Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

BWhite · 2004-07-26 09:12:22

Jeff Foust writes http://www.thespacereview.com/article/194/1 this piece today.

Moon vs. Mars
Beyond LRO, though, there is a greater concern about how NASA is implementing the Vision for Space Exploration. The vision, as laid out by the President in January, focuses through the end of the next decade on returning humans to the Moon, as a prelude for eventual manned missions to Mars and beyond. At the Return to the Moon conference, though, several people suggested that NASA, in its long-running desire to send humans to Mars, may be shortchanging its lunar exploration plans.
Spudis, for example, noted that unnamed NASA officials have suggested doing a “touch-and-go” on the Moon, landing humans there for a minimum amount of time before turning the agency’s attention on to Mars. “The thought here is that if we spend a lot of money on the Moon, we won’t have the money to go to Mars later. Because their goal is to go to Mars, we’ll do a touch-and-go,” he said. “The only problem with that is that’s not what the President said.”
“We use the Moon to go to Mars by touching down, and then saying, ‘did that’, and on to Mars,” warned Mendell.
Spudis also said another NASA official claimed the agency needed an “exit strategy” for the Moon. “Why do we need an exit strategy? Because the real goal is Mars,” Spudis recounted. “So if you go the Moon, and you do things on the Moon, you have to figure out a way to say, ‘we’re done, we’re leaving the Moon.’”
“That’s not the point,” Spudis said, sounding a bit exasperated. “The point is to use the Moon to enable voyages elsewhere. And plus, I dare say, we have a few things we might be able to do on the Moon as well. It is an interesting place in its own right.”

Not what the President said? The president made one short speech many months ago. And now we are parsing his words like an oracle at Delphi or "the Great Oz" - - what did he mean?

Heh! Why won't he just tell us? :;):

Anyways - - - Why is "Moon vs Mars" the President's sole call to make? Aren't we a nation where important decisions are made after public debate? Where and when was the public debate on Moon vs Mars?

If the goal is political sustainability, the decision making process must be open and broadly owned.

clark · 2004-07-26 09:24:36

The Great OZ speaks! Do not look behind the curtain!

So my fine feathered would-be Martian friend, what did Bush say? Mars or the Moon?

If you chose one of the above, you would be wrong. He didn't say either.

The Space Vision isn't about the Moon. It isn't about Mars. It's isn't about any particular spot in the heavens. It's about all of the heavens (something we tend to filter out to suit our own personal view).

Now, I know, and you know, going to the Moon dosen't really help in a dedicated Mars mission, right? It's not supposed to.

It's supposed to teach us new skills, give us an immediate goal to work towards, so that on the day after, we can go further than the Moon. Anywhere. Everywhere.

Not just Mars.

This is why every space advocacy group should get on board. This is the first step to go anywhere that we dream.

The goal is space exploration sustainability. Not flag and footprints (which is what you get with a single goal oriented space exploration archietecture).

SpaceNut · 2004-07-26 09:25:13

I agree with you BWhite, the silence has been deafening with regards to the vision that Bush spoke of in January of this year. Not only from the stand point of content but also from that of providing adequate funding to even start. A shell game never works with shuffling of funds for long term goals.

Why not get the much needed opinions of the voters onto the constitutional ballots some how as to the direction that the people want the space exploration to take and how fast.

BWhite · 2004-07-26 09:28:35

Of course we should all get on board.

My point is that Paul Spudis is harming the effort by asserting that people are not being loyal to the "Bush vision" - - - but its not about the Bush vision, its about a vision America adopts by consensus.

clark · 2004-07-26 09:37:23

My point is that Paul Spudis is harming the effort by asserting that people are not being loyal to the "Bush vision" - - - but its not about the Bush vision, its about a vision America adopts by consensus.

If you undermining the basis of the "vision" by suggesting that we do not go to the Moon, then it leads one to question where we should go? Mars? An asteroid? How does either really enable us to go anywhere else in the solar system?

American's don't care where we go in particular. You ask them Moon, Mars, or an asteroid, and they don't care. There is a general acceptance that exploration is good- but one over the other? Most don't care.

We may not go to Mars after the Moon, we may go to Europa, or Venus, or any number of other destinations. That isn't spelled out. That is where we develop the consensus. But we have to agree to go on this first step. We can decide later how long we want to stay there, and in what way. Spudis is just weighing in on the value of doing the Moon in a big way.

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-26 09:59:00

Another point to consider, building on clark's assertion that most Americans don't care where we go, which is probably true to a large extent. The reasons for manned space flight are really somewhat shaky from a political standpoint. Space-based industry just doesn't fly. No pun intended. Exploration and general science... not cutting it. Not that many people get excited enough about spectral analysis of Mars rocks to want to spend billions to send people to do more tests on Mars rocks.

Finally, there's the whole "settlement, vision for the future" thing. To far too many people, it's perceived as loony. In a republic, this is a problem. No amount of harping on the benefits of off-world colonies or visions of a spacefaring society are going to amass a majority.

Enter the Moon. It's close, so we can have near-realtime contact with anything going on there. Cargo, personnel and structures arrive quickly after launch, compressing the timeframe of any given operation into the attention span of the average citizen. The moon has been 'done' before, so it's an easy sell. So we do some science, crack open some moon rocks, maybe set up a telescope or two. But that's incidental, if we can build on the Moon and have significant numbers of people residing on the Moon for appreciable lengths of time, then the whole "vision thing" of Mars missions and space colonies looks a lot less loony.

All the universe or nothing.

BWhite · 2004-07-26 09:59:59

My point is that Paul Spudis is harming the effort by asserting that people are not being loyal to the "Bush vision" - - - but its not about the Bush vision, its about a vision America adopts by consensus.
If you undermining the basis of the "vision" by suggesting that we do not go to the Moon, then it leads one to question where we should go? Mars? An asteroid? How does either really enable us to go anywhere else in the solar system?
American's don't care where we go in particular. You ask them Moon, Mars, or an asteroid, and they don't care. There is a general acceptance that exploration is good- but one over the other? Most don't care.
We may not go to Mars after the Moon, we may go to Europa, or Venus, or any number of other destinations. That isn't spelled out. That is where we develop the consensus. But we have to agree to go on this first step. We can decide later how long we want to stay there, and in what way. Spudis is just weighing in on the value of doing the Moon in a big way.

We form that consensus by rational debate and discussion, not because "the President said so" - - "I'm the Mom, that's WHY!" doesn't work well with my children. :;):

The Moon as a test bed? A place to practice living in space?Absolutely.

The Moon as a source of resources to make going farther easier? Nah. Waste of time and money. Lunar rocket fuel will be waaaay over priced given $1100 per pound Zenit launches. Add a tug and Terran rocket fuel can be delivered to L1 for less than lunar rocket fuel can be delivered there.

Go to the Moon first, but only with equipment and architecture that is capable of going farther.

clark · 2004-07-26 10:02:13

Bill, what Cobra said.

But that's incidental, if we can build on the Moon and have significant numbers of people residing on the Moon for appreciable lengths of time, then the whole "vision thing" of Mars missions and space colonies looks a lot less loony.

Proof of concept so we all don't seem so deranged, 'k?

Commodore · 2004-07-26 10:05:11

Both the Moon and Mars will play a vital, though different, role in our future. We have to be on both.

Using the Moon as a dress rehersal site for eventual operations on Mars will give us the expertise we need, cause Houston can't help on Mars.

It will also advance our position on Luna.

BWhite · 2004-07-26 10:05:29

Finally, there's the whole "settlement, vision for the future" thing. To far too many people, it's perceived as loony. In a republic, this is a problem. No amount of harping on the benefits of off-world colonies or visions of a spacefaring society are going to amass a majority.

I disagree with the camel's nose theory. "Slip the nose udner the tent and sooner or later you will get the whole thing."

The goal is settlement. In that recent poll, 29% said the #1 reason for going into space was that was in our nature to do so. That can only mean to go to stay. No tangible economic benefit, an aspirational benefit.

Mars supports life far easier than the Earth because there is so much that need not be imported.

= = =

Moon versus Mars?

The only sensible answer IMHO is BOTH! - - ASAP.

BWhite · 2004-07-26 10:10:31

Both the Moon and Mars will play a vital, though different, role in our future. We have to be on both.
Using the Moon as a dress rehersal site for eventual operations on Mars will give us the expertise we need, cause Houston can't help on Mars.
It will also advance our position on Luna.

Exactly! What lunar settlers will need is water.

Water is a terrific radiation shield, far better than regolith. Whether there is ANY appreciable luanr water is unknow.

=IF= Phobos has water (and its asserted there is evidence of ice) then shipping Phobos water to Luna takes far less energy than shipping Terran water to Luna.

Opening both places together will make both easier. Mars will export more to Luna than the reverse.

clark · 2004-07-26 10:21:25

The goal is settlement. In that recent poll, 29% said the #1 reason for going into space was that was in our nature to do so. That can only mean to go to stay. No tangible economic benefit, an aspirational benefit.

I think you're seeing what you want Bill... Just because they agree it is in our nature to explore, dosen't mean that they agree we should go and stay.

There is no tangible economic benefit to exploration other than the hope that there will be some unknown opportunity found at the end of the day.

Mars supports life far easier than the Earth because there is so much that need not be imported.

And it is a lot harder to get to, and it takes an inordinate amount of intital infrastructure and capital to make it habitable- just like the Moon. And that's assuming that we can really make a go of living in space like we all imagine.

Mars will export more to Luna than the reverse.

Which creates an economic incentive to go to Mars to supply an exsisting Lunar base/whatever.

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-26 10:23:10

I disagree with the camel's nose theory. "Slip the nose udner the tent and sooner or later you will get the whole thing."
The goal is settlement. In that recent poll, 29% said the #1 reason for going into space was that was in our nature to do so. That can only mean to go to stay. No tangible economic benefit, an aspirational benefit.

And were I Dictator of America the propaganda campaign for the settlement of Mars "in the name of humanity and progress" would be thumping at a deafining level. But having to convince the damn voters makes it hard. Aspirational benefits aren't going to sell the project unless it can be shown that we aren't absolutely mad. The great majority, the mob that selects and pressures those who hold the purse strings, won't buy it until they see actual real progress. Build a mining facility and a Pizza Hut on the Moon and the game's afoot. Otherwise, we're saying "please, I know we can do it, give us billions of dollars, a decade and some trust. Please." Laughable.

Moon versus Mars?
The only sensible answer IMHO is BOTH! - - ASAP.

Hey, I agree with you. But then if it were our call it wouldn't be a problem. Damn democratic institutions, unnecessarily complicating matters, slowing everything down. :rant: We're stuck in a bit of a paradox.

BWhite · 2004-07-26 10:37:45

Build a mining facility and a Pizza Hut on the Moon and the game's afoot.

My fear is that the mining facility will BLEED money. What can they possibly export that will cover the cost of building the thing?

Its obviously my own bias, yet I believe the prospect of CHILDREN is the only avenue that will excite the popular imagination. Everything else is boys and their toys.

The Moon to teach us how to settle Mars? Yup. That will sell, IMHO. The Moon as a goal unto itself? Won't sell, IMHO.

Exploration without bearing children is a DEAD END.

Maybe it will take 100 years or more to learn how to have a child safely "out there" - - but if we declare today that the goal is to become spacefaring, I believe there will be popular support for the necessary intermediate steps.

To do the intermediate steps for their own sake is a waste of time and money. And the public won't support it. As we see today.

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-26 10:45:53

Its obviously my own bias, yet I believe the prospect of CHILDREN is the only avenue that will excite the popular imagination. Everything else is boys and their toys.
The Moon to teach us how to settle Mars? Yup. That will sell, IMHO. The Moon as a goal unto itself? Won't sell, IMHO.
Exploration without bearing children is a DEAD END.

Again, you're right, but a bit too optimistic on the political front.

Settlement must be the goal, but it just isn't marketable to the degree required to sustain it. Further, it actively turns off some people. We're fighting a combination of "isn't that a little flaky" and "you want to spend how much for how long so people can live in cans on some other planet!?"

So we need settlement as the goal, but not necessarily an overt, publicly hyped goal. Use smaller, faster goals that further the real one, anything to move things along. If the vast bulk of the population gets it in their heads that we should mine Venus for balloon seeds, go for it. Anything that shows that we can build and work in space. People must believe in settlement not only as a nebulous "cool" thing but as a real, physical blood and iron endeavor. It won't seem real until we prove it.

Palomar · 2004-07-26 11:01:39

Exploration without bearing children is a DEAD END.

*Colonization without children is a dead end.

Not necessarily *exploration.* We need to work on sleeper technology -- you know "lights out" ala a life-support cocoon (with or without biofluid supoort) and you wake up 6 months later...

Ah well. :-\

--Cindy

BWhite · 2004-07-26 11:03:42

Its obviously my own bias, yet I believe the prospect of CHILDREN is the only avenue that will excite the popular imagination. Everything else is boys and their toys.
The Moon to teach us how to settle Mars? Yup. That will sell, IMHO. The Moon as a goal unto itself? Won't sell, IMHO.
Exploration without bearing children is a DEAD END.
Again, you're right, but a bit too optimistic on the political front.

And I think this underestimates the common sense of the average American. A typical failing for those with fascist leanings, who believe society's betters need to take control and lead the way.

:;):

Besides, the current way isn't working very well now is it? The House funding fiasco is an all Republican FUBAR.

Imagine Democratic glee when the President proposes a Moon base that will bleed money so some scientist geeks can play explorer?

And with the affordable, slow and steady approach, combined with Boeing and Lockmart "cost plus" contracting, the lead private conractors have substantial incentive to make sure exploration takes as long as humanly possible.

Good ole' human nature at work.

= = =

The goal is settlement. Slow, steady, affordable steps yet the goal must be clearly articulated otherwise there is no Vision to support.

BWhite · 2004-07-26 11:08:15

Exploration without bearing children is a DEAD END.
*Colonization without children is a dead end.
Not necessarily *exploration.* We need to work on sleeper technology -- you know "lights out" ala a life-support cocoon (with or without biofluid supoort) and you wake up 6 months later...
Ah well. :-\
--Cindy

No settlement? (Colonization is too non-PC for me) Send robots.

Its cheaper and safer and besides, whats the rush?

= = =

Now, to settle BEFORE the Chinese do or before the asteroid or nuclear war or global warming wipes us out, okay now I see a reason to hurry.

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-26 11:21:36

And I think this underestimates the common sense of the average American. A typical failing for those with fascist leanings, who believe society's betters need to take control and lead the way.

Sometimes you need to lead people to where they want to be but don't want to go. A space program geared toward settlement will need more than a noble vision, it will need clear and regular progress and some excitement along the way. We'll need to romanticize it.

And who better than fascist-leaning cynical expansionists to make seizing and taming new territory seem romantic and noble? :laugh:

And with the affordable, slow and steady approach, combined with Boeing and Lockmart "cost plus" contracting, the lead private conractors have substantial incentive to make sure exploration takes as long as humanly possible.
Good ole' human nature at work.

Slow and steady is a problem, but announcing a comprehensive multi-decade, multi-trillion dollar program with the stated intent of settling space has a very real danger of falling flat on its face, stopping manned spaceflight altogether. Fast but incremental may be the way to go. Reach, build, consolidate, reach...

Let 'settlement' slip into the public consciousness, but don't make it the primary justification. Sell each piece on its own merits, but always keep the big picture in mind. Those that believe in the mission will support it. We can fool the rest day by day.

BWhite · 2004-07-26 11:29:37

Let 'settlement' slip into the public consciousness, but don't make it the primary justification. Sell each piece on its own merits, but always keep the big picture in mind. Those that believe in the mission will support it. We can fool the rest day by day.

Like maybe NASA sells at public auction a 25 year exclusive media deal to cover return to the Moon and on to Mars?

Use the Request for Proposal rules (RFP) to tailor the regulations to minimize sex-ploitation and "Survivor" tendencies and then let the media professionals help shape public opinion.

1978 NBA Finals were on tape delay. 1998 NBA Finals were a jewel in the crown of NBC Sports. Why? Not random luck, media savvy.

= = =

Affordable? Add $20 billion to the exploration budget.

Sustainable? Never get into a political fight with folks who buy their ink by the barrel.

= = =

Edit to add: Had the Appropriations Committee passed the budget for the Vision, I would not be in this mood.

"Trust me" Bush and O'Keefe say. But they seem to be losing the Beltway battle for slipping the funding in real quiet like.

clark · 2004-07-26 11:56:31

Trust me" Bush and O'Keefe say. But they seem to be losing the Beltway battle for slipping the funding in real quiet like.

Why, because some sub-committee chair decided to fund his pet cause to the hilt?

This is the House, in an election year, and we have the House Chair already stating that it won't make it to the floor for a vote. You have the Senate leader declaring that they will put the money (and maybe more) back into their version, and you have a threat of veto.

How do you arrive at the "losing" assessment?

SpaceNut · 2004-07-26 12:16:31

Most of the problem is under VA-HUD. What does that have to do with space? Human resources...

Grypd · 2004-07-26 14:47:51

Frankly what NASA seems to want to do is to do just exploration of the moon and probably mars. This is so called flags and footprints, why, one little quess if mars or somewhere else is colonised and permanent inhabitation created does this not mean a new agency created. A bureau of colony affairs.

so bye bye NASA

Commodore · 2004-07-26 15:06:48

Frankly what NASA seems to want to do is to do just exploration of the moon and probably mars. This is so called flags and footprints, why, one little quess if mars or somewhere else is colonised and permanent inhabitation created does this not mean a new agency created. A bureau of colony affairs.
so bye bye NASA

Thats true. The National Aeronatuics and Space Administration is even now just as focused on Martian geology and astrobiology.

Josh Cryer · 2004-07-27 13:31:09

Wow, great topic!

One word. WATER. The moon is prohibitive because it lacks water in quantity. Period. I think that it would take more fuel to ship water to the moon than it would to ship a transhab (with CELSS even!) to Mars for a perm base.

Mars or bust!

Also.

"Trust me" Bush and O'Keefe say. But they seem to be losing the Beltway battle for slipping the funding in real quiet like.

:up:

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-07-26 09:12:22

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#2 2004-07-26 09:24:36

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#3 2004-07-26 09:25:13

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#4 2004-07-26 09:28:35

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#5 2004-07-26 09:37:23

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#6 2004-07-26 09:59:00

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#7 2004-07-26 09:59:59

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#8 2004-07-26 10:02:13

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#9 2004-07-26 10:05:11

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#10 2004-07-26 10:05:29

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#11 2004-07-26 10:10:31

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#12 2004-07-26 10:21:25

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#13 2004-07-26 10:23:10

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#14 2004-07-26 10:37:45

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#15 2004-07-26 10:45:53

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#16 2004-07-26 11:01:39

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#17 2004-07-26 11:03:42

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#18 2004-07-26 11:08:15

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#19 2004-07-26 11:21:36

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#20 2004-07-26 11:29:37

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#21 2004-07-26 11:56:31

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#22 2004-07-26 12:16:31

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#23 2004-07-26 14:47:51

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#24 2004-07-26 15:06:48

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#25 2004-07-27 13:31:09

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

Board footer