New Mars Forums

RobertDyck

Moderator

From: Winnipeg, Canada

Registered: 2002-08-20

Posts: 7,934

Website

Re: Primary space politics

From another discussion thread. One that had nothing to do with politics.

Any plans that require more than one presidential mandate, will never happen.

Aren't you forgetting about President Ford?

What about Jimmy Carter, why didn't he restart the Apollo Program? He had a majority of Democrats in Congress, and he himself was of the same party as John F. Kennedy, so if the Democrats were so pro space, why didn't they restart the Apollo Program when they got back into power in 1977?

I'm not saying Democrats are pro-space. I'm saying each president cancels the project of the previous president. We're lucky Johnson didn't cancel Apollo. That was partly because America was so gung-ho about space at the time, partly because the Soviets were ahead in space so Apollo was a means to demonstrate technological leadership, partly because no one want to destroy the legacy of the "Camelot" president who was assassinated, and partly because he was of the same party. Frankly, I'm expecting ARM will be cancelled by the next president, whoever it may be. Regardless of whether it's Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, or some actual credible Republican. The question is whether they have a plan for anything in space. And whether their plan can be completed before the end of their tenure, and the next president cancels that. I suggest you ask them.

The Mars Society is organizing this year's Congressional Blitz: Be a True Space Advocate!

Tom Kalbfus

Banned

Registered: 2006-08-16

Posts: 4,401

Re: Primary space politics

Jeb Bush: Governor of Florida - probably as pro-space as George W. Bush was.

Ben Carson: a brain surgeon, would he be pro-space?

Chris Christie?

Ted Cruz: Senator for Texas, major NASA installation there, is head of the Space Subcommitee, he might push a pro-space agenda

Carly Fiorina: Former CEO of HP, perhaps.

Jim Gilmore:?

Marco Rubio: A Florida Senator, The Kennedy Launch center is located in Florida.

Donald Trump: Hard to say, maybe his big ego would drive him to do something in Space or perhaps not.

Tom Kalbfus

Banned

Registered: 2006-08-16

Posts: 4,401

Re: Primary space politics

It's not about party.  It's about who's an enthusiast in a position of power,  and it's about the politics-of-money. 

JFK wasn't so much a space enthusiast,  but his VP LBJ was.  JFK was looking for a public demo of US superiority,  and his VP suggested turning our lag in LEO space into a lead by going to the moon.  It was all for propaganda value,  which is why Apollo was mostly just a flags-and-footprints stunt.  That's what JFK was after:  a cold war propaganda coup. 

LBJ succeeded JFK,  and used the power of his presidency to continue the moon program for eight solid years,  giving it the momentum to succeed.  Nixon couldn't stop it entirely,  but he did kill it prematurely.  No president since has been a space enthusiast,  and it kinda shows,  don't it?  It demonstrably has nothing to do with political parties:  none of the succeeding presidents were space enthusiasts,  Democrat or Republican.  Period.

As for politics-of-money,  that's the driving force for the conversion of a 1961-vintage space program into corporate welfare for "old big space" today.  Without Musk's billions,  Spacex would never have had a chance to break into the game,  and the deck is still partly stacked against them.  All that matters now is to keep shuttle-era businesses alive in important congressional districts,  doing the same things they did for shuttle,  with a bit of admixture from Apollo.  That is the only reason that there is an SLS/Orion,  resurrected from the previous welfare program Ares/Orion (Constellation).  It's not about going anywhere or doing anything.  Hasn't been for decades.  Not since Apollo was cancelled in 1972.

Until that political evil (the corporate welfare state) is ended,  there will be no real NASA manned mission to Mars.  Doing a super-expensive trip to Mars without actually landing is the way they intend to kill it as a doable mission for the rest of the century,  and just concentrate on giant corporate welfare. 

The corporate welfare state of which I speak goes far beyond NASA.  It started out as the "military-industrial complex" that Eisenhower warned about,  of which the space program was then a tiny piece.  This shows up in the perpetual wars we have been fighting.  Nothing is so profitable as war for the weapons industry,  and you don't have to win to profit from it.  Anybody else notice that pattern?  It has since spread into energy and banking,  and far more.  In it,  government's sole remaining function is to pick the people's pockets to keep the giants-that-own-government rich.

You want men on Mars?  Find a way to break that corporate welfare state.  Otherwise they will find a way to block or sabotage any private efforts to send men there.  Dennis Tito's flyby mission was destroyed when he gave it NASA for lack of money.  Giant Boeing gets to buy Russian rocket engines that work,  small fry Orbital Sciences doesn't.  So,  Orbital and ATK combine as a better chance to join the club of giants.  There's a real pattern here.

GW

I got a vision of the President of Boeing on the run from the Gestapo because America lost World War II while Boeing profited tremendously. There is a limit to how long this game can be played. Imagine the Wright Brothers trying to turn their airplane into a corporate welfare project!

GW Johnson

Member

From: McGregor, Texas USA

Registered: 2011-12-04

Posts: 5,801

Website

Re: Primary space politics

America losing WW2 was a very real possibility at the time.  Especially before about the time of the battle of Stalingrad.  Certainly before 1943.  All of that is a matter of historical fact.  By the second half of 1944,  it was pretty clear to both sides (except to Hitler) that the outcome in Europe was pre-ordained to be an Allied victory.  The only question remaining was how long,  and how many dead,  to get that job done.  We now know that answer.

In the Pacific,  without the atom bomb,  the same sort of planning and assessment indicated a war ending in late 1947 or early 1948,  with over a million additional US dead,  and multiple-millions of additional Japanese dead.  The homeland invasion was scheduled for spring 1947.  Not 1946!!!

With the atom bomb,  both the schedule and the additional dead on both sides got cut a lot shorter.  But,  the "common wisdom" to the contrary,  it still wouldn't have worked without the Russians declaring war on Japan right after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atom bombings.  The Japanese were counting on the Russians as mediators,  not adversaries.  Plus,  we let them keep their precious emperor.

Losing 100,000+ at Hiroshima did not persuade them.  Neither did losing another 60,000+ at Nagasaki.  Not until the Russians declared war upon them,  too,  did they surrender.  The fear was losing the emperor,  not the civilians.  These are also matters of historical fact,  including testimony after the war from high-ranking Japanese officers. 

Boeing-the-corporation would have come out OK regardless of who won WW2.  Who is/was CEO and what happens/happened to him is irrelevant to that outcome.  That knowledge that who wins is actually irrelevant to the profit picture long-term,  is what led to the "military industrial complex" of the late 1950's,  and to the modern giant-corporate-welfare-state today. 

What the US shared very closely with Nazi Germany is the entire concept of corporations-as-people under the law.  This concept takes no account of (1) corporations live forever,  people do not,  and (2) corporations hacked apart by the courts can reassemble,  people cannot.  That has ZERO implications for all other concepts and comparisons between us and the Nazis,  but it is something we both believed in,  going into the conflict.  The US still does today.  I'd like to see that changed,  it is a demonstrable evil.

As for the Wright brothers,  that was pre-WW1.  That was a different time.  The government RFP they responded to was one 8.5 x 11 page,  one-sided.  Their winning proposal was one 8.5 x 11 page,  one-sided.  The date was 1909.  All of that is a matter of simple historical fact.  It long predates the corporate welfare state that I so despise,  by some 5 decades. 

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2015-10-29 15:58:50)

---

GW Johnson
McGregor,  Texas

"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew,  especially one dead from a bad management decision"

Tom Kalbfus

Banned

Registered: 2006-08-16

Posts: 4,401

Re: Primary space politics

You ever hear of Professor Langley?

This was Professor Samuel Langley's Flying Machine

It was powered by a steam engine, and Samuel Langley was one of the competitors to the Wright Brothers. Unlike the Wright Brothers, Samuel Langley had an enormous budget, he spend a lot of money trying to develop his flying machine, and what do you think were the results of all of this experimentation?

Here is a picture of Samuel Langley's flying machine in its historic test flight, what do you notice about this picture? Does this look right to you? This airplane had a very short flight, and its pilot got wet!

GW Johnson

Member

From: McGregor, Texas USA

Registered: 2011-12-04

Posts: 5,801

Website

Re: Primary space politics

Langley did not understand weight-and-balance,  nor did he understand aerodynamical control.  Not having enough launch acceleration to reach flying speed (by a long shot) means Langley also had no real understanding of freshman-level dynamics,  either.  The Wrights did understand all those things,  and that explains the two vastly-different outcomes well enough.

Langley had a well-known public reputation and presence,  which he parlayed into massive funding.  The Wrights did it economically,  staying fairly unknown. Langley acquiring and wasting other people's money reminds me very strongly of a lot of today's blowhards,  both individual and corporate.  The same scam still goes on,  most of the time at taxpayer expense. Our elections are completely corrupted by it. 

GW

---

GW Johnson
McGregor,  Texas

"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew,  especially one dead from a bad management decision"

Tom Kalbfus

Banned

Registered: 2006-08-16

Posts: 4,401

Re: Primary space politics

Well it looks like our old friend Ted Cruz got the better or Trump in the Iowa Poll, you remember they guy I mentioned who was in charge of the Senate subcommittee on Space Exploration? Who would you rather have? Trump or Cruz? As far as NASA is concerned, perhaps Cruz would be better. I heard Trump's preferences for building the nation's infrastructure first before doing anything like sending humans to Mars. Ted Cruz is a Texas man, a state with a lot to do with the space program, Trump on the other hand is from New York.

Mars_B4_Moon

Member

Registered: 2006-03-23

Posts: 9,776

Re: Primary space politics

Is it possible to focus on Mars after  "Crossing the Rubicon"

NASA report looks at societal considerations for Artemis
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/NASA … s_999.html

NASA's Artemis missions have far-reaching scientific and exploratory goals, and a new report seeks to foster discussion about how the agency can make such dramatic progress in a way that takes ethical and societal considerations into account.

NASA will set precedents for decades to come as it implements Artemis activities, including landing the first woman and first person of color on the Moon, establishing a long-term, sustainable lunar presence to explore more of the lunar surface than ever before, and preparing for future astronaut missions to Mars.

Given the significance of Artemis missions, NASA's Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy, set out to begin conversations to develop a framework for how the agency and its partners can consider societal and ethical implications to inform future work.

"Artemis represents the future of how humanity will explore and even live in space," said Ellen Gertsen, NASA acting associate administrator for technology, policy, and strategy. "As we plan for upcoming missions, we have the opportunity make sure they reflect NASA's core value of inclusion and bring in new voices, ensuring we have a truly global, representative alliance as we explore deep space for the benefit of all."

What Hunter Biden's criminal charges mean for impeachment inquiry into president
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/ … 912250007/

Thinking the unthinkable: What if Donald Trump stood trial in office?
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/thinkin … 06110.html

RobertDyck

Moderator

From: Winnipeg, Canada

Registered: 2002-08-20

Posts: 7,934

Website

Re: Primary space politics

I don't know where to put this so I'll post here. If it's moved, fine.

October 2023 issue of Scientific American has an article titled "Why we'll never live in space." It's the highlighted article for this issue, cover says "Will Humans Ever Live In Space".

First paragraph ends with "Just how profoundly difficult would it be to live beyond Earth -- especially considering that outer space seems designed to kill us?"

Second paragraph "Humans evolved for and adapted to conditions on Earth. Move us off our planet, we start to fail -- physically and psychologically. The cancer risk from cosmic rays and the problems that human bodies experience in microgravity could be deal-breakers on their own. Moreover, there may not be a viable economic case for sustaining a presence on another world. Historically, there hasn't been much public support for spending big money on it. Endeavours toward interplanetary colonization also bring up thorny ethical issues that most space optimists haven't fully grappled with."

This article was mentioned by a few people at the convention and addressed by Robert Zubrin himself. I would like to rebut.

RobertDyck

Moderator

From: Winnipeg, Canada

Registered: 2002-08-20

Posts: 7,934

Website

Re: Primary space politics

Humans are not as poorly adapted as many seem to think. For example, humans can withstand exposure to hard vacuum for very brief periods. Blood will not boil in space. Blood pressure is sufficient to prevent it from boiling. You heard that water at body temperature in the vacuum of space will boil. True, but blood is pressurized in our bodies, even if we are in vacuum, our blood isn't. It's enough. Plasma (liquid part of blood not including cells) will leak at capillaries. Normally a third vessel system in our bodies bcalles the lymphatic system will collect that and return it to a large vein, but the vacuum of space prevents it from flowing. So a human body would swell in vacuum. Blood vessels would burst in lungs and lining of your nose. It's a slow and painful death. But my point is we wouldn't explode like you see in Hollywood movies. "Total Recall" with Arnold Schwarzenegger got it right, "Gravity" got it wrong.

As Robert Zubrin pointed out, humans evolved for tropical temperatures in equatorial Africa. Without clothing we would die in many locations on Earth. He included Phoenix which is hot and dry, simply because we were there. I include Canada because I live there. During coldest days of winter the daytime high is below -20°C (-4°F) and the nighttime low is between -30°C (-22°C) and -40°C (-40°F). If you fall asleep outside in that, you're dead. We wear very warm clothing to go outside in winter. Special clothing is required many places. Space is no different.

Microgravity: use rotation for artificial gravity. Mars Direct was first presented to NASA in June 1990; it used rotation using a tether to connect the spent upper stage as a counter weight. We know how to do this.

Cancer from radiation: as Robert Zubrin pointed out, risk of cancer from smoking is greater. Besides, Washington University has been working on a mini-magnetosphere. That would reduce cosmic rays (GCR) on a spacecraft to equal ISS. The space station is in LEO so within Earth's magnetosphere. The mini one would protect a spacecraft, to the same extent.

Spending: prices that "Old Space" charges are insane! Nothing can be justified at that price. Solution: put Old space out of business. New companies like SpaceX are delivering better faster cheaper. Space can be justified when charged a reasonable price. And recently the public *DOES* support it. Ok, one reason they support space is SpaceX has reduced cost, another is SpaceX is delivering at a reasonable speed.

Ethical issues? Pshaw! There are no natives to abuse or subjugate. We looked. Scientists still talk about the possibility of extant life underground on Mars. In the unlikely event it's there, it would be archaea. That's single cell organisms more primative than bacteria. It would be a great scientific discovery, but I don't see any ethical issues.

Mars_B4_Moon

Member

Registered: 2006-03-23

Posts: 9,776

Re: Primary space politics

I think space might get a mention but it will be more about the military angle, war or spy satellites and missiles

Nobody has truly published the Death, Civilian Injury, Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War and the latest invasion but from the total destruction of towns and cities it must be very high
Ukrainian forces and Russian force both give different numbers with spin, US State Department has its own figures but some accuse them of bias, there are also United Nations figures.

A number of foreigners from Tajikistan, some British and French, people from Uzbekistan, Georgia, Colombia, Kyrgyzstan seem to have gone to fight there and died.
added on top of all the war chaos are islamic Mercs and other foreign fighters pouring into the region, some switch sides, some just loot and plunder depending on how many bitcoins they got as payment that day.

The US Border security is talked of

War will be an issue
but maybe some will talk of NASA, I'm not sure

There is also food security, economic collapse, protecting Nuclear power stations from destruction and deaths from mines and unexploded ordnance.

in recent months news items seem to be less enthusiastic about the War in Ukraine and would like an end sometime, I don't think people are giving Democrats Marianne Williamson and Dean Phillips much attention, Kennedy has moved away from the Party and is Independent, Vivek Ramaswamy is on media very often and will talk conspiracy theories.

Space news

NASA delays Artemis lunar rover award by four months
https://spacenews.com/nasa-delays-artem … ur-months/

Why Has It Been 50 Years Since Humans Went to the Moon? – National Air and Space Museum
https://www.inferse.com/796066/why-has- … ce-museum/

China praises ‘warm’ Xi-Biden meeting in change of rhetoric
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/ … f-rhetoric

Musk-Xi Meeting Shows Tight Relationship China Has With Tesla
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles … with-tesla

Republican Hindu American Congressional caucus launched
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/nri … 298069.cms

Russian actress killed doing show for troops near Ukraine front line
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/russian-actre … 40383.html

I don't know if she is 'famous' but she seems to have been active on instagram and was doing propaganda but also involved in drama, Russian stage theatre, dance and maybe circus carnival performance
https://www.instagram.com/polinamenshikh/

'Polina Menshikh'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XQlTj3XSNc

Ukraine’s Struggle for Arms and Attention Gives Putin an Opening
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/ukraine-strug … 02010.html

Biden ‘Personally Involved’ in Israel-Hamas Hostage Deal, White House Says
https://www.voanews.com/a/biden-persona … 66888.html

Putin’s speech at virtual G20 full of false narratives, event ignored by Biden and Xi
https://uk.style.yahoo.com/putin-speech … 00894.html

Meat Grinder Stalemate In Ukraine: What Is Biden Thinking?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/melikkayla … -thinking/

Mars_B4_Moon

Member

Registered: 2006-03-23

Posts: 9,776

Re: Primary space politics

MSR problems illustrative of challenges for NASA flagship missions, audit concludes
https://spacenews.com/msr-problems-illu … concludes/

PDF
https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-24-008.pdf
The trajectory of the MSR Program’s life-cycle cost estimate, which has grown from $2.5 to $3 billion in July 2020, to $6.2 billion at KDP-B in September 2022, to an unofficial estimate of $7.4 billion as of June 2023 raises questions about the affordability of the Program. Characteristics intrinsic to big and complex missions like the MSR Program are hard to quantify in estimates but can drive project costs upwards throughout development. These include fully understanding the mission’s complexity, initial over-optimism, a less than optimal design/architecture, and the team’s ability to perform to expectations.