You are not logged in.
The Ming Dynasty was poised to take over the world in 1500AD. They had the wealth and technology and exploration initiative to spread their culture across the globe. A change of regimes launched a conservative wave resulting in the virtual elimination of their impressive navy and all exploration and interaction with the outside world ceased. Similarly, the Moslems were once in a position to lead the world in science and higher learning and they too pulled back due to conservatism in the ranks of the most powerful.
Some think that this civilization may be at a similar juncture. Robert Zubrin, in "Entering Space" implied this as an incentive to move quickly on human missions while we still have the capability to accomplish great things in space. Greg Benford, in the article and interview here on New Mars, suggested that we may be losing our chance to take the leap to the next level and start utilizing space resources. Some think that the very fact that we have not gone beyond low Earth orbit in 30 years is proof that we're already on the decline.
A contrary voice was raised recently that surprised me. Chris McKay told me in an interview (soon to appear on New Mars) that he doesn't find these concerns compelling. He claimed that in another couple of decades, at the rate everything becomes cheaper, we will be able to afford human missions to Mars for the same price we now send probes. As he put it, "If Columbus had waited long enough he could have flown to the new world." The flip side of the coin is that Columbus was Columbus because he wasn't inclined to wait. If we become a civilization inclined to wait, will anyone be able to assemble the resources to "fly to Mars" when the time is right?
I ask this questions because I am convinced this is a fundamental question of great importance. I am certainly inclined to want to go as soon as possible, but I wonder about my deeper motives. Do I just want to see humans on Mars in my lifetime out of selfishness or because I believe we may never do it if we leave it to future generations. Might future generations have enough on their hands dealing with the mess we've left them?
Joel McKinnon
Offline
I think there's some merit to the 'hurry up and wait' idea... In the ultimate cheap shot, we launch a few pounds of robust nanotechnology goo at mars, and it grows a colony for us, fully fueled and ready to live in.
One hazard of the 'go there now' idea, is that we might launch the beginnings of a colony effort, only to find later that we hadn't built a wide enough pyramid of logistical and political support. Flags and footprints will always be a tempting out for politicians who want to salvage some short term political capital, at the expense of long term efforts which won't bear fruit until after the founders are dead. A ten year effort was all we could manage with the moon, and now we want to spend centuries terraforming?
I don't think it's hopeless, though. Looking at earth through the lens of mars, it's possible to areform ourselves without leaving this planet. I think it's in everybody's best interest to increase the political attention span beyond the 4 year re-election event horizon. I think it means taking an interest in politics beyond space activism, and looking at local issues. As the saying goes, the world is run by those who show up.
Offline
I ask this questions because I am convinced this is a fundamental question of great importance. I am certainly inclined to want to go as soon as possible, but I wonder about my deeper motives. Do I just want to see humans on Mars in my lifetime out of selfishness or because I believe we may never do it if we leave it to future generations. Might future generations have enough on their hands dealing with the mess we've left them?
I believe it's a question of fundamental importance. I often think it's a miracle that we still have any presence in space at all considering, as Anansi pointed out, that politicians tend to be megalomaniacs who can't think in time spans that stretch beyond their own career and won't likely support ventures that won't give them "political capital." And space flight doesn't tend to bring a lot of pork that people visibly see or experience like education or highways. I don't think we can wait around forever either. Since it's a tendency of governments to increase their powers rather than decrease them we could very easily find ourselves in a situation where governments won't allow mass migrations to Mars. So I don't think we can sit around forever either, but at the same time, we don't have any economical ways of getting to Mars en masse. We're more or less forced to sit around hoping things improve while there's still time.
Anyways, if we send people to Mars we should do it with the idea of colonization and a continued presence. If the politicians only want to have a flags and footprints mission so they can gain clout for the next election I have no interest in going to Mars. Hopefully spaceflight technology improves to the point that it gets cheap enough that we won't have to rely on government funding at all.
To achieve the impossible you must attempt the absurd
Offline
I ask this questions because I am convinced this is a fundamental question of great importance.
IMHO - these are the most important questions about humans-to-Mars.
I am certainly inclined to want to go as soon as possible, but I wonder about my deeper motives. Do I just want to see humans on Mars in my lifetime out of selfishness or because I believe we may never do it if we leave it to future generations. Might future generations have enough on their hands dealing with the mess we've left them?
Again, IMHO, McKay and others are right that technology will only get better - and maybe cheaper as time passes. Compare 2002 to 1996 when Case for Mars was written and we already see development of improved technologies.
Therefore, for me, the question of "When?" can only be answered in the context of Why? - Clear articulation of your "Why?" answer will very much help you answer "When?" or perhaps we can say:
"When?" is a function of "Why?"
Metaphors are dangerous - and useful.
Should humans-to Mars be "more like"
See next post
Offline
Sorry - premature posting - I shall see a doctor - or ask Adrian to clean up the mess. Anyway,
Should humans-to-Mars be "more like"
-a- Darwin's voyage on the Beagle;
-b- The Mayflower pilgrims;
-c- Spanish conquest of South America;
-d- Abraham's migration from Sumer to Egypt and then to the "promised lands"; or
-e- Other suggestions?
-f- Assimiliation of celestial locations into an increasingly globalized world economy
Unless there is a pretty good consensus on "Why" - "When" and "How" are far more difficult to answer and "Why" will be the first question asked by funding sources.
Please understand, I am not advocating for or against any of these options - at this time - rather I am trying to generate a succinct, but comprehensive, list of possible motivations for humans-to-Mars
Offline
I'd vote for both A and B. "A" because scientific research is very important and "B" because people need an escape valve or some hope of getting away, much like the pilgrims. I don't believe the two are mutually exclusive. If we just stick to scientific bases on Mars it will be just another glorified Antartica and will probably die because of the expense of supporting such a base. Building viable colonies will likely be a good driver of high technology development and a grower of the economy as such ventures will require a host of advanced technologies not to mention that Mars would actually become a legitimate frontier within reach of the average person.
To achieve the impossible you must attempt the absurd
Offline
If the corporations will colonize Mars, it will be more along the lines of C rather than anything else; No, there will be no natives to enslave, but the motives behind the colonization would be those of economical profit and gaining power rather than scientific knowledge of the "good of Mankind. And belive me, once we will reach the technological level which will allow a Mars mission or colony to be profitable (even if it will only be from media rights, merchandising and so on), it will only be a matter of time until someone such as Bill Gates will try to get his hands on this profit.
Offline
I forgot an important option:
-f- Assimiliation of celestial locations - Mars, asteroids and the like - into the globalized world economy
Maybe -f- better captures Omer Joel's sense or prediction. . .
Offline
I would lean toward a combination of a) and f).
I used to get depressed at the idea of Mars resembling another Antarctica. In fact, I even called KSR out on this at last year's conference. I asked him how he went from his grand dreams of a utopian new civilization to just a boring old vision of a research station so fast. I have to say I can't really recall his answer. Nevertheless I feel quite differently now. I don't think Antarctica would be so bad because it really wouldn't be Antarctica. Did you know that all the food consumed in Antarctica is produced off-continent and shipped there? Think that will work on Mars? Also, though the scientists who work in Antarctica usually spend a long season there, they effectively commute there biannually. If the commute time was several months in a space ship instead of a few hours on a plane, you'd probably have a significant incentive to effectively take up residence.
I think the Antarctica model could be a stealthy way of sneaking in a settlement infrastructure which would eventually become permanent. There wouldn't be the seasonal distinction of the polar regions on Earth where very few workers winter over. There would be a tendency for some to work longer and longer shifts on Mars until families became unavoidable. Many would face the choice between devoting their lives to their research or their families until some would demand having their cake and eating it too. When this threshold is crossed it ceases to even resemble Antarctica.
Another reason I really like this model is it makes great sense. There is no other compelling reason to go to Mars in the near term except for the pursuit of scientific knowledge. The known abundance of water makes the search for evidence of life of prime importance. We're better off pushing for a sensible short term reason for sending humans to Mars than to spout high-flung ideals of adventure and seeding the galaxy. We should use arguments that have a good chance of engaging the masses and don't make us look like crackpots who just want to blow a lot of money on our fantasies.
Once the infrastructure is in place we can make a good argument for point f). By then humanity will clearly need space-based resources. It will no longer be in the realm of speculation.
Joel
Offline
I think the Antarctica model could be a stealthy way of sneaking in a settlement infrastructure which would eventually become permanent.
I hope that if we do go to Mars it's with an eye toward a continued human presence and not just a one-time shot. If we do sustain a Mars science base, I think your right that there's probably a very good chance that something like a colony could emerge that would require a dedicated effort from Earth to sustain. It's hard to imagine a colony really getting started any other way considering the expense. And if people actually started having families on Mars, it might be impossible to bring the offspring back to Earth, which could trap Earth into something of a moral obligation to support the colony. That could be an interesting dilemna. With enough drive, Mars could probably become fairly self-sufficient in a short time.
To achieve the impossible you must attempt the absurd
Offline