What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

deagleninja · 2004-04-28 11:39:25

Hello,

Can anyone give me a good reason for what is taking so to get people to Mars? NASA could do it, but won't. Russia is too broke I guess. China just put their first person in space so this is a little out of their reach. But come on, NASA has been getting around 15 billion or more for decades now.

Organizations like the Mars Society and Planetary Society talk a good talk but we aren't getting any closer to actually getting there. Instead of 'playing Mars' in the artic, why doesn't the Mars Society actually take real steps to keeping people alive on Mars?

If the smaller private organizations would actually build equipment that could be used on Mars then all we would need is the rocket to get them there, which Russia or China would gladly provide to be the first on Mars.

RobS · 2004-04-28 12:06:39

Well, this is a simple question with a very complicated answer. You might want to cruise around and look at the old threads. Sending people to Mars is a multi-billion dollar problem. NASA has been busy with the space shuttle and ISS for a while; they consume the spare cash and will continue to do so until 2010 (probably). The Mars Society is usings its resources incrementally to tackle larger and larger projects. The actual mission architecture gets tied up in politics pretty quickly because NASA has many fiefdoms and everyone wants a piece of the pie (nuclear rockets, for example). The last time a comprehensive plan was assembled, in the early 1990s, giving everyone a piece of the pie resulted in a $500 billion pie that no one would fund. Even the new plan appears to be in trouble in Congress right now.

-- RobS

deagleninja · 2004-04-28 12:22:25

Exactly my point Rob. Are we doing more harm than good supporting NASA? Are we trying to keep a dying patient alive that has no hope of making a recovery? I'm 30 years old and NASA hasn't left LEO since I've been alive. For the first time in my life I feel I can't support NASA anymore. What they do with 15B a year is pathetic. Keep JPL, scrap NASA and start over I say. NASA was formed in responce to 'commie fears' anyway, it's outlived its usefulness.

clark · 2004-04-28 12:28:44

I'm 30 years old and NASA hasn't left LEO since I've been alive.

You mean NASA hasn't sent people beyond LEO since you've been alive. They have been remarkably busy doing others things out past LEO during this time.

And, in order to go beyond LEO with people, NASA needed a mandate from the Federal Government, and a budget to achieve the goals outlined. They just got a mandate, and it looks like they will get a modest budget increase (in a time of budget reductions for non-discretionary departments) as well.

NASA is planning on going beyond LEO with people, finally. So why would you give up now?

RobertDyck · 2004-04-28 15:19:44

Well, that is a point I argued with Robert Zubrin. In the winter of 2001/2002 some people on the old message board argued for a very small mission to Mars. We held a vote and the majority voted for a balloon. I seriously tried to assemble a team, including professional aerospace engineers, scientists, and average Mars Society members all working together. I attempted to submit a bid to NASA for a scout mission, but at 1/10th the maximum price. It would actually be classified as a SMall EXplorer (SMEX). Dr. Zubrin thought bidding on a contract for 10s of millions of dollars was too much, and he wasn't confident in the team. I since tried to run the mission under my own company and scaled the mission to even smaller size to meet the requirements for a UNiversity class EXplorer (UNEX) which is the smallest of the Small Explorers. I thought I would start small by getting a technology development contract for a component of it, and did submit a bid for the Next Generation Ion Engine. I didn't get that one, but did learn from the exercise. In the mean time, the German chapter of the Mars Society decided to take up the balloon project themselves, and ignore everyone else who worked on it. They only included members of the German chapter and only professional aerospace engineers. That meant the guy with a Ph.D. in plasma physics was excluded, and everyone else on our original team. They did get support from the European Space Agency, so there is a chance their mission will actually fly. Oh well, it may not include me or the other members of our team, but Mars Society as a whole may benefit.

I had also argued for 12 month operation of FMARS. If the goal is to prepare for a mission to Mars, where a rescue is not possible for 2 years, then isolation in the arctic where planes have difficulty reaching it for a few months in winter is a good simulation. I have been told one reason FMARS operates only in summer is the isolation; if someone gets sick or injured you can't evacuate. Well, you can't evacuate a real mission to Mars, so my argument is if you can't operate an arctic station for a few months in winter than how do you expect to go to Mars? The other argument was that snow prevents biologists from doing their work. But there are winter studies that can be done, and the mess of tracking in snow is a good simulation of the fines on Mars. Furthermore, in December through March when temperatures hover between -25º and -36ºC the furnace literally is a life support system. I know, here in Winnipeg the temperature is that cold half the days in January and the last half of December. But emergency rescue is possible even in the coldest weather; I know a bush pilot in Bakers Lake, Nunavut, who does rescue stranded travelers in the coldest days of winter. He's a Mars Society member.

So pick your project. There are other projects, but they all require money and volunteers. Is there a project you would like to volunteer for?

Ian Flint · 2004-04-28 15:50:36

deagleninja,

Instead of scrapping NASA and starting all over again, I say we scrap congress (the people who control NASA's money) and start all over again. That just happens to be the Mars Society's idea as well -- vote for Mars friendly representatives.

NASA isn't really that bad. Of course, they are a bit inefficient and get sidetracked sometimes, but that is just because they are a government entity. NASA is full of brilliant engineers and scientists who would love to go to Mars. It is congress that doesn't get things done in space, not NASA.

Bill White · 2004-04-28 15:59:44

deagleninja,
Instead of scrapping NASA and starting all over again, I say we scrap congress (the people who control NASA's money) and start all over again. That just happens to be the Mars Society's idea as well -- vote for Mars friendly representatives.
NASA isn't really that bad. Of course, they are a bit inefficient and get sidetracked sometimes, but that is just because they are a government entity. NASA is full of brilliant engineers and scientists who would love to go to Mars. It is congress that doesn't get things done in space, not NASA.

Okay, suppose we scrap Congress. Will the American people continue to peacefully pay their taxes? No tax dollars, no Mars mission, unless we find non-government revenue sources.

If we find non-government revenue sources NASA is far less relevant.

deagleninja · 2004-04-28 16:51:37

Alright, here we go:

Clark-NASA's been around since the 50's and its now 2004, that's half a century stuck in LEO besides (69-72). How many billions of dollars is that? Well over 200B. That isn't acceptable. I can count NASA's great achievements on 1 hand! Apollo, Viking, Hubble, Voyager and Spirit/Opp. Too much for too little.

Ian-NASA is that bad. You can't excuse wasting countless billions because 'its a government agency'. NASA is supposed to be better than that. Instead of debating on if a mouse or fungus experiment should go up on the next shuttle, they should be saying....'we pay how much for a 25 year old design rocket???'

Robert-I personally don't have a problem with what the MS does. More cooperation with similar organizations would be ideal, but scientists have their pride too I realize. My suggestion is that the Mars Society team up with like minded organizations to produce REAL working hardware for Mars. Make a solar powered machine that can split water into its components and store for fuel. Make another machine that creates soil automatically by introducing microbes, then earthworms and algea perhaps. Test plastics for optimal domes. It wouldn't hurt to put a dome over any stationary bases, as you said, Mars is cold and a lot of energy is spent just keeping things warm. I know that all over the globe these things are being tested in smaller version, but why not go ahead and make actual hardware that can function on Mars? And why plan a mission to Mars that includes people coming back? Why not stay? It would certainly do more to colonize the planet plus costs are much cheaper if the trip is one-way.

Bill-Good points. And if the public supported space exploration half as much as they do wars, we'd be there already and any politician trying to cut NASA's funding would lose reelection.

deagleninja · 2004-04-28 16:59:05

Oh, and Robert, if organizations would start creating some of the automated machines I've described, they mind just find themselves with some very profitable patents. Many parts of the world could use more fertile soli. Likewise, a cheap, effective plastic dome should be very marketable. Again I rehash my old beef that the world would be better off if we could inject a little car saleman into every scientist.

Dook · 2004-04-28 17:08:51

With the $15 billion that NASA gets annually I think $7 goes toward ISS and other programs and $8 billion for the shuttle. If we scrapped the shuttle that money could pay for Mars Direct in 6-7 years.

It's not NASA or congress as a whole, it's leadership. We don't have a leader like JFK who is willing to set a lofty goal, even though, sending a human to mars and returning them safely to the earth is, in my opinion, an easier task than going to the moon in the 60's.

Ian Flint · 2004-04-28 17:23:04

the world would be better off if we could inject a little car saleman into every scientist.

That's my sentiment exactly! The reason NASA can't go to Mars is because it doesn't have enough people with political/car salesman minds. Engineers as a whole aren't leaders. That's the same reason the Mars Society, Planetary Society, etc. don't just build these things. They don't have the Business Leader/Salesman mind. (Disclaimer -- of course some engineers are good salespeople, but if they were ALL that good we would be on Mars already.)

Uh...Bill.

Past the words you must look, yeeeees!

Bill White · 2004-04-28 17:43:05

the world would be better off if we could inject a little car saleman into every scientist.
That's my sentiment exactly! The reason NASA can't go to Mars is because it doesn't have enough people with political/car salesman minds. Engineers as a whole aren't leaders. That's the same reason the Mars Society, Planetary Society, etc. don't just build these things. They don't have the Business Leader/Salesman mind. (Disclaimer -- of course some engineers are good salespeople, but if they were ALL that good we would be on Mars already.)
Uh...Bill.
Past the words you must look, yeeeees!

Or how to buy real estate with no money down. . .

RobertDyck · 2004-04-28 17:46:55

Actually one project I'm trying to pursue is a materials exposure test at FMARS and MDRS. I have contacted Dupont for samples of Tefzel and Teflon FEP film. Both these materials are fluoropolymers, very strong and light weight. Tefzel is stronger, lighter, and more gas impermeable (keeps gas in), but becomes brittle in temperatures below -100°C. The low recorded by Mars Pathfinder over 3 days was -77°C, but Viking 2 recorded temperatures for more than a Martian year, it recorded a low of -111°C. Viking 2 was at a site of higher altitude and latitude, but it does raise the temperature issue. Furthermore, Dr. Penelope Boston said that Tefzel has a problem with UV durability. Tefzel is the preferred material for greenhouses on Earth so Dupont does not want to admit to any UV problems. In fact, Tefzel is more expensive than other film available for constructing a greenhouse but is much stronger and more UV stable. Dupont tested Teflon FEP outdoors in Florida for over 20 years, but that was not Tefzel and it was at low altitude and high humidity. Would it stand up to UV at MDRS or FMARS? I requested samples from Dupont to find out; Tefzel and Teflon FEP in thicknesses of 1 mil, 2 mil, and 5 mil. Each panel is 8.5" x 11" so it fits in a document frame. I want to create 2 materials exposure racks, each with these 6 panels. One rack for MDRS, the other for FMARS. The idea is to expose the materials to outdoor conditions for a few years; UV, rain, wind, and any other stress they may experience outdoors. Using Tefzel for a greenhouse enclosure is hardly radical, but one of these materials is the correct choice.

I had also proposed creating a kit that grade schools could purchase from the Mars Society to build an inflated greenhouse to simulate a greenhouse on Mars. One goal is to conduct a thermodynamic analysis for both Mars and a Canadian winter. On Mars the greenhouse must maintain steady internal temperature when external temperature has radical swings (Mars Pathfinder recorded -8°C to -77°C). On Earth the goal is to grow vegetables in the middle of a Winnipeg winter. Once that is done, we would set up a greenhouse at FMARS. The school/FMARS greenhouse would have to be a close analogue of a real one on Mars, so that means sealing it air-tight, supporting the roof with air pressure not ribs, using light-weight construction materials, making the airlock real (to keep in air pressure), and maintaining growing temperature in winter. Sunlight may be a problem at FMARS in winter, but we could grow plants in spring and autumn. Clark Station is a greenhouse at HMP. That may be across the crater from FMARS, but Clark Station uses a plywood floor, ribs, and other heavy materials that couldn't be sent to Mars. It isn't pressurized and doesn't operate when there's snow on the ground. The tricky part with the inflatable greenhouse is thermodynamics. I was given a thermodynamic spreadsheet by one Mars Society member who is an aerospace engineer, but she didn't have time to continue work on the project. If you know thermodynamics, I have a need for you.

Bill White · 2004-04-28 17:48:34

Now here is a good reason, and IMHO one of the "real" reasons.

The establishment of a permanent settlement on Mars will open a Pandora's box of legal, political and philosophical issues. Sovereignty? Government? Property rights?

The powers that be in Washington DC have nothing to gain by opening that box. President Bush is NOT calling for settlement, he is calling for a few NASA astronauts to go to Mars in 2030 or 2040 or 2050, look around and come home.

Look at people/posters like Cobra Commander. (I love you dude, really I do). Imagine a colony of red-blooded Americans like him.

Job #1? Reprise 1776 and have a revolution.

Why would / should NASA pay for that?

idiom · 2004-04-28 22:50:44

NASA is a way for the American Government to pump 15 Billion into the economy each year without appear to be "welfare stating". That 15 Billion would just go to the army or some such, but it has to go somewhere that doesn't look like welfare. How many people are employed by Nasa and its contractors. Those paid people have families and they put all that money into buying houses, cars, food, medicine etc. without the stigma of getting govt. "handouts".

That money needs to be spent. However in the late 70's it was decided that Nasa couldn't get to Mars with that little, so we have the ISS - Space Shuttle combo.

However now opinoin has shifted, but for the moment Nasa is saddled with the Shuttle-ISS. Bush appears to be working hard to make the wholesale dumping of both acceptable and rationale.

Nasa neede to idle for 20 years.... unfotunately the only option open to it was to idle for 35.

deagleninja · 2004-04-29 06:09:37

Now we are getting to the root of the problems:

idiom-So NASA has become so stagnent that keeping the status quo is more important than real progress. How do we fix that? Put a cap on specialized scientists and recruit more versitile engineers? Maybe. I believe, however, that the biggest problem is NASA's reluctance to deal with anyone besides Boeing and Lockheed.

Bill-Those are all important issues, but not deal breakers. History has shown that when a parent government supports it's colony and treats it reasonably, peaceful co-development ensues with each party benefiting. In the case of the US-England colonizing effort, there were two wars, and still Great Britian is the US' closest ally. Perhaps the lack of public support is partly due to the return aspect of a trip to Mars. There are still many people alive who remember the dissapointment of the Apollo program. If Bush wanted major support for a Mars effort, he needs to bill it as a colonizing effort. People like expansion almost as much as war.

Robert-This is what I'm ranting about! It seems to me you want to perform REAL science modeled from REAL conditions on Mars and are facing resistance in your own quarters. What good is proving that we can grow vegtables in the Canadian summer going to do for martian colonists? A real test would involve a simulated base near the equator at high altitudes, perhaps in the mountains of South America. High altitude test sites won't accurately depict a martian winter because the days get so short that growing crops is impossible. Are there any greenhouse attempts using simulated martian air? Apparently, we are going to be pumping a lot of CO2 into martian greenhouses. Is anyone doing this inside the MS? Are CFC's and their more powerful cousins harmful to plants? Remember that the inside of the greenhouse will be balmy compared to the outer coating. How does Tefzel and Teflon FEP stand up to extreme temperature differences on both sides? Also, is any research being performed involving martian 'soil' and its usefulness in producing mirrors? Mirrors are going to be vital to a martian colony. Two uses come instantly to mind: more sunlight/heat for crops and greater energy production for solar panels. Dust storms are going to be a major problem to any long term greenhouses and solar panels. Our colonists will need every bit of nuclear and solar power available. Finally, we come to wind-power. Can the wind be harvested for energy in the extremely thin martian atmosphere, I have seen nothing on this.

Ian-Any suggestions on how to open up NASA to marketing?

Dook-A lot of problems are raised about NASA's 'culture' when ultimately it is the american culture that is in real trouble. I believe the last meeting on the SEI discussed this in depth. How do we get people excited and supportive of a Mars colonizing effort? Do we bring back indentured servants who work on Mars to pay for their trip there? I can only hope that China puts a man/woman on the moon soon, cause its going to take another space race to wake this country up. We are losing, and some would say lost, our lead in space.

RobertDyck · 2004-04-29 06:54:25

You're right deagleninja, I do want to perform REAL science in REAL Mars conditions. The Haughton Mars Project (HMP) is run by NASA and is separate from the Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station (FMARS). HMP put the Humvee on Devon Island, and built the Arthur Clarke Mars Greenhouse.

There is some interest in experiments with a real Mars soil simulant, the Oregon chapter of the Mars Society built the http://chapters.marssociety.org/or/cemss/]Closed Ecological Mouse Support System using a local volcanic mineral that was somewhat similar to Mars regolith. It's not an exact match, but they just use it for a matrix to hold plant roots for hydroponics. I have attempted a CIPW analysis of Mars regolith using data from the APXS instrument on Sojourner and using published data from Mars Global Surveyor's Thermal Emission Spectrometer as a guide. It has proven difficult and raised the issue that minerals not detected the MGS-TES had to be introduced to make the numbers from Sojourner-APXS balance. Those minerals speculated to exist have been confirmed by Spirit and Opportunity, but concentrations are more varied across the surface. I have been getting advice from professional geologists, but in the end a mineral elucidation of Mars soil may require waiting for geologists on the Athena rover team (Sprit and Opportunity) to publish.

As for air, the University of Guelph is conducting crop growth experiments in reduced pressure chambers. Other universities are as well. So far they found plants can't handle even a small reduction in pressure; low pressure triggers drought response even when they have plenty of water. Plants do like higher concentrations of CO2. In fact a category of food crops called C3 plants normally have the problem that one of the enzymes of photosynthesis causes breakdown of the very same intermediate product it is supposed to create. This is caused by high O2 to CO2 ratio. C4 plants concentrate CO2 in their tissues to prevent this; it takes extra energy but stopping the break-down process produces a net increase in efficiency. Weeds like crab grass are C4 so they're a real problem for gardeners, however corn and sorghum are also C4. An elevated concentration of CO2 in greenhouse atmosphere prevents the break-down, and since C3 plants don't use energy to concentrate CO2 themselves, the C3 plants such as tomatoes become more efficient in an elevated CO2 atmosphere than C4 plants.

There are a few Mars Society members who are also interested in In-Situ Resource Utilization. That means making resources from local Mars materials. In the second week of June this year, a symposium will be held in Sudbury about mining planetary bodies. I'm looking at presenting a couple papers. This includes extracting aluminum from certain types of feldspar. Aluminum can be used to make mirrors, and other things.

http://www.dupont.com/teflon/films/H-55 … tml]Teflon FEP has a service temperature from -240 to +205ºC (-400 to +400ºF). Tefzel becomes brittle at -100ºC.

deagleninja · 2004-04-29 08:09:09

Robert-In your opinion, which greenhouse design is best for aspiring colonists? I know of three designs.

First, we have a traditional half-sphere dome that could be anchored to the ground. Advantages are a design that allows lots of sunlight to penetrate the dome from all directions, except below, and a large grow area. Drawbacks are the need for some for a air-tight door to allow gardeners in and out, no sunlight from below, and limited versitility.

Next, there is the bubble or cone option. Advantages: sunlight from all directions including below (mirror), a sealed environment requires no gardener coming in and out and therefore no door need (just deflat, eat, store, reuse), and versitile (need more food, just make more tubes of the same size). Disadvantages: only thing I can come up with is fragility, any serious storms could knock this design around.

Finally, we have the crater design. In this design a hole is dug or existing craters might prove useful, and a hard plastic cover is layed across the depression. Most of the same advantages and disadvantages of the dome design apply. However, this design is sturdier at the cost of some sunlight which could be replaced with mirrors.

I personally favor the second and third designs. Perhaps the second design would be ideal cause it is inflatable and therefore could be transported to Mars in the initial mission. the third design is more what colonists would create using In-Situ resources. Also the second design lends it self to a hydroponic gardening method more readily than the other two.

Also I would like to see the Mars Society create a database for would-be Martian colonists. Besides including relevent information about safety, mental and physical health, agriculture and other concerns it needs to have a step-by-step guide on how to make equipment from scratch. Like you mentioned, aluminum can be extracted from feldspar. An efficent machine that could seperate rocks into useful elements could and should be tested here on Earth. It needs to be automated so that colonists won't have to devote too much time to maintaining it. Perhaps Dr. Zubrin's brick-making machine could be modified to sift out impurities which would mainly be metals.

RobertDyck · 2004-04-29 08:35:11

I would favour a greenhouse design like this (http://www.marssociety.org/images/full/surface1.jpg]click here). It is the design developed initially by Dr. Penelope Boston. It starts with an inflated cylinder with hemispherical ends, then is squashed with tie-down straps and weighted flooring inside (such as a layer of Mars soil). This has the advantage that what you ship from Earth is just a big plastic bag for the enclosure, tie-down straps and tent pegs, an air pump and a couple air-tight doors for the air lock, trays for the plants, and some seeds. This is very compact and light-weight for transport. Air would be made from Mars atmosphere. Use Robert Zubrin's CO2 freezer to extract CO2 from Mars air, but instead of blowing Mars air across cooling coils use a sealed volume of compressed Mars air. Once CO2 has been depleted, use the rest to fill the greenhouse. That will be mostly nitrogen and argon. Nitrogen fixing bacteria can take nitrogen gas from the air to add nitrates and/or nitrites to the soil. Argon is inert. For soil use Mars soil, just add water to release superoxides and bubble CO2 gas under pressure through to create carbonic acid. The carbonic acid will neutralize alkali in the soil. To reduce salt, soak the soil in water then draw off the salty water. Do the CO2 treatment in a separate canister; you would want to recycle CO2 and ensure too much doesn't get in the greenhouse. Soaking might remove other soluble nutrients; you would have to experiment with simple things like this to get the right balance to create fertile soil.

Bill White · 2004-04-29 09:16:34

Bill-Those are all important issues, but not deal breakers. History has shown that when a parent government supports it's colony and treats it reasonably, peaceful co-development ensues with each party benefiting. In the case of the US-England colonizing effort, there were two wars, and still Great Britian is the US' closest ally. Perhaps the lack of public support is partly due to the return aspect of a trip to Mars. There are still many people alive who remember the dissapointment of the Apollo program. If Bush wanted major support for a Mars effort, he needs to bill it as a colonizing effort. People like expansion almost as much as war.

I agree.

"Exploration" is falling flat. Especially since no one in the Administration has ever given a definition of what "exploration" might mean, in plain English.

If its "unsafe" to fly shuttle to Hubble, what would Sean O'Keefe say about the first pregnancy on Mars? How safe is that?

Bottom line for me? Remove the prospect of permanent settlement from the table and I become a robot exploration advocate. "First steps don't mean JACK, unless we go BACK, to stay forever." How is that for a slogan?

Frankly, I believe "the settlement of space" would sell amongst the American people. Exploration sure isn't selling well in popular opinion - - lets try settlement instead.

Bill White · 2004-04-29 09:19:31

I would favour a greenhouse design like this (http://www.marssociety.org/images/full/surface1.jpg]click here). It is the design developed initially by Dr. Penelope Boston. It starts with an inflated cylinder with hemispherical ends, then is squashed with tie-down straps and weighted flooring inside (such as a layer of Mars soil). This has the advantage that what you ship from Earth is just a big plastic bag for the enclosure, tie-down straps and tent pegs, an air pump and a couple air-tight doors for the air lock, trays for the plants, and some seeds. This is very compact and light-weight for transport. Air would be made from Mars atmosphere. Use Robert Zubrin's CO2 freezer to extract CO2 from Mars air, but instead of blowing Mars air across cooling coils use a sealed volume of compressed Mars air. Once CO2 has been depleted, use the rest to fill the greenhouse. That will be mostly nitrogen and argon. Nitrogen fixing bacteria can take nitrogen gas from the air to and nitrates and/or nitrites to the soil. Argon is inert. For soil use Mars soil, just add water to release superoxides and bubble CO2 gas under pressure through to create carbonic acid. The carbonic acid will neutralize alkali in the soil. To reduce salt, soak the soil in water then draw off the salty water. Do the CO2 treatment in a separate canister; you would want to recycle CO2 and ensure too much doesn't get in the greenhouse. Soaking might remove other soluble nutrients; you would have to experiment with simple things like this to get the right balance to create fertile soil.

Robert, I have recently seen speculation that heavy metal concentrations might be an issue with Martian regolith. A real problem if the plants incorporate those into their leaves and stems rendering the food inedible.

clark · 2004-04-29 10:05:59

Clark-NASA's been around since the 50's and its now 2004, that's half a century stuck in LEO besides (69-72). How many billions of dollars is that? Well over 200B. That isn't acceptable. I can count NASA's great achievements on 1 hand! Apollo, Viking, Hubble, Voyager and Spirit/Opp. Too much for too little.

How about Mars Surveyor? How about the previous martian rover, Sojurn? What about the previous space stations? What about Gemini? What about the Saturn rocket? What about the Shuttle engines? What about the weather sats? What about the oceanagraphic studies? What about the research into the sun? What about Chandra? What about the probe going to Saturn? What about the development of numerous new materials? What about the improvements in aerospace? What about the Shuttle itself (it is an achievement, unduplicated by anyone)? What about the advances in imagining? What about the advances in optics and sensors? What about the advances in medicine (there are several major advances that have resulted from NASA research)? What about the advances in new light-weight material and minaturization?

NASA does a lot more than just shooting some people into space. A lot of what they have done, and continue to do, benefit more people than what a joy ride to the moon ever did.

deagleninja · 2004-04-29 10:19:22

You make two great points Bill. Why send humans to explore when robots can do it, and do it better each passing year I might add. If you are to send humans then you must colonize. History has shown that the public has no patience for exploration, possibly because they view it as a fun feild-trip they can't participate in and feel jealous. I was born after the last footprints were left on Mars and I was shocked to dicover that the american public was bored with the moon landings as early as the second mission Apollo 12. We must avoid that mistake again at all costs. Now colonizing, or as the public would see it, expansion hows much more appeal to the public, because it does hold the promise that they or their children will go there. To the public, an effort to colonize Mars would be seen as getting a 51st state, and this gets your 'red-blooded americans' excited when usually they are NASA's biggest critics.

Secondly, I have heard that martian dirt is high in metal and other compounds dangerous for plants as well. I just naturally assumed that the first effort to make a permanent home on the red planet would employ hydroponics to grow needed food while at the same time experimenting with converting martian dirt into soil. Knowing how fickle plants can be I don't suggest we plan on using local dirt until a soil sample return gives us an exact working knowledge of what makes up the dirt.

Again, organization is the key. We can't plan for a serious mission to Mars until we have a plan of action in place. That means we lay out the problems of a mission and systematically solve them one after another. Until we can solve 90% of the problems here on Earth we can't expect any government to risk billions on flying our explorers there.

clark · 2004-04-29 10:21:23

Okay, here is the first one...

How do you bring down launch costs?

Bill White · 2004-04-29 10:43:04

Okay, here is the first one...
How do you bring down launch costs?

First, Russian/Ukrainian launch costs ARE low. Today. Flirting with $1000 per pound.

For American companies, end the single payor system. So long as demand is government driven with cost-plus contracts, there is no incentive to lower launch costs.

Find funding for Earth to LEO that is not tax revenue dependent. Private sector supply of spacecraft (such as SpaceX/Musk and the alt-space people) isn't really relevant IMHO unless we have private sector demand.

A genuine space hotel would be a playground for the rich and well connected yet would create DEMAND for Earth to LEO travel paid for with non-tax revenue funding.

Next, locate a source of price inelastic demand. Folks willing to pay high costs for Earth to LEO regardless of price. The fringe benefit is to create non-governmental demand for launch services. Once private sector DEMAND exists, then the alt-space types will move into that market, to fulfill the demand and make profit.

Once genuine ultra-low cost Earth to LEO is developed, Pandora's box opens and humans flood the solar system. If a group made the jump just before Pandora's box opened they would be at the ground floor (or the top floor?) of the greatest expansion in human history. Like buying IBM stock in 1959 rather than 1961.

If a human sub-group comes to see that Pandora's box will open, they might well have incentive to beat the rush and get to Mars and found a city using Mars Direct to be there waiting when the crowds follow with low cost transportation.

These people might well be a source of relatively inelestic demand for space travel. In other words, given the current real world price curve for launch costs, they are willing to pay the higher prices to establish themselves out there first, beating the following crowds.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-04-28 11:39:25

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#2 2004-04-28 12:06:39

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#3 2004-04-28 12:22:25

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#4 2004-04-28 12:28:44

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#5 2004-04-28 15:19:44

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#6 2004-04-28 15:50:36

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#7 2004-04-28 15:59:44

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#8 2004-04-28 16:51:37

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#9 2004-04-28 16:59:05

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#10 2004-04-28 17:08:51

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#11 2004-04-28 17:23:04

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#12 2004-04-28 17:43:05

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#13 2004-04-28 17:46:55

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#14 2004-04-28 17:48:34

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#15 2004-04-28 22:50:44

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#16 2004-04-29 06:09:37

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#17 2004-04-29 06:54:25

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#18 2004-04-29 08:09:09

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#19 2004-04-29 08:35:11

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#20 2004-04-29 09:16:34

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#21 2004-04-29 09:19:31

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#22 2004-04-29 10:05:59

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#23 2004-04-29 10:19:22

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#24 2004-04-29 10:21:23

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#25 2004-04-29 10:43:04

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

Board footer