Mars Society Responds to Bush Initiative

Jim Burk - MarsNews.com · 2004-01-24 13:43:14

Just wanted to let you guys know that we are running the new Mars Society policy paper as the lead story on MarsNews.com (although as we get closer to Opportunity landing, that will likely change to 2rd or 3rd story on main page). I'd love to hear your comments on the policy paper, either in this thread on in the MarsNews.com Forums.

"January 24th: The Mars Society releases a major policy paper responding to the new space exploration initiative announced on January 14th by President George W. Bush. The Society embraces the initiative, but notes that a major decision to proceed with Moon/Mars exploration won't occur until 2009. "

[http://www.marsnews.com/]http://www.marsnews.com/

clark · 2004-01-24 14:14:45

I'd love to hear your comments on the policy paper, either in this thread on in the MarsNews.com Forums.
"January 24th: The Mars Society releases a major policy paper responding to the new space exploration initiative announced on January 14th by President George W. Bush. The Society embraces the initiative, but notes that a major decision to proceed with Moon/Mars exploration won't occur until 2009. "

Clearer heads have prevailed.

Palomar · 2004-01-24 14:24:23

*The article points out it is the Mars Society Steering Committee which approves of his initiative.

I, a member of the Mars Society, do not approve.

President Bush can serve (at most) only 4 more years in office. Perhaps our next President (hopefully installed in Office in January 2005) will be more committed to space exploration, calling for bypassing Luna and getting on to Mars.

--Cindy

Jim Burk - MarsNews.com · 2004-01-24 14:31:34

With the news of Spirit's recovery, that has become our top story, but we will keep the Mars Society paper on the main page throughout today.

Currently, we seem to be the only outlet on the web running the policy paper; even the Mars Society website doesn't have it yet.

Byron · 2004-01-24 15:37:25

"January 24th: The Mars Society releases a major policy paper responding to the new space exploration initiative announced on January 14th by President George W. Bush. The Society embraces the initiative, but notes that a major decision to proceed with Moon/Mars exploration won't occur until 2009. "

I'm going to rate my opinion of this paper as a "neutral" for right now, for the simple reason it's probably better to have some support for a manned mission to Mars as opposed to nonexistant governmental support for a Mars plan.

It would greatly behoove the Mars Society to use Bush's blueprint (which has fallen flat in the face of public opinion, btw ) simply as a toehold for their eventual goals of getting the government to buy into their "Mars Direct" plan. But knowing how politics works, that's going to be a long and difficult road. I guess what we really need are more Mars activists to spread the message

B

clark · 2004-01-24 15:41:31

I think going to the Moon, with the intent of developing the experience and solutions for an eventual manned mission to Mars is a practical and steady course to follow.

Any President who commits the United States to sending people to Mars would also be commiting future US administrations to such a goal becuase even the Mars direct approach calls for a ten year program.

The plan put forward by Bush does not call for steep budget increases, and refocuses a great deal of NASA resources to solving the barriers to long durration human space flight. How can proponents of human exploration be against that?

The Bush space policy calls for a CEV vehicle that will take us beyond LEO and the Moon. It is part of the design considerations for any future CEV. The creation of this vehicle means that actual hardware will exsist by which any future manned mars missions can be planned around. It won't be paper anymore.

Palomar · 2004-01-24 16:17:08

...it's probably better to have some support for a manned mission to Mars as opposed to nonexistant governmental support for a Mars plan.

*I'll concede that point, Byron.

The merits (or, IMO, demerits) of going back to the moon first have been discussed rather intensively this week by many folks (including my own views of the matter), and not for the first time either.

The moon is a dead rock. I haven't been convinced that there is a "real need" to go back there for any reason (despite thought-provoking posts with varying views written by others). It's been proven there is little to no water on the moon. That's a major disadvantage right there.

Scientists and astronauts have also chimed in (those articles were posted previously, in various threads), both pro- and con-.

To me, exploration in this context means pushing the boundaries of manned exploration (proceeding directly to Mars). Not returning yet again to the moon.

That's enough of a rehash of my opinion. This week alone saw plenty of debate about the topic already! :laugh:

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-24 17:13:12

Looks like Bill was on the money with his comments about CEV/SDV. The Mars Society is right on when they say that a Mars capable vehicle would be good for both the moon and Mars and space in general. Anyone who denies this is doing it on weak grounds, I'd say.

I interpreted their statement as an approval for manned space exploration (I can't imagine any space society not approving of that), but as a disapproval of how it looks to be done, and an urgency to get it done 'right.'

Shaun Barrett · 2004-01-24 19:47:59

"Hope springs eternal etc. ...", so maybe I'm seeing what I want to see, but it seems there's room to manoeuvre within this re-emphasis on human space exploration.
I believe Dr. Zubrin is right to 'embrace' the new initiative because, as others have pointed out, better a vague humans-to-Mars timetable than none at all. Rather than say we want Mars Direct and only Mars Direct and we want it now, our best bet is to go along with what's on the table and do what we can, within that framework, to get the result we want.

Who knows how quickly a Shuttle Derived Vehicle might be designed and built. I assume much of the engineering is already in the bag and most of the hardware already exists(?).
Who's to say we won't be ready for manned lunar missions by 2010 or 2012? Don't tell me NASA couldn't do it that quickly if they had a mind to do it! Look at what they did in a similar time frame during the sixties.

If this new modular program is ongoing in the background and everything we use for the Moon is adaptable for Mars, why couldn't it happen that by 2015 it becomes clear we have all the hardware we need for a manned Mars mission in 2018?

How do we know what easily accessible resources might be shown to exist on Mars by robotic probes in the meantime? Water might be freely available to any astronaut with a shovel almost anywhere on the surface for all we know!

All I'm saying is that 15 years can be a long time in space exploration. In 1960, nobody had been to the Moon; it was effectively pie-in-the-sky stuff. Fifteen years later, a dozen men had walked (and driven and even played golf! ) on the Moon and the whole notion of going there was old-hat and the means to get there had been abandoned!

I think we should go with the flow and support President Bush and hope for the best.

Ad Astra · 2004-01-24 19:54:31

I couldn't agree more with the Mars Society's analysis of the new space initiative. The position statement gets more interesting at the end with the three proposed options. Option C, the one that the Mars Society and I endorse, follows Zubrin's vision of using Mars Direct hardware to explore the Moon. This option is the most consistent with the goals of both exending human presence through the solar system and achieving maximum scientific study with a minimum of funding.

Ian · 2004-01-24 23:10:29

Is Bush's initiative just to get more votes?

Martinkh · 2004-01-24 23:26:22

A) if the bush initiative was to get more votes, then like Clinton, there would be rumours first, then polls, then the go-ahead if the polls are positive.

B) the technology to go mars-orbit / mars /mars-orbit will likely be developed from the vehicle that goes eart / moon / earth. Also, as boring tunnels is such a likely way to make the bases, they can develop equipment and expertise on the moon that will be taken to mars. This is a VERY smart way to do it. Plus, think of the outstanding astronomy from the moon!!!

Palomar · 2004-01-24 23:52:04

*I've just re-read the article. Here are some thoughts and questions which came into my mind:

"Thus the choice on whether or not to really start..."

I ASK MYSELF: A modifier already? "...really start..." Is that supposed to comfort me?

"...a Moon or Mars human exploration program, and what its pace or objectives should be, is effectively being placed in the hands of the 2009 administration."

I ASK MYSELF: Does this mean President Bush wants to procrastinate? Seeking to avoid personal responsibility for actually -- or "really" -- initiating his initiative? If so, isn't that laughable?

"The merit of this decision is debatable."

I ASK MYSELF: Well, since there's a big sell-out going on, who am I to question or desist?

I ASK MYSELF: By the way, is it soon going to be the MoonMars Society?

I ASK MYSELF: What about all that talk (I recall it quite well, I joined heartily in the speculation) of going back to the moon being likely only due to China's plans (militaristic in scope)?

I ASK MYSELF: What about the stated fact that the moon has little to no water? I thought others here also regarded that as one of THE major drawbacks (to the point of "so what's the point again?")?

I ASK MYSELF: Are the upcoming planned technological developments *dependent* upon the moon somehow...or could we manage their development just fine in LEO at less expense?

I ASK MYSELF: What about the development of space elevators on Earth...are they a back-burner issue now (I don't recall seeing them mentioned in the article, and just rescanned it)? If so, for how long?

---
::sigh:: I can see the handwriting on the wall.

Shaun writes: "...as others have pointed out, better a vague humans-to-Mars timetable than none at all. Rather than say we want Mars Direct and only Mars Direct and we want it now, our best bet is to go along with what's on the table and do what we can, within that framework, to get the result we want."

That is logical and has merit...but this is a catch-22 situation, in my opinion. If we push too hard, we could hurt ourselves. If we back down too much, we may be stuck at the moon for many decades.
---

As for the statement at the Mars Society article:

Bush Speech Opens Door
The Future is Up to Us

I ASK MYSELF: Is the future up "to us"? Or is it up to bureaucrats? Do we further our goals (or *purported* goals, excuse me) by compromising with politicians? If so, to what degree?

My thoughts.

Replies aren't requested. I've said my peace, and shared some thoughts and many questions which came into my mind after re-reading the article.

Thank you.

--Cindy

Bill White · 2004-01-25 00:57:31

I couldn't agree more with the Mars Society's analysis of the new space initiative. The position statement gets more interesting at the end with the three proposed options. Option C, the one that the Mars Society and I endorse, follows Zubrin's vision of using Mars Direct hardware to explore the Moon. This option is the most consistent with the goals of both exending human presence through the solar system and achieving maximum scientific study with a minimum of funding.

The Mars Society response is the single most intelligent critique I have seen yet published concerning the Bush vision.

These following positive points cannot be stressed enough, IMHO:

<1> President Bush declares that the purpose of NASA is to spread human presence throughout the solar system;

This is a mandate we can all embrace.

<2> President Bush shall end the wasteful and pointless shuttle program, which frees up money for accomplishing #1.

It appears that the Mars Society shares my private concerns that Delta IV may be "too small" to accomplish <1> however the paper also asserts that private communications reveal the existence of a new HLLV system proposal that can be deployed for $4 billion dollars.

If this is true (and why not trust Zubrin on this?) then my concerns about shuttle derived launch systems are less compelling. Still $35 billion between now and program termination (Josh's red swath) seems like too much money to spend on nothing but some dumb space station without getting some "two for one" deals for all that money.

= = =

All of the above said, the number one take home message from the Mars Society report is the observation that the Bush plan commits America to nothing beyond a rhetorical promise to expand into the solar system and the termination of the shuttle program. No significant funding towards goal <1> shall be committed until after President Bush leaves office.

Therefore, if the Bush plan is implemented, America will face a clear "hinge" or "turning point" in 2009. Proceed into space, permanently, or withdraw from space. The Bush plan (except for rhetoric) leaves both options wide open.

Challenge and opportunity. I believe Robert Zubrin used those words. And those words are "spot on" IMHO.

Ad Astra · 2004-01-25 01:38:37

Is Bush's initiative just to get more votes?

If so, it must be backfiring. A recent Time poll shows 60 % oppose / 40 % agree with the plan. Even among self-identified Republicans, its a 48/42 split between opposed and agreeing. Space is not an issue that gets you votes unless voters see the space policy generating jobs in their area. And we're at least six years away from building hardware for the moon, so I think the plan will not make a positive contribution to the president's quest for re-election.

Michael Bloxham · 2004-01-25 02:16:55

[=http://www.marssociety.org/news/2004/0123.asp]Mars Society Statement on Bush Space Initiative
A truly brilliant piece of work from the Mars Society. And I must quote:

It is therefore imperative that everyone who wishes to see the human exploration of Mars become a reality do everything he or she can to fight for the bold course represented by option C. In the labs and engineering organizations, in the press, in the classroom and the committee room, in the Arctic and in the desert, in the halls of congress, and in every venue of public opinion ranging from books and technical papers to internet newsgroups and late night talk radio, each will need to play their part.
A door has been opened, and a battle of ideas that will determine the shape of the human future for many years to come has now been truly joined. Where it will lead is up to us. Contending visions that two weeks ago were mere hypothetical debates among space activists have now entered the center of political discourse. We welcome the challenge. For as reason is our witness and courage is our guide, we shall prevail.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-01-25 04:31:51

I understand very well what Cindy has said because I've been going through all those same emotions ever since the initiative was announced.
It may well be a sell-out to the military; that was my initial take on the whole thing and it may still be accurate. But I just can't take it at that level and walk away. I guess I've got a basically optimistic nature (though I confess to waves of pessimism at times! ) and I just have to hope that more good than bad will come of this.

The Moon is a dry boring rock with little going for it compared to Mars. If it has any military significance, I admit I don't really know what that significance might be but I'm prepared to go along with the idea that somebody at the Pentagon does.
What Dr. Zubrin has outlined is what I perceive to be his underlying confidence that he, and we as a group of like-minded enthusiasts, can show convincingly that the cheapest and most logical way to achieve a lunar outpost is as part of a human Mars mission, not the other way around.

It may be that leaving a major component of the decision making process until 2009 is politically wise, especially in view of the opinion polls mentioned here which are going against the initiative at present.
And, let's face it, the current U.S. space scene is a mess and a political nightmare after decades with no direction. NASA has obligations to the other nations involved in the ISS and it has large troughs in various states, in which well-fed snouts have been snuffling for many years.
There are vested interests which will probably not be happy to see their cash cows led to the slaughter. Far from rustling up political support, I'm beginning to think this space initiative (Mk. II) actually took some political intestinal fortitude to table at this time. A lot of influential people are going to have their noses out of joint because of this, which is probably attested to by some of the wildly inaccurate journalism we've seen of late. There could hardly be a greater contrast than that between Dr. Z's sober assessment of the costs of President Bush's plan and the preposterous $1 trillion dollar price tags bandied about by some media outlets, who've evidently prostituted their credentials as journalists for the sake of anti-Republican political or (even worse) monetary sentiments.

Whichever way you look at it, we have no power; we can't force anybody to support a human mission to Mars. The Bush plan has opened a door previously locked and barred to us and that door is now ajar. I think we should stick our foot in that door and do our best to prise it open until we can squeeze Mars Direct, or something similar, through it. It may be the only chance we get.

As a 'P.S.', I still think the space elevator is a dark horse in the background and may yet become a factor in all this over the next two decades. We'll see.

GOM · 2004-01-29 10:37:07

I'm very frustratred with our "manned" space program over the past 30+ years. I'm not happy that we cannot afford to go to Mars now.

The lack of public support for this very important exploration shows how far the United States has fallen, imo.

SaorsaDaonnan · 2004-01-31 20:36:03

Hello.

I'm new here. Although I'm not connected to the professional areas of science, space exploration, or politics, I do have a few comments along those lines with respect to SEI 2.0 and the Society's reaction to it. I'll not attempt to articulate a complete stance, or even necessarily to articulate any position at all. Primarily, I seek throw out a few things to consider.

Update/report 2022/03/01 ... during repair operations, this post suffered a catastrophic failure.
Update/report 2022/03/08 ... during rescan, the same problem occurred ...
The likely cause is the length of the post, which is on the order of 12,000 characters.

It will be reconstructed from the log.

Begin restored text:

Text from Clipboard Row 0 in Step: 32 Hello.

I'm new here. Although I'm not connected to the professional areas of science, space exploration, or politics, I do have a few comments along those lines with respect to SEI 2.0 and the Society's reaction to it. I'll not attempt to articulate a complete stance, or even necessarily to articulate any position at all. Primarily, I seek throw out a few things to consider.

As space policy buffs and, in some cases, vigorous space activists, we find it all too easy to forget that space exploration takes part in the same world as do all the other things we read about in the newspaper and see on TV. To be effective advocates, we need to understand the overriding politico-economic forces that the shape the priorities of the government and of the nation. We need to understand that –pardon the expression- space policy does not exist in a vacuum. Any new executive branch policy, space or not, does not become viable until it gains the support of the legislative branch, namely Congress. Although there are politicians out there who operate from a foundation of strong morals and strive to be intelligent leaders, the reality is that one becomes a political force by playing the political games. A politician who takes on the world usually finds his ass handed to him: the politician must pick his points, and is wise to pick points that matter to his constituency.

Because a politician is, in a very real way, beholden to his constituency, large changes in large government programs (in huge contrast to small government programs) are rarely sustainable without broad public support, because those lacking popular support make excellent targets for other politicians seeking to make their reputation as fiscally responsible, asking-the-hard-questions types of people. A bad program, or a program the public believes is bad, is a perfect stage for political grandstanding and gamesmanship.

Today, it is very clear that the public believes the economy is, as one of my friends would say, “in the toilet.” Although this betrays a profound (if unsurprising) ignorance of economic theory, it is incontestably the view of the general voting public. So, from a purely political perspective, major new funding would never have passed through Congress- as evinced by the bad public reception to the initiative (~60% against, if I recall). It is hard to overstate the damage this would have done. Anyone questioning that should take a look at the incessant rambling about how much the original SEI was projected to cost—another setback like that one would allow a third attempt to be met by an extremely negative press reaction, along these lines: plans for Mars have rejected several times on the basis of astronomical (they’d be pleased with their pun) costs. The general press will continue with its mantra: Don’t let the facts get in the way of the truth.

A rejected initiative can only produce negative results.

We must also remember the public perception of NASA. With the Columbia disaster and then the CAIB report, the public is becoming increasingly aware of the serious institutional problems they’ve developed. They are quick to pick up on arguments that NASA is doing very little, that its programs are wasteful. But the public will not be inclined to take a closer look. In short the public typically does not distinguish between specific and general criticisms of NASA or its programs. It does not recognize the difference between criticizing a particular program and criticizing the organization’s raison d’etre; in short, it conflates accusations of negligence and fiscal irresponsibility with condemnations of the very existence of NASA and the wisdom of a space program in general.

The recent loss of the Columbia presented the public and Congress with an extremely visible and extremely personal message: NASA is not well, and something must be done. If we want to nurse it back to health –rather than put it to sleep-, it will (unfortunately) be necessary to illustrate, time and again, that NASA is “back on track” and performing in a fiscally responsible and, above all, safe manner. Think of NASA like an aging track team runner- still fundamentally able to run the marathon, but needing to loose the beer gut and start running again- a little bit at a time.

Much though the Rovers have done to provide NASA with a desperately needed high-viz success story, they have not come close to making the public forget about the Columbia- nor could they have. NASA needs a series of highly visible successes before it can even begin to rebuild the credibility to manage an expedition to Mars. There is simply no way around it: NASA needs to complete rehab before it can become even remotely possible to consider the Mars. The regrettable but inevitable reality is that no space program can proceed on engineering merit and cost effectiveness alone: it must be politically survivable.

Rehabilitating NASA’s image, which will be critical to funding new and ambitious missions in the future, requires the development of a long range plan, with several obvious milestones to achieve, just like those nicotine patches you see on TV. First, everyone must be assured that there is a purposive rehab program that will not only restore NASA to its old effectiveness, innovation, and safety levels, but also prepare it for the future.

The steps outlined in the Bush speech provide these quite well. Here’s an overview of how they do it:

The Shuttle return to flight illustrates our continuing dedication to the space program in general and to the ISS in particular.

Having an established “expiration date” for the Shuttle (at least as we know it) suggests that while we remain strongly committed, we are going to be improving our activities. The announcement illustrates that while we acknowledge and support the need to “keep on keepin’ on,” we are pursuing a more complete divorce from the checkered history of the Shuttle. It also serves to more closely integrate the overall proposal with the idea that NASA has been a wayward for quite some time, which partially allows the proposal to draw on commentary and opinion that otherwise might have been oppositional.

The continuing commitment to the ISS justifies and requires the continuation of the Shuttle (~28 more flights required to complete the ISS). This helps us politically, and builds confidence for potential international cooperation in the future. Additionally, it allows us to conduct several years of intensive space medicine and biochemical investigations that will be required to get us to Mars (that the “insufficient medical knowledge” argument is largely fallacy is irrelevant; politicians won’t approve missions without a high probability of success and low potential for disaster…even if something is a 1:1000 chance and therefore a negligible portion of mission risk, no one is going to sign on until their ass is covered by excessive medical data, reports, and recommendations).

The CEV continues the theme of commitment to new and better ways to do things at NASA, and enables the next steps. In great contrast to the Shuttle, the CEV is not being heralded as a technology development program: it is being built to achieve a real goal. Even more important, it is (so far) being justified on realistic grounds. The Shuttle was sold as a 100 launch/year vehicle, in part because it was (briefly) planned to handle the entire DOD launch manifest!

Returning to the Moon allows NASA to demonstrate to all that it is back where it was in 1973, that it has overcome the inertia and retuned to the heavens beyond. It can easily be sold to the unknowing public as an intermediate step between the Earth and Mars, even though (for several reasons) this doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Furthermore, the Moon is extremely salable because China has been talking about send stuff there (first, it was to be manned, then unmanned, then just a satellite, now apparently even less certain), and several other countries are at work there. Also, while there is far, far less payoff for a Moon mission, there is also a good deal less risk, which is something that will be necessary: another Columbia-type disaster within the next decade could be a serious threat to NASA’s manned space program for decades (depending upon what other countries are doing).

Finally, adding on that the Moon is a step towards Mars appeals to zealots like us. It precludes any allegations that the whole program merely takes us back to where we were in 1973- when we quit exploring because of cost. The announcement also leverages the high interest that the MERs have generated, and extends any comparisons with Kennedy’s Moon speech, forcing commentators to acknowledge that we are building towards a goal beyond the Moon. By the time we’ve done the Moon missions, we’ll have been robotically exploring Mars on a sustained basis for at least 25 years (assuming we return in 2015 and complete large, government funded missions there by 2020), and quite likely 30 or 35 years. Once the Moon has been completed, the only reasonable argument* against Mars missions will be cost, which is far fewer objections than are faced today.

The first milestones in the initiative will (hopefully) come this year, with the Shuttle RTF around September or so. After that, it should operate on a fairly consistent basis for another five years, providing the image of a slow, deliberate, pragmatic and cautious approach to the program. Contrary to intuition, a slower program will look better to the public –after all, we are selling this. By the end of the next term (probably Bush’s second) the CEV is to have made its first flight, validating the technology and setting up the next administration. Assuming the 2008 CEV demonstration is successful, the next administration won’t have too much of a choice: unless it’s willing to end manned space completely (politically infeasible, not in the least because of job loss), it will need to fund something to replace the Shuttle. Even if the next five years of use don’t wear down the fleet enough to make SLEP programs impossible, the political fallout of canceling the CEV and just upgrading the Shuttle would be quite costly; politically more costly than simply supporting the CEV. So, unless the 2009 administration is willing to see virtually all of it’s time in office without men in space, or at least none launched by US vehicles, it will have to support the CEV. Even repairs of the shuttle started in 2009 (it would be a remarkable achievement for a new administration to cancel CEV, fight through the turf battles, decide to upgrade the Shuttle, fight through those battles, win, and get actual factory time in within a year of coming into office, even if space was a high administration priority), there would probably be a gap of two or so years with either nonexistent or hobbled manned launch capabilities. There just isn’t a payoff there.

Furthermore, the satellite will also have been launched in 2008, and the lander is planned for 2009, so the Moon will remain in the public eye as a target for the space program well into the next administration, if even several 75, 80, or 90% complete missions were cancelled on the first day of the new administrations term. And since we’ll be developing a vehicle capable of going to the Moon, there will remain a large group of people who want to do it. In the meantime, groups like ourselves will be growing. There will be no escape. We will get to Mars. To do it, we must think in terms beyond technical, financial, and even advocacy considerations. We must think in terms of national policy, much though many of us would like to relegate political opportunism, party politics, and logrolling to the history books. This speech represents a solid first step on the road to recovery, a road that leads eventually to Mars.

*Assuming our robotic explorers don’t find signs of life before we arrive.

2022/03/10 This post was restored again.
There are on the order of 12,000 characters in the post.
It updates manually without problems, but an automated update fails.

An online tool reported: Characters 12043 Words 2007 Lines 133

jabe · 2004-01-31 20:38:39

Zubrin is having a [http://www.eppc.org/conferences/eventID … detail.asp]debate on thursday.. Should be a good one.. too bad it doesn't seem to be televised..

SaorsaDaonnan · 2004-01-31 20:43:59

Hopefully they'll post a transcript...

SaorsaDaonnan · 2004-01-31 20:54:56

To clarify my earlier post: Shuttle C or other SDVs take time, too, and although I suppose I should acknowledge the possibility of canceling CEV in 09 and going with an SDV, this seems to me to suffer from the very same problems that the other options do, although admittedly in a less pronounced way.

Spider-Man · 2004-01-31 22:44:11

*I've just re-read the article. Here are some thoughts and questions which came into my mind:
"Thus the choice on whether or not to really start..."
I ASK MYSELF: A modifier already? "...really start..." Is that supposed to comfort me?
"...a Moon or Mars human exploration program, and what its pace or objectives should be, is effectively being placed in the hands of the 2009 administration."
I ASK MYSELF: Does this mean President Bush wants to procrastinate? Seeking to avoid personal responsibility for actually -- or "really" -- initiating his initiative? If so, isn't that laughable?
"The merit of this decision is debatable."
I ASK MYSELF: Well, since there's a big sell-out going on, who am I to question or desist?
I ASK MYSELF: By the way, is it soon going to be the MoonMars Society?
I ASK MYSELF: What about all that talk (I recall it quite well, I joined heartily in the speculation) of going back to the moon being likely only due to China's plans (militaristic in scope)?
I ASK MYSELF: What about the stated fact that the moon has little to no water? I thought others here also regarded that as one of THE major drawbacks (to the point of "so what's the point again?")?
I ASK MYSELF: Are the upcoming planned technological developments *dependent* upon the moon somehow...or could we manage their development just fine in LEO at less expense?
I ASK MYSELF: What about the development of space elevators on Earth...are they a back-burner issue now (I don't recall seeing them mentioned in the article, and just rescanned it)? If so, for how long?
---
::sigh:: I can see the handwriting on the wall.
Shaun writes: "...as others have pointed out, better a vague humans-to-Mars timetable than none at all. Rather than say we want Mars Direct and only Mars Direct and we want it now, our best bet is to go along with what's on the table and do what we can, within that framework, to get the result we want."
That is logical and has merit...but this is a catch-22 situation, in my opinion. If we push too hard, we could hurt ourselves. If we back down too much, we may be stuck at the moon for many decades.
---
As for the statement at the Mars Society article:
Bush Speech Opens Door
The Future is Up to Us
I ASK MYSELF: Is the future up "to us"? Or is it up to bureaucrats? Do we further our goals (or *purported* goals, excuse me) by compromising with politicians? If so, to what degree?

Good Christ, Cindy. I admire you in a lot of ways -- in countless ways -- but you are really, really paranoid about some things.

In particular Bush. He is without a doubt the most polarizing politician living, who elicits such divergent quantities of both loathing and adoration; and I grant certainly that you can either love him or hate him, and rarely is there an inbetween. But heavens, put it to rest; he is not Satan. He is not out to conspiritize against the whole world and bend it to some personal will. To harp on it so endlessly is without reason.

It's something the Right would do, not the rational liberal.

Zubrin is having a debate on thursday.. Should be a good one.. too bad it doesn't seem to be televised..

Wow, that's amazing, Jabe. What a coincidence! for I myself on this same Thursday am going to do a Zubrin-esque presentation on Mars and our future there, to a bunch of kindly senior citizens.

Hopefully they'll post a transcript...

I e-mailed an ardent plea for them to post the transcript. Maybe they'll have it on file afterwards and let us know.
We'll see.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-02-01 02:07:40

Hi SaorsaDaonnan!
That was quite a first post you graced us with, and laden with worldly wisdom and political savvy, too!
I tend to agree with you (perhaps because I want to) that there is a 'crazy like a fox' element to President Bush's initiative. Considering that this is 2004 and we possess 21st century technology and we're talking about not getting back to the Moon before 2015, which is 11 years hence, while our forebears gave themselves 7 years (possibly 8) to get to the Moon with mid-20th century technology ... there must be as much political input into the timetable as technical! (Though I admit Kennedy didn't have to worry about commitments involving an international space station!)
As I've outlined elsewhere, I'm hoping that once this plan gets rolling we'll see shortenings of the timeline and modifications of the sequence of events as practicalities assume precedence over politics.
As a best-case scenario, I'm hoping the crewed lunar flights will begin a couple of years earlier than planned, around 2012, and that they will blend into, rather than precede, the Mars missions. I don't see any fundamental impediment to staging the construction of a large lunar outpost between 2012 and 2020, while beginning human Mars missions by 2018 at the latest.
If NASA gets just a 5% annual increase in funding, it will be on roughly $24 billion p.a. by 2012, with no shuttle and no ISS obligations.
I feel confident Dr. Zubrin could achieve all manner of human Mars missions with just a fraction of that sort of money and it doesn't come close to the kinds of outrageous figures quoted by politically motivated journalists these days.

Ah well. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see.

Palomar · 2004-02-01 10:57:11

Good Christ, Cindy. I admire you in a lot of ways -- in countless ways -- but you are really, really paranoid about some things.
In particular Bush.

*No, Spider-Man; President Bush -wasn't- the focus of my post. It may seem that way... but careful re-reading might yield up something else.

Sorry, not interested in public debate about this matter (for a variety of reasons). You're welcome to contact me privately if you like.

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-01-24 13:43:14

Re: Mars Society Responds to Bush Initiative

#2 2004-01-24 14:14:45

Re: Mars Society Responds to Bush Initiative

#3 2004-01-24 14:24:23

Re: Mars Society Responds to Bush Initiative

#4 2004-01-24 14:31:34

Re: Mars Society Responds to Bush Initiative

#5 2004-01-24 15:37:25

Re: Mars Society Responds to Bush Initiative

#6 2004-01-24 15:41:31

Re: Mars Society Responds to Bush Initiative

#7 2004-01-24 16:17:08

Re: Mars Society Responds to Bush Initiative

#8 2004-01-24 17:13:12

Re: Mars Society Responds to Bush Initiative

#9 2004-01-24 19:47:59

Re: Mars Society Responds to Bush Initiative

#10 2004-01-24 19:54:31

Re: Mars Society Responds to Bush Initiative

#11 2004-01-24 23:10:29

Re: Mars Society Responds to Bush Initiative

#12 2004-01-24 23:26:22

Re: Mars Society Responds to Bush Initiative

#13 2004-01-24 23:52:04

Re: Mars Society Responds to Bush Initiative

#14 2004-01-25 00:57:31

Re: Mars Society Responds to Bush Initiative

#15 2004-01-25 01:38:37

Re: Mars Society Responds to Bush Initiative

#16 2004-01-25 02:16:55

Re: Mars Society Responds to Bush Initiative

#17 2004-01-25 04:31:51

Re: Mars Society Responds to Bush Initiative

#18 2004-01-29 10:37:07

Re: Mars Society Responds to Bush Initiative

#19 2004-01-31 20:36:03

Re: Mars Society Responds to Bush Initiative

#20 2004-01-31 20:38:39

Re: Mars Society Responds to Bush Initiative

#21 2004-01-31 20:43:59

Re: Mars Society Responds to Bush Initiative

#22 2004-01-31 20:54:56

Re: Mars Society Responds to Bush Initiative

#23 2004-01-31 22:44:11

Re: Mars Society Responds to Bush Initiative

#24 2004-02-01 02:07:40

Re: Mars Society Responds to Bush Initiative

#25 2004-02-01 10:57:11

Re: Mars Society Responds to Bush Initiative

Board footer