Mars On Earthpolitician Against SpaceExploration - Mars On Earth

Ian · 2005-02-16 08:51:25

I read in Robert Zubrin's book "Mars On Earth" that some politician was against Human Space Exploration in the early 1980s and Robert Zubrin attended a meeting in New York and some Senior Nasa official only thought that Nasa's purpose should only launch Communicationm weather and military reconnaissance satellites and then he asked about human space exploration and that Nasa official said that those were the dreams of youth. What should be done about that kind of attitude towards space exploration? If Nasa just launches satellites to put in orbit around the Earth, we won't go anywhere.

Palomar · 2005-02-16 09:13:58

I read in Robert Zubrin's book "Mars On Earth" that some politician was against Human Space Exploration in the early 1980s and Robert Zubrin attended a meeting in New York and some Senior Nasa official only thought that Nasa's purpose should only launch Communicationm weather and military reconnaissance satellites and then he asked about human space exploration and that Nasa official said that those were the dreams of youth. What should be done about that kind of attitude towards space exploration? If Nasa just launches satellites to put in orbit around the Earth, we won't go anywhere.

*Hi. I've not read that book, though the anecdote sounds familiar. Apparently some folks around here and I are still harboring "dreams of youth"... :-\

Actually -- and sad to say -- that NASA official's attitude doesn't surprise me as much as it would have 10 years ago. It seems to me (and I could be wrong and I hope I am!) there is an increasingly ambivalent attitude "in general" -- even among the space/astronomy-interested crowd -- about actual manned space exploration. As if it was "a fad" of yesteryear -- from the early 1900s and culminating in Apollo.

As if the Shuttle is the be all/end all and let's just send robots and probes out there. I do enjoy our robots and probes, but I don't view them as replacements; I view them as tools to help ease the way a bit for our future continued manned expeditions.

But a lot of people don't see it that way, even folks who work in areas where one might naturally assume they'd feel otherwise.

--Cindy

Ian · 2005-02-16 09:42:30

Are people getting bored with Nasa's space shuttles just orbiting the Earth and sending up Satellites and building the International Space Station? Is that all Nasa's Ever going to do or will it actually go beyond "Low Earth Orbit" and go to places like the Moon and Mars?

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-16 12:18:48

Actually both are wrong, but the NASA offical is closer to the truth... that NASA's main purpose for the last 25 years has been to do just one thing and one thing only:

Keep as many engineers employed as possible for as long as possible

Space probes over manned missions, Shuttle, and its progeny the ISS are all simply the means to this end.

idiom · 2005-02-16 13:40:15

To be fair NASA wasn't allowed to dissolve, or to go outside LEO. They have had the budget and the lower people at NASA have wanted to go to be sure.

So you have to burn $15Bn per year, maintain human spaceflight but not leave LEO. Bummer assignment. I think the ISS ws a fairly creative solution, so was the Hubble. The Hubble was built to be maintained by the Shuttle same as the ISS.

And the whole time they kept up the required appearance of being on the cutting edge, it started coming apart about in the mid-nineties I think the whole solution was pretty creative, if insane.

el scorcho · 2005-02-16 14:26:31

The prevailing attitude seems to have been pretty well summed up in Apollo 13 when Tom Hanks' character is talking to a generic government official whose constituents want to know "why we keep funding this program now that we've beaten the Russians to the Moon" and who seems to have a very...umm..."endorectal" perspective of manned space exploration. I have very little faith in NASA to deliver the goods when it comes to putting boots on the ground of other worlds. That's not to say the pilots, astronauts, and engineers aren't fully capable; they're all very smart people. But they work for an extremely short-sighted governmental agency. I was excited last year when I heard about Bush's exploration vision, but I was disappointed when the details came out: 15 to 20 years for a Lunar mission? It only took us ten in the 1960s, and our technology is supposedly 40 years more advanced now! :bars2:

However, I do take heart in the fact that http://www.transformspace.com/index.html]the t/Space corporation is being contracted to develop the Lunar mission architecture along with the Boeings of the world. Burt Rutan and a whole host of other space exploration renegades are involved with t/Space, so they should have a much better handle on how to get things done rapidly and at a low cost--they hope to send their design to the Moon by 2012 or 2014. I know our ultimate goal is Mars and that there's no real reason to go to the Moon in order to get there, but I'd rather see one man on the Moon than twenty probes on Mars any day.

Ian · 2005-02-16 14:42:29

The prevailing attitude seems to have been pretty well summed up in Apollo 13 when Tom Hanks' character is talking to a generic government official whose constituents want to know "why we keep funding this program now that we've beaten the Russians to the Moon" and who seems to have a very...umm..."endorectal" perspective of manned space exploration.

I saw that scene in the movie as well and I didn't like the fact that that person was turning away from going back to the moon. I think that this has something to do with the Cold War getting mixed up with what Nasa was doing. More funds were devoted to the Cold War than to Nasa I assume.

Ian · 2005-02-16 14:46:04

In fact, when I went to the National Constitution Center, I saw a pie chart of where our taxes went and ever since the 1960s, they went more towards war than to other programs that would have helped people at home. If the taxes went to Nasa, then I assume that they would have continued human space exploration beyond Low Earth Orbit but unfortunatly the taxes went towards the Department of Defense instead of giving more funding to Nasa. That's probably why that Nasa official said that in the 1980s.

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-16 14:49:37

I think that this has something to do with the Cold War getting mixed up with what Nasa was doing. More funds were devoted to the Cold War than to Nasa I assume.

NASA was very much a result of the Cold War. From Mercury to Apollo it was primarily about beating the Russkis, not "exploring".

It's not a question of NASA vs. DoD.

Grypd · 2005-02-16 14:50:11

There is a very virulent and sustained group of opponents to Manned space flight and even to operations beyond Earth Orbit.

They believe manned spaceflight is a waste of finances and a venture down the wrong road. One of the most venement are what I call NeoConservationists.

They see the problems the world has like Oil running out, Greenhouse gases, Pollution, Overpopulation. And they see the only answer as reducing our Industrial capacity and a general reduction in the Energy that we use. What they also see is that spaceflight is a major sin and try to get it cancelled. The worse thing for us the space enthusiast is that they are linked to the respectable Eco groups and in Universities and Goverments. There has even been a vice president who could be called one. They use loose terms like Drawback, Crash and consequences. They do not believe that anything Man can do like Fusion or getting resources and energy from space are worthwhile. They only see that we should destitute ourselves to solve the problems rather than try to actually find resources to solve these problems.

The trouble is that for space advocates the general public tend to be excited about space but only as a science fiction future. The Eco activists though with the problems of Global warming and pollution have all the sound bites. Though I see these problems I honestly dont believe that making everyone into a Marx like poor community really is the way to go.

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-16 15:02:10

...They believe manned spaceflight is a waste of finances and a venture down the wrong road. One of the most venement are what I call NeoConservationists.

I know the type. Unable to grasp the simple fact that conservation is not a solution to a shortage, it just means we run out slower in a more miserable fashion.

I suspect that's part of an ulterior motive, but that's another discussion. :;):

The trouble is that for space advocates the general public tend to be excited about space but only as a science fiction future. The Eco activists though with the problems of Global warming and pollution have all the sound bites.

In a sense it's all a question of marketing. The eco-types use fear, "buy our product or you're all gonna die." It's a shitty motivator but in the absence of anything to counter it an effective one. The pro-space community doesn't really have a marketable vision at the moment. Scientific knowledge, learning about the universe, ho hum. The average citizen doesn't care, throw a huge monetary figure out while whipping up fear over something else and they're even less inclined to support it. What we need is a reason that can inspire people positively and can hold up to scrutiny. I'm of the opinion that permament settlement has to be part of the end goal, otherwise it's all just going through the motions.

So how do you sell the public on Mars colonies?

Palomar · 2005-02-16 15:06:08

The prevailing attitude seems to have been pretty well summed up in Apollo 13 when Tom Hanks' character...

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/l … l]*Captain James Lovell.

--Cindy

Grypd · 2005-02-16 15:25:45

...They believe manned spaceflight is a waste of finances and a venture down the wrong road. One of the most venement are what I call NeoConservationists.
I know the type. Unable to grasp the simple fact that conservation is not a solution to a shortage, it just means we run out slower in a more miserable fashion.
I suspect that's part of an ulterior motive, but that's another discussion. :;):

Agreed, Especially if you look up the club of rome or New society

So how do you sell the public on Mars Colonies?

That requires a capacity to actually send colonists. Getting this and it becomes a lot easier to sell space. But I would use a page out of Zubrins book and use the allure of a new frontier and this should encourage emigration. Especially to those people who are adventurous in the first place

Ian · 2005-02-16 17:00:17

But I would use a page out of Zubrins book and use the allure of a new frontier and this should encourage emigration. Especially to those people who are adventurous in the first place

I think that Robert Zubrin's books can be very influential when they talk about Humans Exploring Mars and it makes the people who think otherwise look bad. I think that two goals have to be realized like solving problems here on Earth and getting to Mars also.

Ian · 2005-02-16 17:12:28

That requires a capacity to actually send colonists. Getting this and it becomes a lot easier to sell space.

I think that an organization has to be developed in order to do that by educating people about Human Mars Exploration and having them plan for and get excited about Human Mars Exploration. I heard once that people were selling "Moon Real Estate" somewhere. Maybe the same thing can be done with Mars. In the 17'th century people had to claim land in the "New World" and then sell different amounts of acres of land to people who wanted to buy it and then eventually they setteled there.

Ian · 2005-02-16 17:15:55

I also think that people should popularize Human Mars Exploration buy inviting television news media companies to the Mars Desert Research Station or similiar places where people learn how to live on Mars by living in the same type of environment on Earth.

Martin_Tristar · 2005-02-16 19:26:30

You need to use the methods that make business grow, you need to use the methods that make people proud of their country and patriotic voices. But the differnce now is, we need to bring the human race out of the shell of earth and get them to think beyond our planets blue sky.

idiom · 2005-02-16 19:35:34

I was excited last year when I heard about Bush's exploration vision, but I was disappointed when the details came out: 15 to 20 years for a Lunar mission?

Slower, Cheaper, Better. See they do learn.

SpaceNut · 2005-02-17 07:02:59

To get people interested in going to space requires pulling down the barriers that keep us from going; Cost, Governmental regulations, No chance for ownership of property, Minimal chance for investment returns from ownership of rights to minerals, ect...

Many of the average joe do want to go but will never see it for it is just for the rich and elite at this point in time.

Ian · 2005-02-17 08:25:05

Many of the average joe do want to go but will never see it for it is just for the rich and elite at this point in time.

If this view is going to keep going then we will never go to Mars. I hope that the rich will stop stealing the resources from the poor on this planet. People need to change the popular cultural belief that it is "JUST" "FOR THE RICH" I hate it when I see things as being "JUST FOR THE RICH!".

Ian · 2005-02-17 08:42:47

Maybe people who work for the rich can save up enough money in the bank so that they can go to space and become rich by saving up money.

Ian · 2005-02-17 08:49:38

Many of the average joe do want to go but will never see it for it is just for the rich and elite at this point in time.

Maybe space probes will be better because they are not only for the rich. Pictures from space probes are shown to everybody and the scientific knowledge that they obtain is distrubited not according to "CLASS SYSTEMS" and "STRATIFICATION".

Ian · 2005-02-17 08:58:51

Maybe human missions should wait until everybody can go to Mars. If this happens, then not "JUST" the "RICH" and "UPPER CLASS" can go.

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-17 09:16:32

Maybe human missions should wait until everybody can go to Mars. If this happens, then not "JUST" the "RICH" and "UPPER CLASS" can go.

In which case we will never go. Technology, like life, evolves. We will never develop better technology for going to Mars unless we're going to Mars.

Ian · 2005-02-17 09:23:01

Then better technology needs to be developed so that everyone can go to Mars and I agree. How can we go to Mars ever if the public views it as being only for the wealthy?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-02-16 08:51:25

Re: Mars On Earthpolitician Against SpaceExploration - Mars On Earth

#2 2005-02-16 09:13:58

Re: Mars On Earthpolitician Against SpaceExploration - Mars On Earth

#3 2005-02-16 09:42:30

Re: Mars On Earthpolitician Against SpaceExploration - Mars On Earth

#4 2005-02-16 12:18:48

Re: Mars On Earthpolitician Against SpaceExploration - Mars On Earth

#5 2005-02-16 13:40:15

Re: Mars On Earthpolitician Against SpaceExploration - Mars On Earth

#6 2005-02-16 14:26:31

Re: Mars On Earthpolitician Against SpaceExploration - Mars On Earth

#7 2005-02-16 14:42:29

Re: Mars On Earthpolitician Against SpaceExploration - Mars On Earth

#8 2005-02-16 14:46:04

Re: Mars On Earthpolitician Against SpaceExploration - Mars On Earth

#9 2005-02-16 14:49:37

Re: Mars On Earthpolitician Against SpaceExploration - Mars On Earth

#10 2005-02-16 14:50:11

Re: Mars On Earthpolitician Against SpaceExploration - Mars On Earth

#11 2005-02-16 15:02:10

Re: Mars On Earthpolitician Against SpaceExploration - Mars On Earth

#12 2005-02-16 15:06:08

Re: Mars On Earthpolitician Against SpaceExploration - Mars On Earth

#13 2005-02-16 15:25:45

Re: Mars On Earthpolitician Against SpaceExploration - Mars On Earth

#14 2005-02-16 17:00:17

Re: Mars On Earthpolitician Against SpaceExploration - Mars On Earth

#15 2005-02-16 17:12:28

Re: Mars On Earthpolitician Against SpaceExploration - Mars On Earth

#16 2005-02-16 17:15:55

Re: Mars On Earthpolitician Against SpaceExploration - Mars On Earth

#17 2005-02-16 19:26:30

Re: Mars On Earthpolitician Against SpaceExploration - Mars On Earth

#18 2005-02-16 19:35:34

Re: Mars On Earthpolitician Against SpaceExploration - Mars On Earth

#19 2005-02-17 07:02:59

Re: Mars On Earthpolitician Against SpaceExploration - Mars On Earth

#20 2005-02-17 08:25:05

Re: Mars On Earthpolitician Against SpaceExploration - Mars On Earth

#21 2005-02-17 08:42:47

Re: Mars On Earthpolitician Against SpaceExploration - Mars On Earth

#22 2005-02-17 08:49:38

Re: Mars On Earthpolitician Against SpaceExploration - Mars On Earth

#23 2005-02-17 08:58:51

Re: Mars On Earthpolitician Against SpaceExploration - Mars On Earth

#24 2005-02-17 09:16:32

Re: Mars On Earthpolitician Against SpaceExploration - Mars On Earth

#25 2005-02-17 09:23:01

Re: Mars On Earthpolitician Against SpaceExploration - Mars On Earth

Board footer