how to sell mars direct

flashgordon · 2003-06-15 20:30:51

Zubrin loves to give historical parallels in his books; here's one.

Columbus went around all the big timers with his arguements for funding him and his explorations; none of them cared; so, what did he do? He went to some small competitor(I do believe it was the portuguese of Isabelle and Ferdinand) and they took the risk.

So, who is some small competitor that needs to take a risk? Well, there is probably a few of them; How about britain? Singapore? Canada? How about the scandinavian countries? Norway comes to mind. Australia! Madagascar! Japan . . . . India! There's a lot of possibilities.

Echus_Chasma · 2003-06-15 23:49:28

What about the X-prize competetors, they could be interested. After the X-prize was over of course.

Algol · 2003-06-16 01:34:57

its a good idea - especially considering how much publicity mars missions are getting at the moment. However we would not be promising nearly as much financial or near term economic gain as colombus was promising....

The x-prize competitors would love to do this but simply would not have the money.

nick

Free Spirit · 2003-06-16 02:10:24

I think a private group would have an exceedingly hard time pulling off a manned Mars mission for the simple reason that they probably wouldn't be able to cut through the red tape to build technology like nuclear engines and reactors. I just don't see governments allowing non-government organizations to use and develop that kind of technology. I guess a sponsor country could always get the goods together for a private group but why would they bother since they wouldn't really reap the credit for the mission and get no economic benefits out of it? Personally I'd rather see us spend the money on developing cleaner energy systems and better public transportation systems than spend trillions to fly off to Mars or at least wait until technology develops that would lower the price of a Mars mission substantially.

nirgal · 2003-06-16 09:28:47

The money is there. Cut the annual US military budget ($300-400 billion) by 5 % ($15-20 billion) and give the money to NASA, thereby increasing NASA's budget by 100%.

Bill White · 2003-06-16 10:20:06

The money is there. Cut the annual US military budget ($300-400 billion) by 5 % ($15-20 billion) and give the money to NASA, thereby increasing NASA's budget by 100%.

Ever since I joined NewMars I have tried to return us to a basic question which I believe is THE essential question for funding humans to Mars:

Explain how or why Washington DC bureaucrats can personally benefit from moving 2% - 5% of the federal budget from Department of Defense to NASA and funding Mars Direct become a reality.

Less cynically, why is doing Mars a "good thing" for the US of A in contrast to being a "good thing" for all humanity. I remain fully convinced that doing Mars is a good thing for all humanity yet I am less certain the Pentagon or Capitol Hill/The White House or the Republicans/Democrats stand to gain much from such an endeavor.

clark · 2003-06-16 11:49:45

Because Mars contains vast fields of untapped knowledge and innovation.

The New World was an untouched (relatively) paradise filled with resources for a pre-industrial world. Now, we live in a post-industrial world founded on innovations, and new knowledge. Some call it the 'Information Age".

New ideas, new ways of doing things, new effeciences- these are the streams of gold, the forests of timber, the fields waiting to be ploughed. This is the bounty, adn the reward.

Off the top of my head I can imagine greater profeciencies in recycling. In agricultural yields. In GM crops (gene moddified) design and production. New Medical solutions for radiation exsposure and cancer. Water management (we have a water crisis on the horzion). Conservancy of eco-systems. Propulsion systems. Energy production, both nuclear and solar. Aerospace experience.

The list can go on.

The trick is not to compare how Mars is like a previous experience, Mars isn't. The trick is to craft an argument that draws parralells for the modern world, putting it into a framework others can understand.

You tell someone that Mars is like Earth, and you've already lost ebcuase now you have to convionce them how Mars is like Earth (which is isn't nor will it ever be).

Bill White · 2003-06-16 12:17:51

clark, you know I agree with everything you have just said about the benefits of entering space. Its really quite sad that neither you, nor I, have a spare $100 billion to spend.

And, I hope we agree that the talents and traits needed to acquire control over billions of dollars in resources rarely include altruism. Thus, Qui Bono?

Will the advances and benefits you describe benefit all humanity in equal proportion or will some portion or sub-group of humanity benefit more? Who wins and who loses from humanity entering space? Whether "we" like that question or not, I am confident those with the ability to spend $100 billion are obsessed with that question.

The New World was an untouched (relatively) paradise filled with resources for a pre-industrial world. Now, we live in a post-industrial world founded on innovations, and new knowledge. Some call it the 'Information Age".

Folks native to North America were largely eradicated by disease allowing English speaking settlers to rapidly occupy a resource rich continent that seemed nearly vacant. Yet, suppose the French "won" their war with the English in 1763 and French soldiers from Quebec had marched into Boston and New York.

The current Anglo world hegemony (US-UK-Aus/NZ) would not look quite the same.

Qui Bono? concerning the English success in North America? English Anglo-Saxon culture, politics and institutions.

Whichever civilization or culture "enters space" most successfully will be the civilization or culture that will most influence the next 1000 years of human history.

Who "inside the beltway" can see that far ahead?

clark · 2003-06-16 12:30:42

Its really quite sad that neither you, nor I, have a spare $100 billion to spend.

A agree, emphatically. It really is a shame.

Will the advances and benefits you describe benefit all humanity in equal proportion or will some portion or sub-group of humanity benefit more?

It will benefit all of humanity. However, to speak more to the point you are implying, it will benefit the richest people, and richest nations most.

The technology, or innovations developed will lead to new industries and new cycles of capital generation. It's ground floor time for all of this, and only the richest can afford to enter.

Nambia can't even conceive of being apart of this. But Nambia will profit from the return in improving the quality of life. The rich nations or investors who take part in Mars will be able to export the technologies or products from the new technologies to the thrid world nations.

Capitalism loves misery, becuase anothers misery is anothers profit.

Whichever civilization or culture "enters space" most successfully will be the civilization or culture that will most influence the next 1000 years of human history.
Who "inside the beltway" can see that far ahead?

Okay, let's try just the next 20 years. In order to maintain economic and politcal dominace, access to space, and technologies related to space must be invested in to maintain an increase in the quality of life for an industrilized nation.

Cheney and Rumsfeld are two people who understand this, but they have their own motivations driving them.

RobertDyck · 2003-06-16 14:14:34

One person at the last symposium I attended said that the generals in the Pentagon view space and particularly the Moon has "high ground". I didn't think that the Chinese space program would matter; after all they are developing the same technology that the U.S. and Russia used in the late 1960s. From a point of view of demonstrating to the international community a level technological superiority, a Chinese mission to the Moon would not cut it. However, if the generals are paranoid about China establishing "high ground" then that may get someone inside the belt way off their butt.

A mission to Mars would prove that the U.S. has the technology to send humans to any destination in the inner solar system: Mars, Moon, or Asteroid. It could still be sold as "peaceful exploration" and would demonstrate something that has not already been done. A return to the Moon before China does it could be seen as reactionary and the destination as insignificant since it has already been done.

I still think that this technology would have its greatest benefits through space tourism and asteroid mining. Economic profit would have far greater benefit to the civilization. An industrialized colony on Mars could supply many of the needs of space tourism and asteroid mining much more cheaply than Earth due to the lower launch cost. However; it may be easer to get through to military types to establish technology to "hold the high ground" and demonstrate that the U.S. can send humans to Mars when China is till trying to reach the Moon.

Bill White · 2003-06-16 15:54:07

Okay, let's try just the next 20 years. In order to maintain economic and politcal dominace, access to space, and technologies related to space must be invested in to maintain an increase in the quality of life for an industrilized nation.

On these boards, I have flogged the "chicken/egg" analogy quite to death, yet I shall continue.

My fear is that if the Pentagon buys the chickens needed to get humanity into space, they will refuse to share the eggs.

clark · 2003-06-16 15:59:50

It's a real enough fear, but I don't think we should worry all that much.

The rationale for the military to buy the chickens, or to share the eggs all boils down to what the Farmer needs.

If all we ever do is allow the military to use space, then we have created a situation where space becomes a rather large sink hold to drop our money into. We need to develop it further to reinforce the neccessity of protecting it with our military, and to afford the very same military.

Missle defense is a sink- it will not produce anything but a requirement for more money. Space at least has the potential to be more than a large sink, and it will be used for more becuase it can be.

We can sail can't we? Yet there are some mighty big "chickens" on the sea lanes, protecting the eggs.

Space is just another ocean.

dicktice · 2003-06-17 09:06:29

Clark: Forgive me, but I think you are saying the shared eggs have be boiled. Surely, powdered should be good enough for the military...?

clark · 2003-06-17 09:11:32

Um, yeah, whatever you say Dicktice.
What are you talking about?

Mars_B4_Moon · 2024-03-02 07:11:18

a very old topic

and today No better salesman than Musk himself with Space-X and maybe no such thing as bad press

Elon Musk has picked 'exciting' location he'd like to die where no human has died before
https://www.ladbible.com/entertainment/ … 7-20240202

Elon Musk’s Tunnel Company Has Been Cited for ‘Serious’ Safety Violations
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-mus … 00538.html
Unsafe conditions at one of Elon Musk’s work sites are coming to light

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2024-03-02 07:11:35)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-06-15 20:30:51

Re: how to sell mars direct

#2 2003-06-15 23:49:28

Re: how to sell mars direct

#3 2003-06-16 01:34:57

Re: how to sell mars direct

#4 2003-06-16 02:10:24

Re: how to sell mars direct

#5 2003-06-16 09:28:47

Re: how to sell mars direct

#6 2003-06-16 10:20:06

Re: how to sell mars direct

#7 2003-06-16 11:49:45

Re: how to sell mars direct

#8 2003-06-16 12:17:51

Re: how to sell mars direct

#9 2003-06-16 12:30:42

Re: how to sell mars direct

#10 2003-06-16 14:14:34

Re: how to sell mars direct

#11 2003-06-16 15:54:07

Re: how to sell mars direct

#12 2003-06-16 15:59:50

Re: how to sell mars direct

#13 2003-06-17 09:06:29

Re: how to sell mars direct

#14 2003-06-17 09:11:32

Re: how to sell mars direct

#15 2024-03-02 07:11:18

Re: how to sell mars direct

Board footer