Critical time (Mars Society defense)

--- In spacesettlers@y..., "John Frazer" wrote:
> Mark Collins wrote:
> > The ISS is due for completion in 2006 - even earlier if the Bush
> administration gets it's way. This will free up space resources
> world wide as the ISS is a multi-nation collaboration. Once this is
> finished NASA and the other countries involved in the ISS will be
> looking for new direction in space development.
>
> Yeah, Right. (Sarcastic agreement) If it doesn't turn into a vast
> money pit, which soaks up all funding for manned space activities,
as

There are already signs that NASA is planning other activities after
the completion of the ISS with the injection of some money into the
HEDS program (all be it a small amount of $20 million)

> it has in the past. Remember this about the ISS: It is designed to
> cost more, be more complicated, and to be the most complex it could
> possibly be. It will never be cheap.
> I'm also still waiting for the one accident event which stops the
> whole thing dead in its tracks. Space is unforgiving enough,
without
> taking the most complex path you could possibly choose.

I don't think NASA deliberately make things as complex and expensive
as possible. I just think they don't make a concious effort to make
anything cheaper or more efficient. To be fair to NASA acieving LEO
is very difficult - there is no 'EASY' solution, but the solution is
there and it will take us time and investment to get there. If there
had of been an easy solution it would have been done by now.
>
> > If we are to prevent the monopolisation of space resources by
the
> 'let's get to Mars as soon as possible' we must start promoting the
> Gerard O'Neill vision now. We risk another short term mega-bucks
blow
> out similar to Apollo with the delay of SPS and space colonisation,
> which are surely a more sensible course to take.
> >
> > This has also been recognised by the Mars Direct/Zubrin
supporters.

Yes this has been recognised by Mars Direct/Zubrin supporters, but
what has not been recognised is that going to Mars is not the way to
avoid the same problem that occurred after Apollo. The answer is in
the building of SPSs. Then people on the Earth will see direct
benefit to themselves from a space program.

> Here in the UK there has been an endless stream of Mars
> exploration/possible manned mission documentary programs. I have
not
> seen one single program about the SSI and/or Gerard O'Neill and his
> ideas. If things continue in this vein the all will be lost and
> space development will spend more decades in the doldrums.
> > My question is - is this Mars coverage situation and lack of
> coverage of other ideas the same in all countries?
>
> Absolutely. I wrote earlier in the TGD thread that I support the
Mars
> Society specifically because you can't get the public or their
elected
> civil masters to listen long enough to learn the advantages in
space
> resources use, or space settlement.
> Short attention span kills more good plans than anything else.
> People "know" that we went to the Moon for nothing but mega-bucks
> spectaculars and some rocks and asteroids are just rocks, but Mars
is
> the next place we have to go to. People "know" that we, the People,
> just lost interest in space after Apollo, and there just isn't
> anything useful out there anyway.
>
> All lies; we just didn't lose interest in Apollo. It was
> deliberatrely killed. We turned awaay from space by conscious
decision
> to turn away. Never forget and never fail to counter the idea that
we
> lost track just because of the spectacular but useless nature of it.
> It does not necessarily follow that we'll do the same with humans
to
> Mars.
>

Point taken - but the real reason people in America lost interest in
Apollo was because of the huge amounts of money invested with no
tangible benefit to themselves - and quite frankly I don't blame them.

I am all for going to Mars so we can learn and explore and damn-it
yes just for the sheer excitement value. But there will never be any
return economically for the money we spend on any Mars missions, and
people will soon tire of that.

> > Is anyone else in this group trying to change this in the same
way I
> am??
>
> I'm using it.
> I think you're also pre-judging the Mars Society. Have you
read "the
> Case for Mars"? Get past Zubrin's obstinate single minded focus,
and
> see how he is dead-set against a flags & footprints spectacular.
> Everytime he talks somewhere, or everytime a good speaker talks for
> the Mars Society, the main thrust is starting a second branch of
human
> civilization off Earth.

As I said before - going to Mars is not the best way to achieve this.

> O'Neill himself spoke about Asimov's "planetary chauvanism". So,
> let's get a 'frontier mentality' started with Humans to Mars
missions,
> under the assumptions that it is an entire planet out there, and
it's
> going to take a sustained, continuous presence to do any good.
> See if this doesn't open some doors to other things going on in
space.

Support of a sustained continuous presence on Mars is going to be
very expensive. What do you expect to achieve at the end of it? The
best you can hope for is an independent Martian colony. Do you
honestly expect the tax payers of any country to provide billions
over many decades to produce an independent colony that will never
return any benefit to themselves?
>
> Note that Mars Direct starts with procurement of a HLV based on
the
> Shuttle (or possibly Energia) booster. 2 shots every other year.
> If we can get past the NASA big government/ aerospace /defense
> contractor relationship even this much, see if someone can't get
> another few HLV shots to land a few hundred tons at an NEA.
> See if someone else can't get one fitted out to be a 'wet launch'
LEO
> station hull. (#997 (TGD) consensus: "Halfway to Anywhere" as a
start)
> (I doubt that we necessarily need a revolutionary SSTO or extreme
> reductions on launch costs by a new RLV to allow space resource
use.
> Cheap Off The Shelf [COTS] means Shuttle/Energia derived HLVs &
> station volumes)
>
> You say that the Mars fanaticism is the enemy. I say that this
> viewpoint is another type of chauvanism. Keep the different space
> activist groups & interested people boxed into their little
> idealogical groups.

I say the idea of a Mars colony being the way forward into space is
the enemy. O'Neill's arguments were based on realism, sound
engineering and feasible economics. This is not so for the proponents
of Mars Direct. The O'Neill viewpoint is based on hard facts and not
any emotional bias- he just looked at the best and most economical
way of doing things.

> How about we -the people on this list- come up with a presentation
> for the next Mars Society conference based on this? (I'll travel to
it
> if it's not in Colorado) First year, we have a contentious panel
> presentation on the fallacy of Zubrin's objections to O'Neill
colonies
> and Planetary Chauvanism, and the value of O'Neill colonies (and
> things off-Earth other than "Mars, just Mars, and only Mars"). Next
> year, we have a bigger room, with more time and some steering
> committee members in attendance. 3rd year, we have a plenary
> presentation, and maybe a few on the steering committee in
agreement.
>
> Come up with a good internal Mars Society case that the different
> views are the enemy, and a concerted effort is the key. The
extremist
> Martian views, that Mars is the "Only" place for human civilization
to
> expand to, is hurting them. The more educated & informed the
Martians
> are, the less they stick to this. The Steering Committee will
listen,
> eventually.

I'm all for open debate. The point of my post was that the O'Neill
ideas are not getting a fair hearing - it was not intended to slag
off the Mars Society. The media is full of plans to go to Mars and so
the general public is unaware of the benefits of Near-Earth
development. The point of my post was to try to rally support to
promote the idea of some documentary type programs on the TV or any
other kind of media coverage on O'Neill ideas.

>
> What's needed is a consortium of space activist groups jumping on
the
> bandwagon of a privately funded, governmental facilitated Humans to
> Mars plan. NASA is _NOT_ the prime agency planning this mission.
>
> You should join the local chapter of the Mars Society. Never fail
to
> object to their limited views, all the while providing useful help
&
> work for them. (I've even created a few more objective poeople in
my
> local area, this way).
> I promise you that they are _NOT_ in any way in favor of a
strictly
> government pork-barrel flags & footprints extravaganza.
> Zubrin himself says that the purpose is to get a foot in the door,
to
> allow continuing exploration & development. He speculates that, if
we
> could buy the parts from the manufacturers without allowing
> congress-critters and NASA to influence the design to make it as
> expensive as possible, we could pull off the first mission for
around
> $5 billion.
> This necessarily means that congress (the opposite of Progress)
does
> not have the power to arbritrarily kill the program.
> There's enough interest from the people in seeing humans to Mars,
> that a primary funding for the mission is in live coverage of the
> mission. Toys, games, TV programs, advertisers using their
involvement
> in the mission to advertise related products (Mitsubishi builds
part
> of the Rover, so they name a car after a prominent feature on Mars,
> and have a mission astronaut on the commercials)
> All this means thattherre's enough interest in the mission, and
> sufficiently little government involvement, that it's not a one-
shot
> spectacular.

I am also in support of a compromise situation too - i.e. there are
certain things that would be of benefit to both Mars missions and
the 'High frontier' concept that both groups could give their support
to. One of these is the development of a HLLV.

However I decided a year or two ago to start emailing individual
supporters of the Mars Direct idea with ideas on how we could combine
resources to promote a space infra-structure idea that would support
both development of a sustained Mars exploration program AND
development of a Near Earth manufacturing facilities in the O'Neill
vein.

The responses I got were emotional and aggressive. Mars supporters
(particularly older ones) bear a grudge against O'Neill-ites from
back in the seventies when O'Neill's ideas were more prominent. They
now seem to take the view that they are on top and they intend things
to stay that way. They cling to the Mars-Direct plan like it's
humankind's last hope. Because Mars Direct does not involve any space
infra-structure it parodies the Apollo methodology of let's get there
as fast as possible without any thought for the future.

Maybe I am being a bit judgemental here as I only corresponded with a
few people, I have recently corresponded with a Mars supporter who
was much more supportive of a joint effort.

Anyway, back to the point of my post. At the moment as it stands,
Mars is mcuh more in the public mind than any 'High Frontier' style
idea. What I would like to see is some media representation of the
O'Neill vision so the public can apreciate we have more than the Mars
option.

If in the future both ideas become prominent then I would be happy to
see a compromise where space based industry was set-up to use extra-
terrestrial materials and then this industry was used to first to
produce SPS's, then to produce Mars exploration vehicles and O'Neill
style colonies together.