In the comments to this post, Keith Cowing of NASAWatch offers this advice regarding Bob Zubrin and the Mars Society:
Why would anyone listen to anything he says from now on? He has torpedoed any credibility he has – regardless of the merits of the plans he proposes. You folks should keep (most of) his ideas and jettison him as a spokesman.
(emphasis mine)
What do you think? Should the Mars Society hire a spokesman to speak for it in Bob’s place? Should it hire an editor or PR expert to oversee Bob’s public statements? Should members move to replace Bob entirely, and find a new President? Or should it maintain things as they are now?
To frame the discussion more broadly, is Bob Zubrin a help or a hindrance to the future of the Mars Society? Why do you think that way? And if you see him as a hindrance, what would you propose doing about it?
If Keith Cowling is right about the WH having made up its mind regarding timing and content of the proposed announcement, regardles of Mars Society input (and I acknowledge that he might be right, personnal vendettas aside), it wouldn’t surprise me terribly. I think the role of the MS in influencing political decisions is much less significant, especially in the short term, than it is in influencing public opinion which can have long term impacts.
Zubrin says things that need to be said, though I occassionally disagree with his approach. However, I don’t see anyone else stepping up to the plate, although I am heartened by the stand the Planetary Society has taken.
Like everyone else reading this, I don’t want our next trip to the Moon to be another dead end. But there are so many folks at NASA, and in the aerospace community at large, that believe the “Battlestar Galactica” approach is the only way to get to Mars. We need to continue to challenge that mentality, even if it is viewed as sniping. In the coming years, there will be plans floated that will be stupid (it has already been reported that we will have a mission to Mars that won’t actually land), and we need to say that they are stupid.
Without Zubrin I don’t believe there would be a Mars Society, any analog research stations, or any viable proposal to get us there in my lifetime (without a financial commitment that is unpalatable).
What? No other comments?
Anyone?
Anyone?
Im an outside observer, but i just have one thing to say: zealotry has never done much good. It would do mr. Zubrin good to pay attention to what others are attempting to actually achieve in space. Getting human foot on Mars is not the one and only high frontier, the real frontier happens to be much closer at home. And the frontier im speaking about is not a single physical destination.
Re-read Gerard K. O’Neill and try to understand the vision, i.e. real large-scale development of space for the benefit of humankind, not the given manifestations of it like a planetary base here, vehicle there or torus-shaped colonies in that other place.
Kert: I think we are all in favor of “real large-scale development of space”, though I’m not sure what “for the benefit of humankind” means. There have to be limits to the number and cost of projects that are undertaken at taxpayer expense, but not to those that private enterprise will support. The key is to spend the taxpayer’s dollars in a way that maximizes return, with “return” including scientific discovery, satisfying the human desire to explore, and encouraging private investment to follow.
Mars is by no means the one and only frontier. Neither Zubrin nor any other MS member I have ever met will tell you that. However, it is unique in many respects. These include being the most Earth-like place in the solar system (besides Earth, of course) and having the ability to inspire support unlike any other destination. Just as important, if not more so, Mars has the resources and shallower gravity well that will eventually make it the logical jumping off point for the rest of the solar system.
But we have to get there first.
Sure, Mars presents challenges that the Moon does not. But it is these challenges that increase the return on investment. Going to Mars will require us to push the technological envelope in ways that a return to the Moon is unlikely to do.
As long as the Moon missions do not represent another dead end, and as long as they are not mis-represented as a “stepping stone” to Mars, you will find the Mars Society and Zubrin generally supportive. We look forward to the President’s announcement later this week, even though we know it will not include an firm commitment to Mars.
In what way do you mean “misrepresented as a ‘stepping stone’ to Mars”, Carl? I thought Mars was part of the rumored plan. Or is your emphasis here on the “misrepresentation” part?
That is one of *my* concerns with this…that a back to the Moon plan will be marketed with the promise of opening the door to Mars, but when the time comes that promise will be conveniently forgotten.
“The key is to spend the taxpayer’s dollars in a way that maximizes return, with “return” including scientific discovery, satisfying the human desire to explore, and encouraging private investment to follow”
Here’s where we apparently strongly disagree. IMHO, at this point in time, it would be of utmost importance to use the taxpayers dollars to maximize the opportunities for large-scale space development to actually happen.
Once it does, you could afford to do the scicence and exploration on university budgets.
I’ll explain what the benefit to humankind, to earth would mean: start of a vast new economy, new resources, new opportunities. Opportunities to improve ecological situation on earth, whether using space as a waste disposal or energy source.
I just cant see how satisfying curiosity and doing fundamental science could have ever outweighed these options, but they have done for decades.
I have the feeling, that the first nation to successfully plant the seed for expanding its economic frontiers beyond earth, is going to be the superpower of coming centuries. BTW i think the Chinese understand it, so expect chinese refineries and factories on the moon, not telescopes and research labs.
“If Keith Cowling is right about the WH having made up its mind regarding timing and content of the proposed announcement, regardles of Mars Society input (and I acknowledge that he might be right, personnal vendettas aside), it wouldn’t surprise me terribly.”
Same here, Carl. I don’t know how much stock we should put in Keith’s assertion that Zubrin is costing the Mars Society’s credibility. On the one hand, the attacks are so vitriolic I have a hard time believing it’s not something personal. On the other hand, I don’t know any Washington insiders and thus don’t know if Keith may be right, the gallon’s of vitriol being spilled aside. In the meantime, I’m inclined to give Zubrin the benefit of the doubt. Thus I would vote no on ousting him from the Mars Society.
T.L. James: I was focusing on misrepresentation, but that remains to be seen. A Moon mission can never be completely analogous to a Mars mission. However, we can use it as a test bed for some of the mission architecture. If that is the case, and Moon mission components are designed for eventual use on Mars, then there is no misrepresentation and I have no problem.
Kert: The main point I was making is that political and economic realities dictate that we can’t fund all these projects at the same time. We have to pick and choose, and I think humans-to-Mars provides the best bang for the buck. I am with you with regard to development. Scientific discovery is a reason for going, but not necessarily the best reason. My referred reason is settlement.
Patrick: I don’t doubt that Keith has solid contacts or that Zubrin is viewed negatively inside the Beltway and elsewhere. I think my comments pursuant to the “Sesible Suggestions from Dr. Bob” post make it clear what I have a problem with. I see a very different role for the Mars Society than I see for other space advocacy groups, especially in the next few years when we start to see the proposed mission plans.
“We have to pick and choose, and I think humans-to-Mars provides the best bang for the buck”
Depends entirely how you measure the “bang”. Im unaware of any opportunities for development of space industries and businesses with mars scenario, apart from what is being done on earth.
NEO’s and luna provide tons of opportunities, im tired of listing them all.
Your preferred reason, settlement will not happen, unless there is a path to become financially self-sustainable.
Here’s a non-exhaustive list of business opportunities when developing near-earth space, some of them done robotically, some require humans: suborbital, orbital and lunar tourism, beamed energy to earth, media&sporting events, potential rare metals and isotopes imported to earth, dangerous ( nuclear ) waste disposal.
Not only that, each of them could use services of commercial infrastructure, like beamed power services, telecommunications, people and materials transportation etc. Then there are all the spinoff possibilities for science, like lunar observatories, launching better deep-space probes and what not.
In short, by establishing a Fort on Mars, you would simply have a fort on Mars for a long time to come. By establishin a Fort on moon, people, businesses and economy would follow if doors would be left open for them.
Yes, to the extent possible, government funded projects should be sustainable. They should include mission hardware that can eventually be sold to private industry. NASA’s role, in my opinion, should be to operate at the periphery of our reach — open up the frontier, then get the hell out of the way.
I also agree that there are applications that we are more likely to see near-term on the Moon than on Mars. However, I think many are oversold. I think beamed power is a fantasy that will never happen. Lunar waste disposal (I presume you mean waste generated on Earth) will never be practical. Never. And although you didn’t mention it, I am a bit weary of the current Helium 3 “selling point” for a return to the Moon. Basing your effort upon mining a substance for which a current application does not exist smacks of snake oil.
Still, you list good reasons for going, and I think there are certainly enough of them to justify a return to the Moon, this time to stay.
“I think beamed power is a fantasy that will never happen.”
Its well worth a try, even on a small scale. We havent done that. If lunar-based manufacturing proves feasible and cheap enough, somebody is going to try that at large scale too.
“Lunar waste disposal (I presume you mean waste generated on Earth) will never be practical. Never”
I assume you know costs of building a Yucca repository ? And in this case its not just a question of money, its a question of preserving the earth. BTW, not lunar waste disposal, deep-space or sun collision course would be smarter.
“I am a bit weary of the current Helium 3 “selling point” for a return to the Moon. Basing your effort upon mining a substance for which a current application does not exist smacks of snake oil.”
Im not big on He3, but there are some other current applications for this isotope. Something to do with medics, consult fusion research library at Wisconin University. It just belongs category of those few high-value isotopes and metals we might find on the moon, relatively easily accessible. A coupld Kg-s of them on each return capsule might well provide a profitable side business.
Heres’s something we disagree about:
“They should include mission hardware that can eventually be sold to private industry”
IMO, not gonna happen. No sane private enterprise will take the hardware as is and try build a business out of it. The upkeep costs are typically too prohibitive ( standing army and all that ). OTOH, private industry can use general concepts and research done by government agency, _if_ the details are public ( often they arent, if NASA lets its usual suspect contractors do the work )
Just one example, SpaceX Falcon engine for instance appears to be based on NASA Fastrac.
My statement on lunar waste disposal was largely based on the opinion that once you get it up there, it makes more sense to send it into the Sun. And getting it up there is the problem. Even if we cut launch costs by a factor of 10 it’ll still be too costly, especially when you consider the negative environmental impacts assoicated with building and launching rockets. A space elevator may offset a lot of those negative impacts, but not all.
As for your last point, I don’t know enough about maintenance and vendor qualification of public versus private activities to have a firm opinion. I suspect, however, that some of the issue can be addressed during design, and private entities can continue to maintain and operate such equipment more cost effectively because they will have much more flexibility when it comes to the quality control requirements they impose on their vendors, among other things. I think that can eliminate much of the “standing army”.
I am all for privatization and wish SpaceX and other private ventures the best of luck. Is Space X stil scheduled to launch on January 24?
My statement on lunar waste disposal was largely based on the opinion that once you get it up there, it makes more sense to send it into the Sun.
No, it doesn’t. This is one of the many myths of space. I’m not sure what your opinion is based on, but the delta V to do that is far greater, and then the waste is no longer for future generations that will know what to do with it.
Sorry, that first graf was Carl’s. Thomas, you should put up a message that HTML isn’t allowed if you’re not going to allow HTML.
How’s that? Better?
Thanks for pointing that out, Rand. It’s probably not the only myth to trip me up.
However, “once we get it up there”, I wonder if the additional delta V required to get it to the Sun would be a better investment than landing it safely on the Moon and placing it in a depository designed to some standard. Of course, you couldn’t (or wouldn’t) just crash it into the Moon, while the same doesn’t matter for the Sun.
As an environmental engineer I could probably design a suitable repository (at least on Earth). I’ll leave it up to others to estimate the relative cost of transportation to Moon versus Sun in the above scenario.
I should also point out that this discussion is just for fun. I don’t think it will ever make economic or environmental sense to launch waste into space.
I think the best reason for going to Mars and out of the solar system is that the sun is going to burn the earth up in a couple billion years if something else don’t get us first…
BTW keep Zubrin!