Re: Barack Obama Pits Space Explorers Against School Children

On Dec 12, 4:38 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

You claim not to be, but you are supporting the NASA establishment in
their (implicit) asssumption that in 2031 there will be a manned
expedition to Mars but otherwise technology will be very much as it is
now. No futurologist anywhere would ever endorse this.

It's true that we can expect that technology will be a lot more
advanced in 2031 than today in 2007.

The year 2031 is 24 years from 2007. So let's look back, 24 years
before 2007, to 1983.

In 2007, do we have rocket ships that are much more powerful than
those of 1983? No.

In 2007, do we have computers that are much more powerful than those
of 1983? Yes.

Based on that, I can see why you feel that in 2031, we would be able
to send robots to Mars that would be able to obtain scientific results
equivalent to what human astronauts could obtain. The main thing about
Apollo versus Lunokhod was that the Apollo astronauts could pick out
interesting rocks. A sample return mission built on technology like
that used with Spirit and Opportunity could bring back the most
interesting rocks from Mars, too.

Collecting scientific data about Mars for its own sake, however, while
it can be done more cheaply than sending people to Mars, is also less
valuable. Only with the capability of sending people to Mars can we
put Mars to work, to use Mars to serve humanity.

The trouble is, of course, that unless we vastly reduce the cost of
sending people into space, space isn't a "frontier" in the sense the
Wild West was. It isn't a place where masses of discontented,
overcrowded people can move out to breathe free. Mars' gravity well
also means it isn't a place to ship things to Earth from, unlike, say,
the asteroids.

I think Mars advocates do make a persuasive case that a self-
sufficient human habitat can be brought into being on Mars more
cheaply (in terms of start-up costs borne on Earth) than one on the
Moon or any type of orbiting space colony. Mars has, at hand, the
basic substances needed for life which would otherwise need to be
obtained from comets, which are mostly located 'way out in the Kuiper
Belt.

So it makes sense to go to Mars before attempting a space colony, just
as it made sense to go to the Moon before going to Mars.

But what future do we get out of this?

I don't know what the future will be. It could be that a few thousand
colonists on Mars will preserve freedom, technology, and civilization,
while Earth is wracked by war and plague. If so, it may not be in our
narrow self-interest to support going to Mars, but it is clearly in
the long-term interests of the species.

Of course, I'm making the assumption that saving the cost of a Mars
mission, and a more frantic effort to save the Earth, because there is
no alternative, isn't going to make the difference, and avoid such a
bleak future. That's partly because I think the cost of a Mars mission
is small, compared to what it would take to solve world problems;
partly because a frantic, panicky effort to solve problems tends to
lead to *mistakes* that make things worse, not better; and basically
because this particular case seems to require the Earth's history to
go through a rather narrow "window".

If the Earth isn't headed for disaster, though, then as a prerequisite
to space colonization, the Mars mission is valuable. Once we can do
that, we would be ready for the next step - if necessary, using
Martian resources (in addition to Lunar resources) to help it along -
of establishing space colonies that harvest the asteroids and the
comets.

And if the world avoids disaster, why is that necessary or useful?
After all, if we avoid disaster, that means we will have learned to
live sustainably within our finite resources on Earth, right?

I don't think it's going to be quite as cut-and-dried and either-or as
that. The drives and social dynamics that lead to reproduction above
the replacement level will be difficult to combat - and thus, any
input of resources will be welcomed, and will reduce the temptation to
encroach on Earth's last remaining wildlife refuges.

John Savard
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Mars Viewmaster
    ... available here on Earth. ... road to utilizing the resources of the asteroids. ... Mars to Earth with a speed of 5.3 km/sec and use aerobraking to land.. ... This project would supplement a manned mission to Mars, ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Mars Viewmaster
    ... available here on Earth. ... road to utilizing the resources of the asteroids. ... Mars to Earth with a speed of 5.3 km/sec and use aerobraking to land.. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Mars Viewmaster
    ... available here on Earth. ... road to utilizing the resources of the asteroids. ... Mars to Earth with a speed of 5.3 km/sec and use aerobraking to land... ... This project would supplement a manned mission to Mars, ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: BTW Stevie were watch the news lately about NASA
    ... > The distance from Earth to Mars varies from when the two planets are ... manned mission on Mars yet. ... > practical rocket technology, a mission to Mars will take *years*. ... >> was prepared in Earth orbit. ...
    (rec.radio.amateur.policy)
  • Re: Universe: Galaxies, Stars, Planets.. or Just Earth?
    ... This earth is moving box for mankind with no hope to make it even to ... Getting to Mars or any other planet ... that matter is much simpler from the Moon. ... The only way we could cough up that kind of resources is to stop ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)