Why wait?

stratoghost · 2004-03-22 03:33:27

Government agencies tend to overspend, NASA included. When an opportunity to recieve more money presents itself, they milk it for all its worth, often at the expense of their mission. If a serious need presents itself, like saving face for not being the first nation in space, they will go all out to succeed. The caveat is that Russia was our enemy at the time.

A mission to Mars will only be accomplished by the US if there is a serious enemy contender that could achieve that goal first.

Half of the congress of the US believes that the government knows best and can decide what is best for all. The other half wouldn't mind having a Mars mission, if it was affordable.

If a private group were to commit the funding necessary to send humans to Mars and begin production, both groups in congress would agree. If capitalism could be proven to outwit governmentalism, half of congress would appropriate the necessary funding to NASA, results dependant. The other half would go along because the funding wouldn't go to every wished for program NASA could think up.

I know this is politically simplistic, but if the right propaganda were to be released at the right time while this was occuring, it could alter opinion and cause the desired result.

If the propaganda and the threat to governmentalism does not have the desired result of a mission to Mars, then the international reporting would cause increased donations to the project. In that case, begin the project.

Bill Gates could fund a mission to Mars. I think that enough people interested in it could do the same. The Mars Society is a 501c3 organization. Americans could deduct donatons from taxes.

It may take a while to get the money together. A group such as the Mars Society would need to set up a fund with a sole purpose of a mission to Mars. There may already be one, I don't know. All I know is that we should have been there 20 years ago.

In my personal opinion, I think that the first group of people should consider staying on Mars, with the option of returning. The same with subsequent missions, until a trade economy can be established.

This is my first post here. I can accept criticism.

rstones8 · 2004-03-22 09:02:23

I think it would be great if a private organization went to Mars before NASA, they would do it cheaper and without all the red tape that NASA always seems to apply to everything.

But is it realistic? Aside from a few dedicated billionaires (who would take much convincing), I doubt that the average American would be willing to pour money into something with such a high risk of no returns. They see how hard it is for NASA to get things done, whats to make them think that a private organization cold do any better? Plus, most of them gripe now about their taxes being mis-spent on Mars missions when we have starving children in Africa and whatnot (when they should realize that this planet has always had problems and always will have problems, and all of the space money in the world won't change that).

Anyways, a manned mission should be done, and needs to be done, no matter how it is accomplished. I think that unfortunately we will have to wait for NASA and congress to get off their collective ass. And it is sad that it may take another "space race" with China or Europe to get that to happen.

RobS · 2004-03-22 09:15:10

The Mars Society has a sort of plan to go to Mars: fund raise $1 million to build Mars-on-Earth habs at Devon Island and other Mars analogues; having acquired experience and the trust of fundraisers, move on to the Mars bio satellite in low Earth orbit to demonstrate that plants and animals can live in Martian gravity; once that has worked and they have demonstrated they can raise and wisely spend $10 million, move up to a bigger project; etc.

This step by step plan has advantages: no one can go from being tiny to planning a multi-billion dollar Mars project overnight. The disadvantage is that one can get stuck part way, and that seems to be the fate of the Mars biosatellite, unless there is progress I haven't heard of.

-- RobS

GCNRevenger · 2004-03-22 09:35:40

I really don't think even Bill Gates has the money to pull off a Mars mission from scratch. Nasa has a huge base of technology and infrastructure pre-exsisting, which any private venture would have to pay for from scratch... a rich cadre of billionares would be lucky to fund a substantial chunk of it, and be even luckier to see it done in their lifetimes.

Bill White · 2004-03-22 09:44:29

I really don't think even Bill Gates has the money to pull off a Mars mission from scratch. Nasa has a huge base of technology and infrastructure pre-exsisting, which any private venture would have to pay for from scratch... a rich cadre of billionares would be lucky to fund a substantial chunk of it, and be even luckier to see it done in their lifetimes.

But the right set of billionaries might gain "tipping point" control over the US Senate. In a 50/50 Senate, one single man (remember James Jeffords) can tip the balance of power. A caucus of 5 or 6 could easily trade judicial confirmations for MarsDirect money.

I out this out there to put a gun to my own head:

"Finish my damn book!"

clark · 2004-03-22 09:53:29

I need to mail something at the post office Bill. Any suggestions? :;):

Bill White · 2004-03-22 10:48:55

For fans of The Rocket Company, I offer this [http://www.hobbyspace.com/AAdmin/archiv … page1.html]except:

Fred then asked, "By the way, are you aware of the lunar monastery project we've been working on?"
"Yes, John Forsyth mentioned it the last time we met. Interesting concept - certainly not one you usually see on the 'top ten things to do on the Moon' lists. But I understand they're quite serious about it."
"Very serious. Investor Number 3 is willing to put up a billion dollars - that's serious in anybody's book. I've been spending quite a bit of time on it lately. As it turns out, Number 3 and Father Scipio will be here on Thursday for a meeting. Maybe you'd like to join us," Fred suggested.
"Yes, indeed. Would they mind, do you think?" I was a little unsure about meeting this "Moon Monk" - the term just popped into my head - but I was definitely curious.
"I don't think so, but check with Number 3. It's not hush-hush or anything, but I know they don't exactly advertise it, either."
After leaving Fred's office, I decided to give Forsyth a call first. He gave me some background. It turned out that Number 3's primary motivation for backing AM&M was to be able to found a monastery at the lunar south pole, and that the planning for this had been under way for more than 10 years. Forsyth told me he would be seeing Number 3 that evening, and he'd pass on my request to learn more about the monastery. I got a call the next morning from Number 3 himself, with an invitation to the meeting.

Father Scipio? I sense someone is laying groundwork here. . .

One problem, monks don't have babies.

It's not hush-hush or anything, but I know they don't exactly advertise it, either.

Yup, thats about right. :;):

stratoghost · 2004-03-24 23:06:03

I really don't think even Bill Gates has the money to pull off a Mars mission from scratch.

You are correct, but the current technology wouldn't require it.

"By the way, are you aware of the lunar monastery project we've been working on?"

The moon has almost no resources and would be costly to maintain. Mars has many resources.

A mission to Mars that included the ability to grow their own food via a greenhouse could stay there a very long time. More people and resources could extend the stay indefinately.

A second home for humanity could save humanity in the case of a planetary cataclysim, like a major volcanic eruption, an asteriod impact or even global nuclear war. Or even something we have not considered.

This second branch of humanity would evolve differently than Earthbound humanity. There would eventually be a second species of humanity. The difference in gravity could result in much larger humans, as an example.

I think it would be fun to find out, assuming there is reincarnation or I would have the ability to see what was going on 10,000 years in the future.

MarsDog · 2004-03-26 04:01:12

Goal of self sustaining colony is the best argument, to risk now, rather than wait for technological ease.
-
Given the high rate of failure, practicing near Earth, developing reliable systems, might get us there faster than having several lost missions.
-
We were lucky with the Moon !

stratoghost · 2004-03-26 04:46:27

I don't think we were lucky with the moon. The same technology could transport us to Mars. But, technology has advanced many fold. It would be easier now. The reason we don't go is a lack of guts and political hoohaw! I just wish someone, or group, would get off their lazy a$$es and just do it! If it meant a 50/50 chance at survival, I'd do it! I'd bet there would be many more who would say the same thing! Profit is proportional to risk, sometimes more so.

MarsDog · 2004-03-26 06:00:15

Lucky that one of the astronauts carried his nitrogen pressurized pen, to actuate the takeoff switch. Otherwise, by his own admission, they would still be on the Moon.
-
Technology improved, and the numerous shuttle missions gave an indication of reliability. Add the extra sequences of events to go right enroute to Mars, and I would be a scared astronaut.

Michael Bloxham · 2004-03-26 21:56:05

A mission to Mars will only be accomplished by the US if there is a serious enemy contender that could achieve that goal first.

Does Zubrin publish his books in russian?

MarsDog · 2004-03-27 07:19:57

The challenge is on; Will USA win the race again
Or loose to the Russians, Chinese or Japanese ?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-03-22 03:33:27

Re: Why wait?

#2 2004-03-22 09:02:23

Re: Why wait?

#3 2004-03-22 09:15:10

Re: Why wait?

#4 2004-03-22 09:35:40

Re: Why wait?

#5 2004-03-22 09:44:29

Re: Why wait?

#6 2004-03-22 09:53:29

Re: Why wait?

#7 2004-03-22 10:48:55

Re: Why wait?

#8 2004-03-24 23:06:03

Re: Why wait?

#9 2004-03-26 04:01:12

Re: Why wait?

#10 2004-03-26 04:46:27

Re: Why wait?

#11 2004-03-26 06:00:15

Re: Why wait?

#12 2004-03-26 21:56:05

Re: Why wait?

#13 2004-03-27 07:19:57

Re: Why wait?

Board footer