Mark Whittington points out a survey conducted by Dittmar Associates, a Houston-area business and IT consulting firm, on public attitudes towards space exploration. The survey is listed at $950 a pop, so I haven’t read the actual content, but their summary of results teaser includes some interesting information:
- Endorsement of the space program in general is very strong, with 69% of Americans voicing their support.
Given the nearly 50-50 partisan split, this indicates a decent level of bipartisan support. Of course, the devil in the details here is the distribution of that 69%…if the bulk of the support is on the Democratic side, for example, it is likely to mean less in a Republican-controlled government. Then there is the matter of how “the space program” is defined…if the surveys have been conducted in the past two months, could some of this support actually be a by-product of the successful SpaceShipOne flights, which have nothing to do with what would typically be considered “the space program”, i.e.:NASA?
- Interest and excitement about the Vision for Space Exploration is strong for near-term aspects of the plan (65% of Americans responded positively) and for returning to the Moon. This is not true for plans to send humans to Mars, which is seen as involving much more risk (18% of Americans responded positively).
Mark and Rand consider this to be bad news for humans-to-Mars, but it may not be as simple as that. Much of the attention the VSE has received has been on the near-term aspects for which the survey sees public support — these aspects, including a new crewed vehicle and a return to the Moon, are better defined and have, in some form, been done before. Which is to say, the general public is more comfortable with and confident in those VSE goals which they already know to be achievable. The description of manned Mars missions as “involving much more risk” points in this direction: it seems risky, perhaps too risky for 82% of those surveyed, because it is something which hasn’t been done before.
As what Rand might term a “Barsoomophile” (the blog’s name sorta gives it away, eh?), I don’t find this in the least bit surprising nor disappointing — nor is strong public support for humans-to-Mars required at the moment. We need to go to the Moon first for a variety of reasons, and the survey shows support for that element of the VSE. If the lack of similar support for Mars really is rooted in the perceived risk, that perception will surely change (or be amenable to change) by the time we are ready to undertake such missions, having demonstrated hardware, new (civil and private) space infrastructure, and fresh experience operating in distant, harsh planetary environments to work with.
- Out of 5 options, Americans ranked ?International participation and cost-sharing? as their #1 choice for funding the Vision ? with certain conditions.
I sure would like to know what those “conditions” are.
- There are large and significant differences in the degree of enthusiasm about the plan on the basis of sex, ethnic groups, age, and other variables.
Ditto for these demographic differences.
- Americans understand and appreciate the benefits of the space program (?spin-offs?, science, and the impact of space-based technology developments to daily lives).
While the notion of spinoffs is seen by others with some distaste, I think it is only natural that the public appreciates “the space program” on the basis of how it benefits their daily lives — they are looking for (and apparently finding) a return on their “investment” in space exploration activities. It would be nice, yes, if people supported space activities for the “right” reasons espoused by different branches of the space advocacy community, such as a dramatic and inspirational expanding of the frontier, the spawning of a new branch of civilization, insurance against extinction events and other calamities, or simply as a vast new economic sphere to be developed for profit. And yes, there is the danger that the pursuit of spinoffs as the primary justification for space exploration (rather than space exploration resulting in spinoffs as a side effect, as the term implies) pushes “the space program” in unhelpful directions. But this expectation of a return is not an inherently bad thing, and is what all the visionary goals ultimately boil down to anyway.
- Americans believe that much more can be done to promote NASA and its goals.
One wonders what NASA goals were specified for the respondents. The agency could certainly do more to promote the goals contained within the VSE. I’m not sure about promoting NASA is necessarily a positive, however, as it sounds uncomfortably like promoting the myth that space is/should be the sole province of NASA — it all depends on what NASA is being promoted as and promoted for.
I didn’t specifically have you in mind when I wrote that–I was thinking more of the Zubrin groupies who demand that we skip the moon and go straight to Mars, and who believe that there’s no other destination worth going to. The public clearly disagrees with them.
Rand,
Even Zubrin and his fans point out the need to go to the moon first. If nothing else, it’s a fertile testing ground. As Zubrin put it, with Mars Direct, you basically get the moon “for free” as a side effect. The only way that the moon is downplayed is in the sense that it’s foolish to treat it as a gas station or launching pad to Mars. The reasoning for that is just based on physics which I don’t have at hand.
“…it’s foolish to treat it as a gas station or launching pad to Mars. The reasoning for that is just based on physics which I don’t have at hand.”
Gosh, you and Bob must have taken different physics classes than me. Is this one of those deals like Fermat’s Last Theorem? “I have an excellent proof of this proposition, but it won’t fit in the margin…”
Rand,
I just don’t have the figures in front of me and I don’t have the time or inclination to derive them from scratch. If you want, please check out the Case for Mars pages 135 and 136 for a mathematical treatment.
Do you have figures showing that it is more cost, fuel, time, or material efficient to justify building launching stations and fuel factories on the Moon for a Mars mission? If so, please share them.
Do you have figures showing that it is more cost, fuel, time, or material efficient to justify building launching stations and fuel factories on the Moon for a Mars mission?
No, those are the kinds of questions that are being asked in the current CE&R studies. It’s not clear what the answer to that question is. (Of course, I don’t even understand the question, because I don’t know what a “launching station” is.) If it were, plans would be moving forward more quickly, but it’s not possible to state a priori that it is not. It’s certainly quite possible (assuming we discover water ice at the poles in minable condition) that lunar-based propellants would be cheaper than earth-based propellants, but that also depends on assumptions of costs for the latter, something that cannot be known until we see how the private launch industry evolves over the next decade.
Anyone who claims to know all the answers right now is talking through their hat, and that includes Bob Zubrin.
Sorry, the first graf of that last post was supposed to be quoting Mark. I forgot that HTML isn’t allowed here.
Thomas, is it really necessary to dissallow *all* HTML? There’s no harm in allowing bold, and emphasis and links and the like.
Sorry, no…with MT 2.64, it’s all or nothing as far as HTML in the comments. And until I get access to broadband, an MT upgrade just isn’t going to happen.
Well, it’s not really “all or nothing.” There is a taint filter in MT to prevent nasty things like redirects, I believe. I’m running MT and allowing HTML, and haven’t had any problems in months.
Rand,
I believe the figures in the book demonstrate that the deltaV to get from LEO to moon is higher than that of getting to Mars. This is due to aerobreaking I think. Thus, even if there are prepaired fuel tanks waiting for you there for free, it’s more expensive to stop off at the moon. I could be fudging this as I don’t have the book in front of me.
Have you checked the figures or are you just dismissing this out of hand because you don’t like Zubrin?
“I believe the figures in the book demonstrate that the deltaV to get from LEO to moon is higher than that of getting to Mars. This is due to aerobreaking I think. Thus, even if there are prepaired fuel tanks waiting for you there for free, it’s more expensive to stop off at the moon. I could be fudging this as I don’t have the book in front of me.”
Since no one is proposing stopping off at the moon on the way to Mars, this is all irrelevant. Propellants can be delivered from the lunar surface to other locations, such as LEO or L1. If they can be delivered there from the moon more cheaply than they can be delivered there from earth, then it makes sense to get them from the moon.
“Have you checked the figures or are you just dismissing this out of hand because you don’t like Zubrin?”
I’m indifferent to Bob Zubrin (which means that I neither dislike, or like some, worship him). I continually “check out the figures,” because I work on this for a living.
Misconception
I’ve allowed myself to get sucked into a discussion in comments over at Marsblog, and decided it made more sense…
It’s all well and good that sending fuel to Leo from the moon is cheaper than sending fuel from Earth to LEO. That’s a no-brainer. But remember that you would first have to develop the capability to manufacture and deliver that fuel from the moon. That seems very, very expensive to me. Perhaps there would be some payoff if we were launching 1,000 missions per year for decades but the break-even point seems distant at best.
I guess it all depends on what the plan is for space in a more general sense. I personally favor direct shots to destinations rather than ramp up a huge infrastructure a-la ISS. I’m not in charge though.
Back to the original point, there are many of Mars Society members who would love to see manned Moon missions and a moon colony. Zubrin does have a bit of a personality cult but that doesn’t make his reasoning any less sound.
Space advocates have to learn to stop snipping at one another and focus on getting people into space. At times, I think we’re our own worst enemy.
Oh forget it. If you’re going to go and try to make me look like an ass over at your blog, you can just talk to yourself. You win Rand. Congrats on having it all figured out.
“Making you look like an ass”??
I simply quoted you. You posted here. If you didn’t want people to read what you wrote, you shouldn’t have posted it, and if you think that what you write “makes you look like an ass,” then you should take more care in what you write.
I thought that it would be educational for others to discuss the subject, because many people seem to share your confusion on this matter. I thought that it was more likely to gain wider circulation if I discussed it in a post, rather than having it buried in comments here.
As for “having it all figured out,” my irony meter is pegging, because my point is that *no one* has it all figured out–not Bob Zubrin, not me, not even you–yet you seem to think that you have.
“with Mars Direct, you basically get the moon “for free” as a side effect”
Please excuse my naivete, but could you please clarify that? It is not obvious to me how a vehicle that goes directly to Mars and lands via aerobraking would give us the Moon for free. I would be interested in more detail on that if you could point me to the right source.
Additionally, my copy of The Case for Mars includes a section on “The Lunar Sirens: Why we don’t need Lunar bases to go to Mars”. This seems incongruous with your statement “Even Zubrin and his fans point out the need to go to the moon first.”
As for the delta-Vs, the figures are mostly laid out in “Human Spaceflight: Mission Analysis & Design” by Larson & Pranke. In an absolute sense, Zubrin is correct. The mathematical delta-V to land from LEO on the Moon is higher than to land from LEO on Mars.
Were that the only factor then the conclusions would be sound. However, if one were to sit down and actually plot out all of the different delta-Vs to and from all of the places of interest (LEO, GEO, L-points, Moon, NEAs, Mars, Asteroid Belt, and so forth), then different conclusions could be drawn. (Oh yeah!)
I think that’s the point Rand’s trying to make here. We have to be cautious about the assumptions we have, the objectives we’re striving for, and just how we are going to deploy very, very expensive assets in pursuit of our nation’s future prosperty for posterity.
Ken,
I believe that “getting the Moon for free” refers to the fact that much of the Mars Direct hardware could be used for missions to the Moon. There would be modifications, of course, because you aren’t going to aerobrake, parachute to the surface, create return propellant from the atmosphere, or do any of those other things that give Mars an advantage over the Moon. Still, there is no reason the habs or ERVs couldn’t, or shouldn’t, be engineered to function on both worlds.
On page 137 of The Case for Mars, Zubrin states, “It makes sense, therefore, to gain maximum benefit by ensuring that the same set of hardware used to accomplish Mars missions is designed in such a way that it can also be used to support transportation of humans and equipment to the Moon.”
The reluctance of many, including Zubrin and myself, to going back to the Moon first lies in a very reasonable fear that it will once again be a dead end. However, we are realistic enough — despite what some would say — to accept that the path to Mars now clearly runs through the Moon. This is for reasons as much political as technical, but so be it. So, while I would argue that the Moon is not an ideal technical stepping stone to Mars, I would say that it is a necessary political stepping stone to Mars.
Since we will return to the Moon first, you can take the above quote from Zubrin and switch “Mars” and “Moon”. I hope we can all agree that there are merits to designing our Moon hardware so that it may eventually get us to Mars.
I also don’t mean to imply that there are not good technical arguments for going to the Moon first, or that I am not excited that we are going back. The fact that it’s closer makes a huge difference. However, I agree with others who point out that building the infrastructure on the Moon to support Mars missions is an expensive way to get to Mars.
Thank you.
I’ll agree it is an expensive way to get to Mars, but luckily there’re a lot of interesting destinations to go to (LEO, GEO, L-points, Moon, NEAs, Mars, Asteroid Belt, and so forth), so by way of the Moon (and especially EML-1) actually works out to be pretty smart.
Any references you could recommend that I can check out vis-a-vis Mars, commercialisation, resource utilisation, that sort of thing?
Well, I’d start with The Case for Mars. Lots of folks take potshots at Zubrin because of his single-mindedness and occassional hyperbole, but I haven’t seen his engineering seriously challenged (though maybe subsequent posts will change that — we’ll see).
Perhaps our host, who is more well read on the subject than I, has some suggestions. Mr. James?
You might try reading the spawn of this post over at Rand’s site…there was a good bit of discussion of resource utilization there. Otherwise, Univelt publishes quite a few collections of papers and conference proceedings covering the technical topics you’ve asked about. Commercialization is a tough one, though…there are bits and pieces in various books, websites, blogs, etc., but I have not yet found a concise resource on that topic. I’ve had to content myself with a rough analog, namely the business history of the settlement of North America.
Hmmm. Because my questioning is along the lines of what kinds of prospecting would be necessary to find the useful stuff. What kind of value-added would be returned to Earth, that sort of thing. I sometimes get the impression that Mars will be littered with ready-to-use stuff, and that, really, it won’t be that hard.
I do have “The Case for Mars”, as well as “On to Mars”. I’ll check out Univelt, thanks.