An American On Mars By 2030

[Daedalus]

"The discoveries in one branch of knowledge lead to unexpected discoveries in another; the achievements in one field open countless roads in all the others. The space exploration program, for instance, has led to invaluable advances in medicine. Who can predict when, where or how a given bit of information will strike an active mind and what it will produce?" Ayn Rand,

The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution

, p. 286

I know that many Objectivists share my enthusiasm for the Manned Mission to Mars (MMM) that President Bush announced in 2004. In this heroic endeavor a crew of U.S. astronauts will journey to Mars and back over a period of 500 days. It is a daring risk, but one that we must take. Not only will it provide a jaded world with a vision of man at his best, it will inevitably yield a bonanza of technological advances as a byproduct.

An overview of the project can be found at http://www.marsnews.com/missions/humans_to_mars/

The Wikipedia has an excellent summary of the plans for Crew Exploration Vehicle, the next generation of U.S. spacecraft, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Exploration_Vehicle

Edited February 21, 2006 by Daedalus

[DavidV]

I’m all for a (private) mission to Mars, but the Manned Mission to Mars is nothing more than a PR stunt, without any funding, technology, or meaningful purpose.

[Daedalus]

I’m all for a (private) mission to Mars, but the Manned Mission to Mars is nothing more than a PR stunt, without any funding, technology, or meaningful purpose.

Well, I think it can be morally appropriate for the government to fund a space program. As Ayn Rand wrote, a taxpayer financed NASA is not proper "except insofar as space projects involve military aspects, in which case, and to that extent, it is not merely proper, but mandatory." I for one believe that placing colonies on the moon and Mars can have enormous military benefits, in terms of capturing strategic high ground and fostering techological fallout.

Nor do I believe that MMM is a PR stunt -- any more than the Apollo Program was. Funding and technology? There were not enough funds and know-how when Kennedy first announced we were going to the moon. But over the next eight years the means came into existence, and on July 20, 1969 Neil Armstrong touched the lunar sands. As for "purpose," what was the purpose of going to the moon? Ayn Rand could tell you:

"We do not have to have a mixed economy, we still have a chance to change our course and thus to survive. But if we do continue down the road of a mixed economy, then let them pour all the millions and billions they can into the space program. If the United States is to commit suicide, let it not be for the sake and support of the worst human elements, the parasites-on-principle, at home and abroad. Let it not be its only epitaph that it died paying its enemies for its own destruction. Let some of its lifeblood go to the support of achievement and the progress of science. The American flag on the moon—or on Mars, or on Jupiter—will, at least, be a worthy monument to what had once been a great country." Ayn Rand, "Apollo 11," The Objectivist, Sept., 1969

[DrBaltar]

I know that many Objectivists share my enthusiasm for the Manned Mission to Mars (MMM) that President Bush announced in 2004. In this heroic endeavor a crew of U.S. astronauts will journey to Mars and back over a period of 500 days. It is a daring risk, but one that we must take. Not only will it provide a jaded world with a vision of man at his best, it will inevitably yield a bonanza of technological advances as a byproduct.

As someone in the biz, I am definately in favor of it. I've been waiting for the day that a president would announce (and mean it) a manned mission to Mars since the early 70s when the president and congress pulled the plug on the greatest endeavour in the history of man, just when we were getting good at it. At first I wasn't too excited about going back to the Moon to get to Mars. I wanted Mars to be a stepping stone to Europa But I understand the reasoning now. A manned Mars mission is orders of magnitude beyond anything we've ever done. It's over 500 days in space and on Mars. The light travel time will be 20-40 minutes. There will be almost a 2 week period, when Mars is on the opposite side of the Sun where communication will not be possible. The crew will have to take on many of the roles of mission control. Plus there will be many technical challenges. And yes there will be many spin-offs from this. So we have a lot of learning to do, and the Moon is the place to do it. We have to learn to live off the land, and not try and take everything with us. That will vastly extend our reach in space and lower the cost.

It's more than a PR stunt. We're not going to spend 500 days on Mars just to plant a flag. There is a lot of science that can be done there, and a lot of capability that we can develop. There could have been some type of life there that we can study. Or Mars can become humanity's 2nd planet. I see this as an evolutionary step in the big picture of mankind.

And you're right about funding GC. I hope Nasa has learned not to expect much support from Congress. It's hard enough prying that .7% of the US's budget from their fingers (yeah Nasa's share is really that small). Some of the plans being discussed when we go to the Moon are to develop a small payload of tools and machinery to take to the Moon, which can be used to make other tools and machinery on the Moon, which can be used to make more and more infrastructure on the Moon. The number of things produced like this will be small at first, but then, like compound interest, its returns grow at a geometric rate. I just hope enough infrastructure will be in place so that when congress cuts our budget (not if, but when) we will be able to continue without their tenuous support.... or at least with as little as possible.

Nor do I believe that MMM is a PR stunt -- any more than the Apollo Program was. Funding and technology? There were not enough funds and know-how when Kennedy first announced we were going to the moon. But over the next eight years the means came into existence, and on July 20, 1969 Neil Armstrong touched the lunar sands.

The Moon landings were almost entirely for political reasons. Yes many technical hurdles were overcome, there were many very valuable spinoffs, and important science was gained. But the reason at the time for going to the Moon was to show the world we could beat the Russians.

[D'kian]

I know that many Objectivists share my enthusiasm for the Manned Mission to Mars (MMM) that President Bush announced in 2004.

Credit where it's due: Bush came up with a good basis for the long-term colonization of the Solar System, not merely a manned mission to Mars.

I'd be a great deal more enthusiastic about it were it not for NASA. Since Apollo, NASA has been little more than one great disappointment after another in the area of manned flights. The Shuttle, after all, was supposed to make space travel cheaper and nearly routine. Instead it's ht emost expensive launch vehicle ever conceived.

I admit some of the problems with the Shuttle were not predictable. Therefore I won't bring them up. But some factors that added to the overall operating were predicted. Overall, in true bureaucratic fashion, immediate lower development costs were preferred to long-term higher operating costs. A range of the moment mentality indeed.

That actually gives me the shivers when thinking what the bureaucracy will do to the propposed Lunar and Martian ships.

It was the bureaucrats, too, who disregarded again and again the engineers' warnings about Challenger and Columbia. Even after NASA knew a big piece of foam had struck Columbia's wing, efforts to gauge the dammage were quashed (reading about it reminded me of the tunnel sequence in AS).

As for the Space Station, I find it too depresing to even argue about it.

On the plus side, a better kind of space industry is taking its first steps. There's Burt Ruttan and Richard Branson, of course, but there are others, too. Elon Musk, an internet millionaire, founded Space X, which is nearing its first orbital launch (unmanned, but you have to start somewhere):

http://www.spacex.com/

One of Space X's clients is Bigelow Aerospace, owned by motel magnate Robert bigelow. This company is developing, and building, short-term space habitat modules. It also set up America's Space Prize, which will award $50 million for two consecutive manned orbital flights.

http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/

Transformational space, set up by a former NASA engineer, is working with NASA to produce a backup for the new CEV. This company has some innovative ideas for cheaper launch vehicles.

http://www.transformspace.com/

And there are more.

In the short term, NASA could probably reach Mars first. But what will NASA, and the US government, do once they plant the flag, take the pictures, collect the samples and return home? We know what they did once they achieved such things on the Moon.

In the long term, private businesses are out to amke a profit. Space, potentially, can be very profitable. From an abundance of resources, to an abundance of living space (or space than can be made livable, to be precise), to the myriad technological and scientific possibilities inherent in weightlesness, vaccum, temperature extremes, and other conditions easily accessible in the Moon, on Mars, and in orbit, the potential is tremendous.

In the long term, the descendants of the colonists who journey out to Mars, the Moon, the asteroids, the moons of the gas giants, and maybe even to Venus and Mercury, will reap huge profits. They will have literally created whole new worlds. They will have expanded the sphere within which Human beings may live. They will have taken barren lands, chunks of rock, and made them bloom.

But I don't see that happening at all if we let government lead the way, rather than follow along.

We do need government action in space. For one thing, we know how important clear property right are. There are international treaties that barr ownership of the Moon (at least). But there are also treaties aportioning spaces in geostationary orbits for palcement of comsats.

The US government ought to take the lead in setting up simialr treaties establishing the right of private individuals and businesses to own property on the Moon, Mars and elsewhere. This is not an urgent matter, but it should warrant at least a resolution to make this American policy.

Without such guarantees, everything would become much more difficult. I don't foresee America, much less anyone else, sending marshalls to enforce a ban on private proeprties on Mars. But I can see Treasury Agents, or the IRS, seizing the assets in America of companies claiming to own properties on Mars, likewise other governments in other parts of the world.

Let government do what it is supposed to do, and stay out of the way of everythign else.

[tnunamak]

And you're right about funding GC. I hope Nasa has learned not to expect much support from Congress. It's hard enough prying that .7% of the US's budget from their fingers (yeah Nasa's share is really that small).

That small? Am I the only one who thinks it is ridiculous that for every $1000 I pay in taxes, $7 goes to NASA? What benefit do I get from watching someone walk around on the moon, or from seeing pretty pictures of galaxies thousands of light years away? And how many times has NASA failed when a private program would have used some common sense and avoided the problem(s)? And if it all justified because of possible military benefits, I just cannot see how spending billions on various space explorations can compare to putting that money directly into the military. By the time NASA finds anything useful for the military that would justify the billions of dollars that are being poured into it every year, private companies will be miles ahead and the entire effort will have been in vain. Just give those companies a little time, when there is really something to be gained by space exploration, someone will recognize it and take advantage of it themself.

[Daedalus]

Am I the only one who thinks it is ridiculous that for every $1000 I pay in taxes, $7 goes to NASA? What benefit do I get from watching someone walk around on the moon, or from seeing pretty pictures of galaxies thousands of light years away?

You get the benefit of knowing that some of your lifeblood went to the "support of achievement and the progress of science." Of course, it would be wonderful if we lived under laissez faire and the private sector did it all. But we don't.

I agree with Ayn Rand. As long as we "continue down the road of a mixed economy, then let them pour all the millions and billions they can into the space program."

The more, the better, I say.

[DrBaltar]

I'd be a great deal more enthusiastic about it were it not for NASA. Since Apollo, NASA has been little more than one great disappointment after another in the area of manned flights. The Shuttle, after all, was supposed to make space travel cheaper and nearly routine. Instead it's ht emost expensive launch vehicle ever conceived.

Don't be so quick to blame Nasa. Nasa had some great plans to utilize the resources on the Moon (including huge cost saving measures like living off the land) after Apollo. It wasn't Nasa who cancelled these plans, it was the president and/or congress.

Nasa had plans to go beyond the Moon. What happened to them? They were never approved.

Nasa proposed a manned Mars mission after Apollo to Nixon. The plan would involve a space station to study long duration missions in space, and to assemble the Mars rocket. The space station required cheap, frequent heavy lift capability to build - the Space Shuttle. Nixon said 'No' to a manned Mars mission, and 'No' to a space station, and 'Yes' to the Space Shuttle. This was just crazy. So a space shuttle was built without a destination or purpose.

Why is the Space Shuttle so expensive? Because of budget cuts by congress. Efforts to design the shuttle so that it was truly reusable, and easily maintained were halted because the development costs were rising. So it was just built based on an unfinished design. Because of the Shuttle's bad design, it was not completely reusable, and required a standing army of workers to maintain it. Some of these design compromises were responsible for the lives of 14 astronauts.

Eventually Regan approved the 2nd part of Nasa's plan for a manned Mars mission, again without the Mars mission. He approved the development of the space station. Congress aproved it... then, as always, they started to change their mind. They lowered funding for the space station, which required Nasa to go back and redesign it. This costs money, and Nasa was again over budget, which caused Congress to lower the budget again, etc... Congress almost cancelled the space station, but Clinton's administration got the Russians involved as some kind of a good-will effort so Congress gave it another chance. Working with the Russians caused more delays and funding problems that were outside our control. At least the shuttle had a purpose, but without a MMM, the space station was useless.

Finally, with Bush's direction in 2004, there is a long-term exploration strategy in place. This greatly cuts down on the waste because now there's an overall goal.

I admit some of the problems with the Shuttle were not predictable. Therefore I won't bring them up.

Actually they were predicable.

In 1990, the White House chartered a blue-ribbon committee chaired by Augustine to conduct a sweeping review of Nasa and its programs in response to Shuttle problems and the flawed mirror on the Hubble Space Telescope. The review found that Nasa's budget was inadequate for all the programs the agency was executing, saying that "Nasa is currently over committed in terms of program obligations relative to resources available - in short it is trying to do too much, and allowing too little margin for the unexpected". "A reinvigorated space program," the Augustine committee went on to say, "will require real growth in the Nasa budget of approximately 10 percent per year (through the year 2000) reaching a peak spending level of about $30 billion per year (in constant 1990 dollars) by about the year 2000." Translated into the actual dollars of Fiscal Year 2000, that recommendation would have meant a Nasa budget of over $40 billion; the actual Nasa budget for that year was $13.6 billion. During the past decade, neither the White House nor Congress has been interested in a reinvigorated space program. Instead, the goal has been a program that would continue to produce valuable scientific and symbolic payoffs for the nation without a need for increased budgets. Recent budget allocations reflect this continuing policy reality. Between 1993 and 2002, the government's discretionary spending grew in purchasing power by more than 25 percent, defense spending by 15 percent, and non-defense spending by 40 percent. Nasa's budget, in comparison, showed little change, going from $14.31 billion in FY 1993 to a low of $13.6 billion in FY 2000, and increasing to $14.87 billion in FY 2002. This represented a loss of 13 percent in purchasing power over the decade.

The loss of purchasing power meant that Nasa had to live with less flexibility, and not doing as many safety inspections and studies as needed.

On the plus side, a better kind of space industry is taking its first steps. There's Burt Ruttan and Richard Branson, of course, but there are others, too. Elon Musk, an internet millionaire, founded Space X, which is nearing its first orbital launch (unmanned, but you have to start somewhere)

Yes, there are these new industries. They seem to regard Nasa as the enemy. We follow their accomplishments very closely and want to celebrate with them. When I saw Space Ship-One take off and get the X-Prize I thought that was incredible, and felt like this was like Charles Lindberg all over again, who was the precursor for regular trans-atlantic flights for the average citizen. Nasa wants people like Ruttan to succeed. But there are endevours, like going to the Moon or Mars, that are too expensive, and too big of a project for private industry to take on without hope of profit somewhere on the horizon. That's where Nasa comes in.

In the short term, NASA could probably reach Mars first. But what will NASA, and the US government, do once they plant the flag, take the pictures, collect the samples and return home? We know what they did once they achieved such things on the Moon.

Nasa has been waiting over 30 years for the chance to do this again. What we can do is limited not by our imaginations, but by Congress.

What benefit do I get from watching someone walk around on the moon...

Nasa hired a small contractor called International Business Machines to develop computers to be used for the moon program. Affordable personal computers resulted from the investment that Nasa made to IBM. That's just one of many benefitial spinoffs. If you're interested in more, you can use one of those personal computers to Google some more spinoffs.

[D'kian]

Don't be so quick to blame Nasa. Nasa had some great plans to utilize the resources on the Moon (including huge cost saving measures like living off the land) after Apollo. It wasn't Nasa who cancelled these plans, it was the president and/or congress.

I know. Congress even cancelled several planned Lunar landings.

But that's the point. A government cannot be counted on to lead a multi-decade project with clear goals and objectives. Particularly not if the program happens to be unpopular. And between short attention spans and altruism, the Apollo program went from top to bottom in months.

Hundreds of millions of people saw Neil Armstrong set foot on the Moon. How many do you figure saw Alan Shephard do so with Apollo XII? And remember the phrase "We can out a man on the Moon, but we cannot end poverty"? Or other such garbage (except for Larry niven's cynical take by the mid-70s "We can put a man on the Moon, but we can't put a man on the Moon.")

What government will press the case for expanding space exploration and exploitation, when beset by more altruistic claims for endless welfare expenditures? Particularly when the polls tell them people yawn at the prospect of more Lunar landings.

Using the Moon for resources, and as a launch base (I do wonder if a maglev launcher could hurl a manned craft all the way to Mars), makes Mars a great deal more easily attainable. Thus it makes perfect sense to go back to the Moon on the way to mars. Yet Bush's plan for doing so drew criticism on the grounds that "We've already been to the Moon."

Because of the Shuttle's bad design, it was not completely reusable, and required a standing army of workers to maintain it. Some of these design compromises were responsible for the lives of 14 astronauts.

True. But doesn't this mean what NASA got was, in effect, an experimental craft? It then made sense to build one (rather than five), possibly two, fly it and see how it performed and how it could be improved. But again we crash headlong into the government bureaucracy barrier. Had NASA proceeded more rationally, funding would have been cut off.

At least the shuttle had a purpose, but without a MMM, the space station was useless.

Largely so. A lot of the work done by the crew could as easily be automated and launched in many small satellites instead. Except, of course, for the actual buidling and maintenance of the station. I hope the experienc egained will amount to somethig in the future. But other than that I've very little good to say about the space station.

Finally, with Bush's direction in 2004, there is a long-term exploration strategy in place. This greatly cuts down on the waste because now there's an overall goal.

I agree. And if Congress, or even future administrations, allow something ressembling half of Bush's plan to exist by 2030, I'd regard it as a major triumph.

Yes, there are these new industries. They seem to regard Nasa as the enemy.

I think mostly they regard NASA as old*fashioned, bureaucratic and ossified. They may view it with some trepidation, too, that it will become an obstacle to their aspirations. Still, some, like T-Space, work directly with NASA.

When I saw Space Ship-One take off and get the X-Prize I thought that was incredible, and felt like this was like Charles Lindberg all over again, who was the precursor for regular trans-atlantic flights for the average citizen.

I've been a fan of Rutan since Voyager in the 80s. I was overjoyed to see Spaceship One suceed (and a little disappointed that Rutan wasn't a passenger on the second X-prize flight). And yet I was most interested in the hybrid engine and the re-entry system he devised. NASA has been talking about solid/liquid hybrids for a long time, and here was Rutan quietly developing one on his own. Amazing.

But there are endevours, like going to the Moon or Mars, that are too expensive, and too big of a project for private industry to take on without hope of profit somewhere on the horizon.

True. The short-term profit outlook for space is very limited. After all, there is already an industry that launches satellites, sells satellite imagery and operates satellites. Low Earth Orbit is a crowded marketplace, except as far as manned trips go. So the visionaries right now envision sub- and orbital tourism.

But give it time. They will soon realize there is a great deal more to do out there, and a great deal more to space than LEO. Tourism, particularly at the outset, is not as big, or as profitable, a market as mining or mannufacturing.

Consider a trip to Mars. How much cheaper would it be if someone developed a constant-thrust, nuclear engine? Can you conceive of a government agency tackle somethign so controversial? Of course, my outlook may be wrong. Resistance against nuclear power is dropping.

[DrBaltar]

But that's the point. A government cannot be counted on to lead a multi-decade project with clear goals and objectives. Particularly not if the program happens to be unpopular. And between short attention spans and altruism, the Apollo program went from top to bottom in months.

True. Somehow Nasa needs to be funded like the military. You don't see Congress reconsidering year after year if they should cut military programs. Well, to some extent, but not like you see with Nasa. Nasa's problem has always been that it competes with money for HUD and veterans. No congressman wants to be seen as taking money away from those things. So Nasa has been in a bad position. I think Tom DeLay changed that though, which would be great if that's true. And Sen. Huchinson passed some bills for sustained Nasa funding for several years.

Using the Moon for resources, and as a launch base (I do wonder if a maglev launcher could hurl a manned craft all the way to Mars), makes Mars a great deal more easily attainable. Thus it makes perfect sense to go back to the Moon on the way to mars. Yet Bush's plan for doing so drew criticism on the grounds that "We've already been to the Moon."

Yeah, but it's the right thing to do. A maglev launcher could hurl a craft to Mars. But you could also harvest rocket fuel from the minerals on the Moon. I went to a talk, and there's a lot of other things you can get from the moon too. There's a lot of calcium there. It turns out calcium makes better wires than copper. And you can make solar cells from lunar regolith. There may also be ice deposits on the lunar south pole. Plus the deuterium for fusion that everyone talks about.

True. But doesn't this mean what NASA got was, in effect, an experimental craft? It then made sense to build one (rather than five), possibly two, fly it and see how it performed and how it could be improved. But again we crash headlong into the government bureaucracy barrier. Had NASA proceeded more rationally, funding would have been cut off.

Aircraft are considered experimental until they have flown hundreds of test flights. It would take forever to gain that kind of experience with the shuttle. And to build one, see how it does, then build others would be very difficult and expensive. You'd have to create an industry to build shuttles that would stay in place for decades if you build one at a time.

Largely so. A lot of the work done by the crew could as easily be automated and launched in many small satellites instead. Except, of course, for the actual buidling and maintenance of the station. I hope the experienc egained will amount to somethig in the future. But other than that I've very little good to say about the space station.

Before 2004, the space station essentially had no real purpose other than PR. Now it is used to learn how to live in space for long durations, such as would be required for crews on their way to Mars. They have made a lot of progress. After spending 6-9 months on the space station, crews are actually stronger than when they arrived on the station.

I've been a fan of Rutan since Voyager in the 80s. I was overjoyed to see Spaceship One suceed (and a little disappointed that Rutan wasn't a passenger on the second X-prize flight). And yet I was most interested in the hybrid engine and the re-entry system he devised. NASA has been talking about solid/liquid hybrids for a long time, and here was Rutan quietly developing one on his own. Amazing.

I'm a longtime fan too. His design for re-entry is ingenious. No matter what orientation it re-enters, it automatically rights itself to the optimal orientation for re-entry. However, it won't work for re-entry from orbit. At 18000 mph, those wings will rip off. He'll have to come up with another method if he wants to do more than go up and down. And perhaps he will.

But give it time. They will soon realize there is a great deal more to do out there, and a great deal more to space than LEO. Tourism, particularly at the outset, is not as big, or as profitable, a market as mining or mannufacturing.

That would be great. More power to them.

Consider a trip to Mars. How much cheaper would it be if someone developed a constant-thrust, nuclear engine? Can you conceive of a government agency tackle somethign so controversial? Of course, my outlook may be wrong. Resistance against nuclear power is dropping.

Nasa is working on that. It's called VASIMR. Unfortunately, it's not funded like it should be. But it would cut the transit time to Mars down to 3 months. But for that kind of thrust it would require a 100 megawatt power source on the spacecraft. That's not doable yet. VASIMR has other potential benefits. The magnetic field it creates could shield the crew from radiation.

[softwareNerd]

That small? Am I the only one who thinks it is ridiculous that for every $1000 I pay in taxes, $7 goes to NASA?

No, you're not the only one. The government has not business paying for NASA. If there's a defence interest, change NASA's mission to focus exclusively on defence related things.

If I had to choose, I'd rather my $7 go to NASA than to a whole listy of other things. However, I'd rather have it back.

[DavidV]

I don’t want to get into a long debate, but there are several serious misconceptions that I want to correct.

First, we should realize that the entire NASA budget is stolen from the taxpayers. Even to the extent that some of the spending is for military uses, it is still stolen from us.

Second, we should recognize that given the fact that is stolen money, there are both better and worse uses for the money used to fund NASA. It would be worse to use it for welfare programs. It would be better to use it for (for example) taking out Islamist regimes.

Just because there are worse uses for NASA money doesn’t mean that NASA’s funds are the best use of taxpayer funds - in fact, very little of the budget is used for military purposes - the military use of space is handled mostly by the Air Force, not NASA. NASA is involved because the space shuttle and NASA-developed launchers have been used to launch Air-Force satellites.

Third, investing trillions of dollars into ANY program is going to produce some kind of meaningful contribution to human knowledge. In that sense, of course NASA has produced new technology. But the important question is - what technologies and innovations have been lost to us because the investment funds were stolen from us? We will never know.

Fourth, NASA is a threat to meaningful space exploration. As already explained above, NASA is incapable of meaningfully pursuing any program for an extended period, even if we take pure scientific knowledge as a goal. They failed to follow up on the moon program, they largely failed to follow up on Hubble (we can build a telescope 100 times better for a fraction of the cost, if the democratic whim allowed it.) Only private investment is capable of exploiting space in a way that produces a net gain to human values (by definition of being voluntary enterprises) and sustaining it in the long term via a capital base. To the extent that markets successfully exploit space, the state will eventually perceive them as a competitive threat. The FAA is already trying to get a regulative jump on space flight. The federal government and various states are superficially trying to attract space ports – but this kind of favoritism will only be destructive.

In short, NASA is a huge waste, its programs are largely failures, and its existence is a threat to meaningfully exploiting space.

Furthermore, I don’t believe that serious (orbital) private space flight is feasible given the political state of our society. It’s too dangerous and long-term a project for our corrupt legal system to allow.

[hunterrose]

I know that many Objectivists share my enthusiasm for the Manned Mission to Mars (MMM) that President Bush announced in 2004.

I'm mixed. Being a space nut, I'm geeked by any such thing. And while I'm theoretically against government funding, I love the accomplishments made so far. If they do the MMM (gov'ts aren't known for consistent long-term plans,) I'll be rooting for success. But wouldn't it be more advantageous, if this money's going to be spent into space anyway, for NASA to focus on improving ships, space liveability, and planetary bases?

On one hand current tech seems undermanned IMO for such a thing, on the other, one can never be perfectly prepared, so if they can do it...

But if we do continue down the road of a mixed economy, then let them pour all the millions and billions they can into the space program. If the United States is to commit suicide... let some of its lifeblood go to the support of achievement and the progress of science."

hmm, interesting point.

..Jupiter? Now that'd be a challenge

Credit where it's due: Bush came up with a good basis for the long-term colonization of the Solar System, not merely a manned mission to Mars.

What are the colonization parts of his plan?

The meek shall inherit the Earth. The rest of us are going to the stars. - Peter Diamandis

omg, I have a new fav quote

There are several serious misconceptions that I want to correct.

I agree mostly, though I particularly question the third one.

[jrs]

Space is an extremely hostile environment. There is no air, water, food, fuel, spare parts, etc.. You are exposed to cosmic radiation and very rapidly moving objects without any shielding by the atmosphere.

Getting into space requires riding on the back of what is essentially a bomb. Returning from space alive requires dissipating an enormous amount of kinetic and potential energy without burning up.

There are no resources in space valuable enough to justify the cost of going there to get them. The only value of space exploration is to satisfy our curiosity.

I do not think that it will be possible to send a man to Mars and bring him back to Earth alive. The trip is simply too long with too many things which can go wrong.

There is no military advantage to space, except for satellites near the Earth.

Sorry, but that is what I think.

[The Wrath]

..Jupiter? Now that'd be a challenge

Especially since it's made of gas and a space shuttle would just fly right through it instead of landing on it.

While I am against taxes and generally do not like NASA, this is one place I would like to see more of our tax dollars go. That is, just so long as they are taken out of bad programs...I wouldn't want military spending decreased to put funds in NASA.

I think that, in many ways, putting a man on Mars would help our country more than military spending. The moon landing was a huge victory over the Soviet Union and served as a major morale booster for this country. I think a Mars landing would help to restore this country's sense of pride and self-worth and it might be more willing to stand up for its values.

[softwareNerd]

I think a Mars landing would help to restore this country's sense of pride and self-worth and it might be more willing to stand up for its values.

Even a multi-billion dollar concrete is just a concrete, not an interpretation. Folks who think America is great might end up with a little more evidence. Those who think America is the great exploiter will say: here we go again, exploiting the world and trying to show off to other countries. Others might be embarrassed that their country is wasting money when the world's poor are starving. The world needs a change of philosophy. Edited February 22, 2006 by softwareNerd

[Felix]

Forget all this "country pride"-stuff. Getting to mars is a brilliant achievement. But I would rather see it being done by a private organisation. This way, the mars landing would actually benefit mankind. What did we get from the moon landing so far? Some nice pictures of our planet. Where is the lunar space station? Where is the benefit to people? The US could have also built a large concrete penis for that money. It would have had the same message: We are so great!

If it was an achievement, what was achieved? Where was the benefit?

Now don't get me wrong. I'm all for exploring space. And I highly respect anyone who makes such things possible. But the only thing that really excites me is the fact that Richard Branson started a space-project. Just like the guy who founded PayPal. That's what I want to see. Profitable space projects. Not another waste of stolen money.

Or as Tom Lehrer put it so eloquently:

To spend 20 Billion Dollars of your money to put some Clown on the moon.

[Daedalus]

I don’t want to get into a long debate, but there are several serious misconceptions that I want to correct.

First, we should realize that the entire NASA budget is stolen from the taxpayers. Even to the extent that some of the spending is for military uses, it is still stolen from us.

You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion, but I agree with Ayn Rand. In defending NASA's landing of men on the moon Rand wrote,

"In judging the effectiveness of the various elements involved in any large-scale undertaking of a mixed economy, one must be guided by the question: which elements were the result of coercion and which the result of freedom? It is not coercion, not the physical force or threat of a gun, that created Apollo 11. The scientists, the technologists, the engineers, the astronauts were free men acting of their own choice. The various parts of the spacecraft were produced by private industrial concerns. Of all human activities, science is the field least amenable to force: the facts of reality do not take orders." ("Apollo 11," The Objectivist, September 1969)

Given that our economy is even more mixed than it was in 1969, it is entirely appropriate for Objectivists to support a robust federal space program, just as Ayn Rand did in her lifetime.

Yes, I agree that we also need to spend more money on taking out Islamist regimes. But why must this be either/or? In the 1960s the United States was able to land a man on the moon and outspend (and eventually) defeat the Soviet Union. Accordingly, there is no reason why we can't have both a successful Manned Mission to Mars and a winning War on Terrorism.

Furthermore, there are valid military reasons to seize the high ground in space. Any nation with permanent bases on the moon is in a unique position to exert military dominance over the earth. Because of its low gravity, the moon provides an ideal launching pad for earth-bound missiles. Sure, we can wait . . . and wait . . . for private industry to colonize the moon, but what if the governments of Russia, China or Saudi Arabia get there first? Pardon my patriotism, but I want us to be first. And as for Mars, what a perfect place for a missile base to guard against asteroids, meteors and comets that may collide with the earth. Zapping them before they hit us is national defense of the highest order. Now, it you think it should be the Air Force, not NASA, doing this, fine. I really don’t care what emblem the Mars lander has, just as long as there’s an American flag and a support our troops ribbon in it.

Sure, it’s possible that some technologies were passed by in the rush to get an American on the moon. But to be honest, I don’t care. The rocket science that came out of the Apollo program was invaluable in developing more sophisticated American weapons systems. As a patriot, I’d much rather have better weapons than better household appliances.

As for NASA being in the doldrums, we can hardly blame the agency for Congress’s lack of funding. Keep in mind that before World War II, the U.S, military was also pathetically weak for the same reason: politicians had criminally neglected it. However, within a single decade, America acquired the greatest fighting force on earth -- and it remains so to this day. We can do the same thing with our space program. Of course, I have no objection to private entrepreneurs going to the moon or Mars, but there is nothing on the horizon to indicate any such thing will happen. Like Columbus’s voyage to American, like the Louisiana Purchase, like the Transcontinental Railroad, like the Panama Canal, sometimes you need government to perform tasks that private industry cannot do on its own.

With any large project, there are bound to be worthless bureaucrats and corrupt contractors. According to a 2003 GAO report, the Army lost track of 56 airplanes, 32 tanks, and 36 Javelin missile command launch-units. But nobody should conclude from that that we don't have a good army. As Secretary Rumsfeld says, "You go to war with the army you have." For all its problems, NASA is the agency that will take us to Mars.

As Ayn Rand wrote, “Of all our government programs, the space program is the cleanest and best.”

Edited February 22, 2006 by Daedalus

[Hal]

Sounds like a waste of time; theres nothing obvious to be gained from having a man walk on Mars. If you want to piss away silly amounts of money into space, moon colonies sound a lot cooler. Funding actual scientific research would obviously be a better idea, however youre unlikely to get that onto the front pages of the newspaper. But then hey, its not my taxes paying for it.

edit: I'm baffled by people who think that US-led colonies anywhere in space are a good idea. As a species, we've pretty much screwed up Earth - the entire planet is ruled by authoritarian governements of various degrees. The US is no exception here - it might be fractionally better than the rest, but not by much. Space colonisation is probably humanity's only real long-term hope of achieving genuine freedom, and why youd want to mess that up by having an irredeemably corrupt regime like the US government in charge of it is beyond me.

Edited February 22, 2006 by Hal

[DrBaltar]

If there were a government program I did not support, I suppose I would feel robbed if I were taxed to support it. But I do support space exploration. And as an egoist I am glad to see tax money going towards space exploration, and I consider many other government programs a waste and robbing Nasa. If Nasa has had failures in the past, it almost always can be attributed to lack of funding. About half the country is also glad to see tax money spent on a MMM.

I fully support the military, and would also like to see the military do more. But I don't believe that money going to Nasa is preventing any attacks on Islamist regimes. A country must not just protect itself, and its interests. It must ensure its long term survivability. I'm not saying that the answer to our long term survivability is in space, but it might be. No need to rehash the benefits of exploration in the 15th and 16th centuries.

Nasa is not a threat to meaningful space exploration. No one is stopping private industry from exploring. If Bill Gates wanted to launch a MMM, he can do so at any time. Paul Allen, previously of Microsoft, has funded Rutan to build Spaceship One. That's great, but it's not exploration. The commercial satellite business is content to have payloads endlessly circling the Earth. If private industry has not gone into the exploration business, it's not because they are not allowed to. They just don't see the return on investment.

From what I see, the average public's objection to Nasa stems from a lack of understanding. Like "why go back to the moon? We've already been there." They don't understand the untapped potential of the Moon. Or:

There are no resources in space valuable enough to justify the cost of going there to get them. The only value of space exploration is to satisfy our curiosity.

So you wouldn't consider enough He3 on the Moon to power the world for the next 1000 years a resource? All the raw materials in the asteroid belt is not a resource? Only the Earth has been "blessed" with resources?

I do not think that it will be possible to send a man to Mars and bring him back to Earth alive. The trip is simply too long with too many things which can go wrong.

There is no military advantage to space, except for satellites near the Earth.

That probably explains why Nasa or the military hasn't been beating on your door for answers on how to send a crew to Mars or to militarize space.

[Felix]

For all its problems, NASA is the agency that will take us to Mars.

As Ayn Rand wrote, “Of all our government programs, the space program is the cleanest and best.”

I strongly disagree. NASA didn't take "us" to the moon. It took Neil Armstrong and a bunch of others there. There was no benefit to those who paid for it nor to anyone else. It would have been better to spend it all on welfare. Then at least the money would have relieved some suffering. Or better, yet: It wasn't collected at all. It was a waste of money. And the mars project will be, too. What better things could have been done with that money, we will never know.

The end doesn't justify the means. And this end isn't worth it at all. Now we have a clown on Mars. Great! How many billions will that cost? Isn't the US in its biggest debt crisis ever already? If I were an American, I would not be able to feel any pride for such a waste of money. I would be ashamed.

[DrBaltar]

I strongly disagree. NASA didn't take "us" to the moon. It took Neil Armstrong and a bunch of others there.

...

It would have been better to spend it all on welfare. Then at least the money would have relieved some suffering.

So you want either a government program which allows access for all to space, and/or welfare? Both these concepts are pretty socialistic. If someone wants to get into space, they can do it. Either by paying their own way, or by putting in the effort to get into the astronaut program. Even if your country does not have a space program, if you are motivated enough, you can get into space. I'm pretty sure that's an Objectivist concept which most people here should be able to identify with.

There was no benefit to those who paid for it nor to anyone else.

There was a benefit to scientists in finding out where the moon came from. There were all the technological spinoffs (like that computer you're using) that were generated. Money went to highly educated people who worked hard to get where they were for a change. It provided inspiration for other forward looking people to make something of themselves.

[Daedalus]

I strongly disagree. NASA didn't take "us" to the moon. It took Neil Armstrong and a bunch of others there.

For those who must take everything literally, I'll revise my statement: NASA took American citizens to the moon.

There was no benefit to those who paid for it nor to anyone else. It would have been better to spend it all on welfare. Then at least the money would have relieved some suffering. Or better, yet: It wasn't collected at all. It was a waste of money. And the mars project will be, too. What better things could have been done with that money, we will never know.

You are entitled to your opinion, but as Ayn Rand said, the money spent on the space program went to the "support of achievement and the progress of science." The space pen and Tang breakfast drink are just two of the many marvelous developments brought about by "our" (pardon the pronoun) landing on the moon. As for spending the money on welfare instead of the exploration of space, I'll let Ayn Rand answer you:

"Those who suggest that we substitute a war on poverty for the space program, should ask themselves whether the premises and values that form the character of an astronaut would be satisfied by a lifetime of carrying bedpans and teaching the alphabet to the mentally retarded. The answer applies as well to the values and premises of the astronauts' admirers. Slums are not a substitute for stars." ("Apollo 11,"

The Objectivist

, September, 1969)

The end doesn't justify the means. And this end isn't worth it at all. Now we have a clown on Mars. Great!

If "clown" is your idea of what the pilot of the first spacecraft to another planet is, then you have much to learn about Objectivism. As for the end not justifying the means, no one here is aguing against making funding of government voluntary. But as long as we have a mixed economy is is appropriate to try to get millions and billions more into the space program. As Rand said, "The American flag on the moon—or on Mars, or on Jupiter—will, at least, be a worthy monument to what had once been a great country."

Edited February 22, 2006 by Daedalus

[hunterrose]

Space is an extremely hostile environment.

I do not think that it will be possible to send a man... and bring him back... alive. The trip is simply too long with too many things which can go wrong.

That's what they told Columbus

If you want to piss away silly amounts of money into space, moon colonies sound a lot cooler.

Agreed

Space colonisation is probably humanity's only real long-term hope of achieving genuine freedom, and why youd want to mess that up by having an irredeemably corrupt regime like the US government in charge of it is beyond me.

But the gov't will want their "piece of the pie" regardless. Would a private venture have any more success of creating a extraterrestrial Galt's Gulch than a NASA venture?

It would have been better to spend [space money] on welfare.

Good ole Felix

[Hal]

There was a benefit to scientists in finding out where the moon came from.

Putting a man on the moon is not necessary to know 'where the moon came from'.

There were all the technological spinoffs (like that computer you're using) that were generated. Money went to highly educated people who worked hard to get where they were for a change. It provided inspiration for other forward looking people to make something of themselves.

Sounds like a broken window fallacy. If that money had been spent subsidising private (non-space) related research, would there have been more benefits? And why do you think that computers are an offshoot of the space program - the theory of computation had been developed by people like Turing and Von Neumann several decades before the moon landing.

edit

"Those who suggest that we substitute a war on poverty for the space program, should ask themselves whether the premises and values that form the character of an astronaut would be satisfied by a lifetime of carrying bedpans and teaching the alphabet to the mentally retarded. The answer applies as well to the values and premises of the astronauts' admirers. Slums are not a substitute for stars." ("Apollo 11," The Objectivist, September, 1969)

Perhaps this makes more sense in context, but its little more than a hyperbolic strawman as it stands. Spending money on fighting poverty doesnt equate to 'teaching the alphabet to the mentally retarded', and the fact that astronauts happen to want something doesnt mean that money should be spent on giving them it. Edited February 22, 2006 by Hal