Re: Establish demand
- From: "Michael Turner" <leap@xxxxxxx>
- Date: 28 Feb 2007 01:30:45 -0800
On Feb 28, 12:08 am, "Totorkon" <aertr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What worries me about proposals to deliver water is that the public is
going to view proponents as having water on the brain.
Notwithstanding my lengthy, persistent defenses of such ideas, I have
to agree.
On the other
hand, an ice prospecting rover on the moon can probably find support.
I haven't seen anyone complain about the various water-prospecting-
related activities so far (at least, nobody who isn't also in the camp
of "it's all a waste of money".) At this point, it doesn't pose a
humans/robots issue, because it's scientifically important, AND a
potential gateway resource for expanded lunar/space presence.
The case for propellant by electrolysis and liquification may turn out
to be more difficult in practice than imagined, but it does fire the
imagination.
It's a relatively easy one. Anybody who's had junior high school
science classes knows that water is hydrogen and oxygen, and that the
combination is combustible and used to power rockets. Anybody can
testify before Congress and say "if there's water on the Moon, and we
can mine it, we'll be able to do a lot more on a budget that's about
on par with what American spend on potato chips."
Likewise, to boldly seek out new resources in the
asteroids and moons of mars might generate public support. The
persuit isn't a dead end, it is a beginning.
I think asteroid prospecting has a better chance if it's paired with
asteroid defense, which has an appeal all out of proportion to the
assessed risks (so far). There may be synergies. Currently, the best
designs for deflecting asteroids depend on ion engines. If there are
ISRU propellant scenarios, better designs might be possible. And that
leads in the direction of ISRU for other purposes.
Actually, most people polled think NASA has a budget that is closer
the the expenditures for defense.
This is a tough one. When the meme of manned Mars missions costing
upwards of a trillion dollars got going in the press, there was very
little public skepticism about that number, and probably because most
people think NASA's budget is many times what it really is.
It's interesting how perceptions are created and how they form on
their own. In the building of the case for invading Iraq, the more
sober-sided intelligence analysts kept trying to keep it real, but the
pro-invasion hawks kept "sticking that baby in there" -- they
intercepted any documents going higher, and kept injecting their
highly questionable "1% likelihood" reports.
What the space program needs is some mole in the White House with a
reality agenda: to make sure that every presidential or vice-
presidential speech mentioning the space program would get a
comparison or simile that helped bring public perceptions of NASA's
budget back down to Earth. "Our Moon-Mars program, which will only
cost what Americans spend every year on video games [soft drinks /
potato chips / doughnuts / dieting aids that don't work] ...."
Stick that baby in there! Every time!
Man in space has much more of an allure in prospect, but people get
bored with it quickly. It is a slow news day when there is a story
about the ISS, the science is not compelling and does not have
commertial applications.
Sticking that baby in there one more time: various Citizens in Space
programs have been proposed, and this might be a good way to stave off
the onset of boredom. A fresh and unscripted face on every flight
might be good. I think sending kids would be best, though I can
imagine the objections. Teachers in Space had a following, until they
tried to send the first one up on Challenger.
While in the past, advocating cuts in the
manned program may have been a case of cutting ones nose to spite ones
face, I think the public is much more embracing of robot exploration
because it delivers the goods. Spirit and Opportunity cost less than
$1G, 1% of the ISS, but they are just as popular.
Yes, but would more Mars Rovers be greeted with the same enthusiasm?
You might get a Different-Landscape-Same-Movie reaction.
[snip]
Lincoln said that "there is no distinction in adding story to story
upon the monuments of fame erected to the memory of others". Neil and
Buzz make for a good memory, but when it comes to affairs of the
wallet, building a new road in territory where none has gone before is
a better investment and worth the public's support.
You'll always have "bridge-to-nowhere" naysayers, no matter what.
Apollo did a fairly good job of making the journey the reward, but
mainly by retracing steps and going a little further each time. When
there wasn't much further to go, it started to die. Bridge-building
is civil engineering. Bridge-building in space gets less and less
interesting to the taxpayer the more it's oriented around logistics to
make all space access, exploration and exploitation cheaper. Say
"space" and a lot of people's eyes light up. Say "space logistics"
and brow-furrows appear, eyes glaze over. It's a hard sales job.
Maybe selling it gets easier if you hike and maintain the human
interest, and sending more different kinds of people, more often,
might be the way to appeal to the masses. If that works, you can
start saying "If you let us do *this*, al that human stuff you like to
see gets easier and cheaper to pull off. Not to mention that it makes
robotic missions easier and cheaper as well." I doubt there's a
strategy that's both cost-optimal and politically possible.
-michael turner
.
- References:
- Establish demand
- From: Totorkon
- Re: Establish demand
- From: Ian Parker
- Re: Establish demand
- From: Totorkon
- Re: Establish demand
- From: Ian Parker
- Re: Establish demand
- From: Totorkon
- Re: Establish demand
- From: Fred J . McCall
- Re: Establish demand
- From: Totorkon
- Establish demand
- Prev by Date: Re: Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable
- Next by Date: Re: Iranian launch: a non-event?
- Previous by thread: Re: Establish demand
- Next by thread: Re: Establish demand
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
