I understand your point, i think it fails becuase you don't account for the vast differences that make the Moon useful for the reasons I have often outlined. The moon is the closest planetary body besides earth, and it gives us a greater amount of freedom to do new things. Everest isn't any of those things.

Gennaro · 2003-11-08 18:45:42

Indeed, I think you touch a sore point. Not that I have any revolutionary answers on offer but I could at least point out something.

I think that an important part is that space programs often lack a basic aesthetic appeal. Now, that sounds like more BS but let me explain. People, a lot of ordinary people, enjoy science fiction. A problem is that real space programs don't look like what people expect from a space program.

Take the Apollo missions. Big enormous rocket boosters costing zillions of dollars are taking a small cramped compartment to the Moon. The pricey hardware is even destroyed as it blasts off, throwing off stages as it goes along. Now, that?s not what ?Robert Heinlein and God intended?. Space ships in peoples minds should be taking off from Earth, preferably with a lot of smoke, blast and ceremony, go to Venus and come back and land. They should look like space ships, that is something which is akin to science fiction. The space shuttle looks like an airliner. How fun is that? The ISS? It?s ugly. It seems fragile, dangerous, undescoring its utter uselessness.
For all the glory of Tom Wolfe, yes that was the right stuff, but even a child can figure out that doing it again is pointless.
People need to be seduced and if you can make science fiction meet science fact, showing something that will remind them of promises of a bright shiny future they no longer remember from before dystopia, you have a sure recipe for seduction. Actually, people are really bored with post-holocaust themes, they just don?t know it yet. But they need to be able to believe in their flying car.
Cramped gossamer contraptions on the other hand, torturous zero-g conditions, all of that will convince nobody that space is something we actually can do and is worth doing. As for John Doe, he sure would like space to make him and Jane enjoy a wealthier and more luxurious lifestyle. Well, let?s combine the two. John Doe will never be able to tell anyway whether it was the fuel cell car industry saving all those oil imports or the Martian deuterium fusion fuel that was responsible for his new pool and pink plastic flamingoes.

Don?t know if I really managed to convey what I was after, but well, I hope you can see the point. As a seven year old (in 1977), I thought that rockets were old shoe. The future was to look like Star Wars. And hey, it didn?t! People don?t find space appealing simply because it doesn?t look right to them. Therefore they find it pityful.

Ian Flint · 2003-11-11 11:49:39

I also think that government sponsored colonization won't happen. Mars will eventually undergo an Apollo-like exploration phase to be later abandoned by the government. If Mars isn't abandoned it will at best have only a small outpost.

Let me make an analogy for another way of colonizing Mars.

In the early 20th century big businesses knew that prestige was a major factor for making more money. That's why they started building sky scrapers. It was a cutting edge technology that only the "big boys" of the business world could accomplish. Sky scrapers were by no means necessary. They were expensive and dangerous (earthquakes, fires). But, they brought their owners much more recognition than any other kind of building. And, as businesspeople know, brand (or company) recognition is one of the keys to success.

Now, in the 21st century the cutting edge is space. Big companies can easily afford sending explorers and researchers to Mars. The actual discoveries made by these explorers may not even come close to offsetting the costs of supporting them there but the recognition generated by merely being able to put people on Mars will benefit the company greatly.

If we continue with the analogy, no skyscrapers have been built just to be demolished a few years later. They continue to be in use today and more and more are being built by the newest "big boys". The same may be the case for Mars. To become recognized as a true "big boy" in the 21st century you might have to build a base on Mars. ???

Bill White · 2003-11-11 12:34:38

BGD writes

Lately i have been asking myself why i want to go to Mars. I found out that i simply want to get off this darn planet. Actually, our planet is fine. Maybe more than fine. It's just that some people who live on it make it nasty. And maybe i'm tired of the same BS, everywhere i look, everywhere i go. And i feel trapped... But i digress, that's not the subject of this thread.
I was thinking: sending 6 people to Mars cost at least 60 billion. Founding a self-sufficient base with 40 people there would probably cost around 500 billion.
Now the question: Supposing i was an american (but i'm not unfortunatelly), and I want to go there because of my own maybe selfish reasons, why would the taxpayers agree to pay a lot of money just to send 6 man and women on a trip ? When robots could do the same things better and cheaper? Or worse, why would they pay a lot more to create a safe heaven for 40 people they don't know ? Why ?
How could I (for example) convince them ? What good enough reasons are there ?

Several years ago I read Zubrin's Case for Mars and became a space advocate. Seriously, thats what happened. Before that I gave little attention to space. After about a year of reading books and surfing space and Mars related web sites I found myself pretty much at the exact point BGD describes. "Doing Mars" would be waaay cool but

WHY?

Why would any sane person having access to $100 billion dollars or $500 billion dollars spend their money doing something just because I thought it was cool?

1.Survival of the human species. Yeah sure, this looks like the reason. But seriously now, how does sending a few men in space asure the common John and Jean Doe that their kids will have a greater chance for a better life? Or their grandsons? Etc. If Earth gets destroyed by an asteroid, the kids of the choosen ones will live, not theirs. So? Motive fails.

I think this point can be spun around from a very different angle. To survive on Mars requires radical re-cycling of food and air and water. You just cannot bring enough disposable supplies with you, except perhaps for the most simplistic of a flags and footprints mission. Its just not practicable.

This technology goes by various names but CELSS (Closed Environment Life Support System, I believe) is the phrase I am most used to. Humanity has not yet developed robust CELSS but =if= we do certain consequences flow.

One consequence is that with CELSS groups of people could survive indefinitely on Mars, or perhaps certain asteroids. Not 100% self suffiicent - - far from it - - but only dependent on Earth for high tech and replenishment of other low mass high value materials.

If the CELSS is biologically based any CELSS module could be the seed for building a 2nd CELSS module, on Mars, using mostly Marsian materials. Wheatgrass can be grown in hydroponics and burnd at 600C to make activated charcoal which allows the safe incerineration of feces which allows the recovery of minerals to feed plants, and so on. This is just one facet of a staggeringly complex technology.

While genuine robust CELSS will be staggeringly complex yet I also believe its feasible. And if CELSS #1 can be the starter seed for CELSS #2 and then CELSS #3 & #4 ( and then #5 through #8 etc. . .) what we will see is population growth supported primarily with Marsian resources supplemented with the importation of low mass high tech supplements.

IMHO this is micro-terraforming. Take inorganic Marsian C & H & O (and N if we find any nitrogen) and transforming those inorganic materials into long chain organic molecules. CHONs as someone else called them.

Over time (a few centuries perhaps) whichever Terran subgroup(s) fund Mars colonies will see substantial population growth among their descendants. As they perfect CELSS technology and mine Marsian C & H & O & N more efficiently populations can grow more rapidly.

Historical example - there are more people with Polish blood living in/near Chicago, Illinois USA than live in Warsaw, Poland. The Irish in America are another example. I believe there are more Irish-Americans than there are Irish in Ireland.

Descendants of these first Marsian settlers will then colonize the solar system, growing in numbers as they do it.

It would be nice - - IMHO - - if humanity could all join hands, sing Kumbaya and settle Mars as one people. But, sorry, I won't hold my breath.

During the US Civil War a Confederate general JEB Stuart had this simple strategy for winning battles. "Git there furstest with de' mostest" - - to win, get more boots on the contested ground, first. If one or another cohesive subgroup of humanity choose to exploit this opportunity, their descendants could well end up ruling the solar system. Not by sending soldiers "out there" but by sending farmers and miners and parents.

IMHO - - the next great "Space Race" will be about which culture or civilization (US, Chinese, Indian, EU-Russian etc. . .) funds a colony capable of supporting the bearing of children, out there.

Settling space will take many many generations. Until we can successfully bear children "out there" we are merely tourists.

Ad Astra · 2003-11-11 14:32:13

I think that enthusiasm over space has everything to do with the motivations behind Columbus, Magellan, Cook, and the other great explorers. They had unstoppable curiousity.

Whether we're pusing the bounds of technology or knowledge or survival, mankind will always be curious to know what's out there and how far we can stretch the envelope. Colonization and space enterprise are great, but humans will continue to explore no matter how impractical the colonization and resource utilization become.

Bill White · 2003-11-11 14:47:18

I think that enthusiasm over space has everything to do with the motivations behind Columbus, Magellan, Cook, and the other great explorers. They had unstoppable curiousity.
Whether we're pusing the bounds of technology or knowledge or survival, mankind will always be curious to know what's out there and how far we can stretch the envelope. Colonization and space enterprise are great, but humans will continue to explore no matter how impractical the colonization and resource utilization become.

Christopher Columbus was funded by a monarchy that sought economic gain from finding a faster route to the East Indies.

The Spanish, French, Dutch and British explorers (etc. . .) were all funded by governments seeking wealth and empire notwithstanding whatever altruistic motives various captains may have had.

Although I happen to believe most of these sea captains were ruthless greedy SOBs.

jadeheart · 2003-11-11 15:32:27

Now, in the 21st century the cutting edge is space. Big companies can easily afford sending explorers and researchers to Mars. The actual discoveries made by these explorers may not even come close to offsetting the costs of supporting them there but the recognition generated by merely being able to put people on Mars will benefit the company greatly.

interesting angle... if that's what it'll take to get to mars, i'm for it. maybe appealing to the egos of those with the power/resources to make it happen is the way to go. zubrin touches on this in 'entering space'- if politicians want to be remembered hundreds of years from now, laying the groundwork for colonizing the solar system is probably the best way. in 300 years you can bet nobody is going to remember the war on terrorism.

so yeah, prestige could be the ticket. i think folks like burt rutan are relying on this kind of egotism to provide the fledgling space tourism industry with the necessary cash. the dennis titos et al.

as for me, the motivation is mostly selfish curiosity. i wanna know what's out there and i want to be alive when it's discovered. i wouldn't want to impose my will on the rest of the taxpayers, but i sure would like to infect them all with the same bug that i have for space exploration so they want to do it too. if enough people in a society have the will to do this, the other justifications (spinoffs, science, new perspectives, etc.) are just the icing on the cake. i think the goal in itself is worthy enough justification.

so there.

i also happen to buy into the other arguments, esp. having our eggs in more than one basket. but here's another idea to chew on: suppose earth really is special, a one-in-a-million (or billion) source of life. shouldn't we, once we're able to do it, take off and leave the planet alone to evolve more intelligent species as it will? a seriously long-term perspective, i know. but there's plenty of time left before the sun starts swelling, and the universe itself has plenty of future ahead regardless of whether you're a big-bang/big-cruncher or a steady-stater.

Josh Cryer · 2003-11-11 16:13:56

What we need is a cheap space launch platform. We have to either hope the space elevator is realized (then, man oh man, we'll really be having fun then), or pray someone invents a magical space ship that doesn't cost too much to fly. This really is all that matters.

The Pilgrims had no hope crossing the atlantic in canoes. They needed big new ships, the best technology, etc. So really, I think the motivation for everyone, the Planetary Society, the Lunar Society, the Mars Society, and those guys who want to colonize asteroids; the motivation should be to get these inital launch platforms on the move.

Plus, I think that honestly the field of autonomous robotics needs to be explored more. I think I'm the only one here who is geniunely interested in the prospect of cheap material making, I think it's just silly to ship everything you need any given place in the solar system when all you theoretically have to ship is something capable of creating the materials you needed. Such technology is not beyond the scope of human understanding.

Bill White · 2003-11-11 16:34:36

Poor Josh - must I bring up that egg and chicken thing again.

What we need is a cheap space launch platform. We have to either hope the space elevator is realized (then, man oh man, we'll really be having fun then), or pray someone invents a magical space ship that doesn't cost too much to fly. This really is all that matters.

An observation I made about space advocates, soon after becoming one, is that many of us actually believe the words of that Janis Joplin song. "Oh Lord won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz."

Dear Mr. Bush. How about spending $500 billion to develop, build and launch some really nice VASIMIR powered spacecraft and then let all the poor people ride for free.

The Pilgrims had no hope crossing the atlantic in canoes. They needed big new ships, the best technology, etc. So really, I think the motivation for everyone, the Planetary Society, the Lunar Society, the Mars Society, and those guys who want to colonize asteroids; the motivation should be to get these inital launch platforms on the move.

What is that motivation for getting these launch platforms on the move? What is the "WHY" for spending this money.

My idea is that we persuade some group to put people on Mars, now, for whatever ulterior motive we or they can think of and then everyone will want to go and the costs will fall drastically. Costs will fall after people start going. Not before.

The Mayflower was not purpose built for the Pilgrims, the Pilgrims purchased a creaky old ship on the open market.

Building a space elevator might well prove immensely profitable =if= a spacefaring society was already in existence. IMHO, to build a space elevator before any people are living on Mars or amongst the asteroids is a fast track to bankruptcy.

Plus, I think that honestly the field of autonomous robotics needs to be explored more. I think I'm the only one here who is geniunely interested in the prospect of cheap material making, I think it's just silly to ship everything you need any given place in the solar system when all you theoretically have to ship is something capable of creating the materials you needed. Such technology is not beyond the scope of human understanding.

I agree with this, especially since such robots will be profitable whether or not we go into space.

But remember bacteria already qualify as one version of such machines. Feed them sunlight, water, CO2 and some minerals and they give you glucose and stuff like that.

Hazer · 2003-11-11 16:45:08

Why does a child leave the cradle? He or she will only die a few years later.
Besides, define normal. If your definition of "Normal" is someone who has no reasons to go to space, Mars, the moon-then there's no point in arguing with you.

The duty of our generation is this
1) Prove that there is a "New World"
2) Prove that it is beneficial to live there and that problems can be overcome.
3) Make it practical for the poor and downtrodden here on earth to go there. There will always be people who get a very small slice of the pie, but there's no reason we can't do our best to help them-by increasing the amount of pie availible.

The problem with us is that we are obsessed with gazing at our navels. Stop gazing at your navel humanity. All the self-help books in the world aren't going to help you if you don't do anything.

Bill White · 2003-11-11 16:52:16

Gennaro wrote this and I missed it first time around:

Actually, people are really bored with post-holocaust themes, they just don?t know it yet.

I agree with this. Its time to create a new meta-narrative.

Its not people waiting for the Rapture or the Terminator's SkyNet apocalypse or the coming of the Matrix, but real people spreading human life throughout the solar system.

And not driven by an oligarchy of science-elites.

Josh Cryer · 2003-11-11 22:06:03

An observation I made about space advocates, soon after becoming one, is that many of us actually believe the words of that Janis Joplin song. "Oh Lord won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz."
Dear Mr. Bush. How about spending $500 billion to develop, build and launch some really nice VASIMIR powered spacecraft and then let all the poor people ride for free.

Yeah, that's pretty much one side of it. I said "magical space ships" mind you.

What incentive do people have for helping us? Dunno, national pride? Profit? Who cares? There's no one way to go about this, is there? I mean, the basic idea is there, but we can all try different approaches. The Mars Society is working on simulations, they're not perfect, but they're giving us a general idea and perhaps in the future the data can be used to push a grant proposal.

I don't think there is one magical argument you can make for space spending. Just try what you feel is right, if you think there is the possiblity that it'll work. I honestly don't see much of this stuff happening, though, which is why I hope for a space elevator or that magical space ship, you know?

clark seems to be optimistic that some new space imperialism will occur and all will benefit, I don't see that happening, either, but what's the harm in guys like him promoting that idea? His sources seem to suggest that a lot of people are behind such a basic idea, even if their motives are military.

What is that motivation for getting these launch platforms on the move? What is the "WHY" for spending this money.

Like I said, there is no magical why. For example, the space elevator is conceptually easily built, it's rather ridiculously cheap, and once structure science is there we will attempt to build it. If government doesn't do it, someone will, simply because it means cheap easy access to space. It could pay for itself quite easily. The magical space ships, likewise (the magical part being that they're cheap to run and operate). For us, it's mostly profit that motivates. But we're not immune to the motivating power of nationalism, either. It's a lot of things.

Look at China. There's a nationalistic space program if I've ever seen one...

My idea is that we persuade some group to put people on Mars, now, for whatever ulterior motive we or they can think of and then everyone will want to go and the costs will fall drastically. Costs will fall after people start going. Not before.

Costs fall after infrastructure is built, that infrastructure can come from a variety of sources. In the case of the US, it was prospective resources. So if you argument is right (and I can't say I disagree with it), then Mars is no more of an interesting place to go than the moon. The moon is close, we can build on it, there's water on the moon, and even if not, it can be shipped from Earth (or created from oxides and free hydrogen). And people would be easier to convince about the moon since it's so close, and often in our night skies. Mars is only really in the news once every two years, when it's really bright in the sky.

I don't think getting to Mars with just a few people in an ad hoc manner is going to really benefit me. I want to get there to stay, at the very minimum!

The Mayflower was not purpose built for the Pilgrims, the Pilgrims purchased a creaky old ship on the open market.

Hmm, well, not sure about that, but they were at least capable of being self sufficient once they achieved their goal. Despite the fact that quite a number died in the process.

Building a space elevator might well prove immensely profitable =if= a spacefaring society was already in existence. IMHO, to build a space elevator before any people are living on Mars or amongst the asteroids is a fast track to bankruptcy.

Hmm, imho too, of course, I think that a space elevator has more use than as a colonization platform. And the cost of building and maintaining a space elevator is trivial. But whatever, I think we're diverging from the topic a little here. I do absolutely agree that getting a couple of people to Mars would be a good thing, I just don't agree with how it's to come about, because I honestly don't know.

I agree with this, especially since such robots will be profitable whether or not we go into space.
But remember bacteria already qualify as one version of such machines. Feed them sunlight, water, CO2 and some minerals and they give you glucose and stuff like that.

Glad someone agrees here. I've always been thinking of a CELLS (ie, bacteria, plants) design along side of some sort of manufacturing capablity (you could sum it up as a furnace along with a materials seperator and possibly a chip fab, really). Without these two constraints, I don't think a mission would qualify as colonization. It'd just be an extended Apollo or ISS mission.

Bill White · 2003-11-11 22:24:52

Okay, The Mayflower may not have been leaking but it appears she was a fairly sound but thoroughly typical sailing vessel.

Sorry if the rest of my recent posts seem cranky.

atitarev · 2003-11-12 00:17:49

Let me express my opinion about this. A lot of people will disagree but it's MY opinion. Most people digest what they are given on TV. Bush said we should envade Iraq and maybe a lot of people disagreed with that initially, he got the support he wanted to go to war and it happened. You may ask, what's the relationsip between the Iraq war and colonizing Mars. Bush managed to get the public support through the media, because the reporters and TV commentators believed in this and these are the people who can convince the majority of the population. At the moment, when they talk about space on TV, it's sometimes with scepticism, irony and not much of enthusiasm. If the journalists and owners of the papers start to believe in space exploration, Mars colonization, etc, there is a big chance there will be more support from rank-and-file people. See how little time is now dedicated to Mars exploration/colonization in the media. Imagine, they talk about it as much as they talk about Iraq. You get even political parties advocating Mars terraformation. A bit exaggerated but you know what I mean.

Another point is, it's human nature:

Lately i have been asking myself why i want to go to Mars. I found out that i simply want to get off this darn planet

. You're not alone BGD. There are a lot of people like you. Maybe even worse (in a good sense). A few decades ago, during the cold war, teh Soviet Union had a serious plan to send cosmonauts to Mars without return, because it was considered impossible with the technology to return them back to Earth. There were volunteers who spent years(!) preparing for this project. Then the project was abandoned because of its inhumanity. I watched an interview with one of those cosmonauts, he was very sad when he learned the plan was cancelled. Why would simple people want to go to Mars and want others to go there? For the same reason as they wanted to go to America and Australia in the past - because it's new, unknown, very exciting, an opportunity. The final reason for all missions to Mars should be human expansion - settlement, not just for the science per se.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-11-08 18:42:49

Re: Challenge: reasons for Moon, Mars, space - WHY ?

#2 2003-11-08 18:45:42

Re: Challenge: reasons for Moon, Mars, space - WHY ?

#3 2003-11-11 11:49:39

Re: Challenge: reasons for Moon, Mars, space - WHY ?

#4 2003-11-11 12:34:38

Re: Challenge: reasons for Moon, Mars, space - WHY ?

#5 2003-11-11 14:32:13

Re: Challenge: reasons for Moon, Mars, space - WHY ?

#6 2003-11-11 14:47:18

Re: Challenge: reasons for Moon, Mars, space - WHY ?

#7 2003-11-11 15:32:27

Re: Challenge: reasons for Moon, Mars, space - WHY ?

#8 2003-11-11 16:13:56

Re: Challenge: reasons for Moon, Mars, space - WHY ?

#9 2003-11-11 16:34:36

Re: Challenge: reasons for Moon, Mars, space - WHY ?

#10 2003-11-11 16:45:08

Re: Challenge: reasons for Moon, Mars, space - WHY ?

#11 2003-11-11 16:52:16

Re: Challenge: reasons for Moon, Mars, space - WHY ?

#12 2003-11-11 22:06:03

Re: Challenge: reasons for Moon, Mars, space - WHY ?

#13 2003-11-11 22:24:52

Re: Challenge: reasons for Moon, Mars, space - WHY ?

#14 2003-11-12 00:17:49

Re: Challenge: reasons for Moon, Mars, space - WHY ?

Board footer