Critical time (Mars Society defense)

From: John Frazer [mailto:johnf4303@...]

From: Mark Collins
>> 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?

Ditto for space colonies. Every word.

I'd have to disagree. With use of space resources in HEO (which might not
involve space colonies until much later), there is a potential for profit
with SPS and perhaps one or two other things. I think Mark's distinction is
between a project which might return profits (though perhaps not as quickly
as we might like), and a project with no potential for profit or returns to
Earth, even at the very end. Just another nation, built for no other
purpose than to be another nation.

By way of analogy, the countries of Europe had no intention of deliberately
creating a new, independent nation when they sent fur trappers and
tea-growing settlers to the New World. They were just pursuing economic
opportunities. But a new, independent nation was the end result. Zubrin
says forget the profit motive, we should build new nations on Mars because
that would be a good thing. But it may not be realistic to expect anyone to
pony up the hundreds of billions necessary to realize this goal out of
altruism to generations yet unborn.

Granted, a space colony could
probably produce profit sooner than a Mars base, but this is still
not within the range of returns that the attention-defecit public or
politicians want.

This is a good point. It's been argued that the industrialization of space
has not yet begun not because there's no possibility of profit, but only
because one might have to wait 10-15 years to get there, and that's longer
than any investors care to go.

Mike C wrote:
> Zubrin said forget private industry; it's not going to open the
frontier for us. Well, for these reasons I don't see a national
program doing it either, and can't see a 3rd alternative.

Conspiracy.
As unlikely as it seems, a collaboration of the space cadet groups
towards a common agreement. (dreaming!)

My perception is that we space cadets are far too small a percentage of the
population to make up an effective conspiracy.

>> 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.

And on getting congress to agree to pay for a program

Only at the very beginning of High Frontier thinking was it envisioned as a
large, federally funded program like Apollo (with an Apollo-scale price
tag). It almost immediately evolved into a plan where large, Earthlike
habitats were deferred against achieving breakeven as quickly as possible.
The proposed initial investment was reduced to Alaska-Pipeline proportions,
and the expectation was that it would be a privately-funded venture.

I'd say that the continued expectation we must get Congress to pay our way
is a major stumbling block of current Mars thinking.

which throws
their campaign contributors out in the cold, not to mention makes all
their oil & coal company stocks so much scrap paper.

There's every reason to expect that if SPS can be proved economical, the
present energy production companies will jump on it with great enthusiasm.
There will certainly be new companies not yet in existence, but I also
foresee SPS with Mobile and Exxon logos on them.

So you think that it will necessarily take a government effort to do
a Mars Direct?

I expect Mars Direct to be a government effort, as the chief result is
planetary science data, and at least up to this point only large government
space agencies have spent billions for planetary science data.

Any chance a private mission could be done for around
$5 billion?

Only if there is a potential for greater than $5 billion in revenue.

> 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.

I see plenty of emotional content in all the pretty pictures of
idyllic colony settings

"Emotional bias" might be the wrong phrase to use. I would substitute
"mythological bias". It certainly shouldn't be argued that O'Neill was
emotionless when he devised High Frontier. Specifically, he was mad at the
"Limits to Growth" types who were telling all the young people "It's all
downhill from here on". I think the correct argument is that O'Neill's
viewpoints were free of the biases one might accumulate from exposure to
science fiction (our space-age mythology), and prevailing viewpoints.

-families at the beach in Bernal Spheres,
etc.

If we're talking about space settlement, as opposed to just visiting space,
then families are what it's all about. The guys who paint the paintings
realize this.

I saw far too few referrences to asteroids and their resources.

O'Neill talked about the necessity of obtaining asteroidal material for the
substances lacking on the moon. O'Neill co-wrote papers on bringing
asteroidal material to HEO. O'Neill said that the Belt was the most
convenient source of raw materials in the solar system. O'Neill expected
space civilization to begin in Earth orbit, but then expected the Belt to
become the center of human civilization for the previous reason. One of the
chapters of The High Frontier was entitled "Homesteading the Asteroids".
O'Neill did calculations on how many times the surface area of the Earth we
could build using asteroidal resources (3,000x). So I have a hard time
understanding your comment.

Are you aware that much of our current knowledge of NEAs has been obtained
since the days of O'Neill?

Do you really think it's realistic to think of congress-critters
bought into office by entrenched big industries voting for these
things?

If the big industries get to build them for profit, why not?

If you say we'll wait to do Mars until we can do it this way, then
the Martians have a right to be incensed.

I agree, and agree that Mars Direct should not have to wait on High
Frontier, provided that some national government is willing to pay for Mars
Direct. I think it would be sensible to begin using space resources in HEO
prior to any major Mars settlement push, though.

Hence, my proposal for a few Mars Direct missions to get things
started, but then we put a few loads onto Diemos, so we get water &
other ices back to LEO, to build the HEEO-Lunar mine/base.

I'd say that many NEAs would be a better source than Deimos, but would agree
that Deimos would be easiest if we already had a federally-funded Mars
program going.

Regards,

Mike Combs

From:
John Frazer [mailto:johnf4303@...]
From: Mark Collins
>> 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?
Ditto for space colonies. Every word.
I'd have to disagree. With use of space resources in HEO (which might not involve space colonies until much later), there is a potential for profit with SPS and perhaps one or two other things. I think Mark's distinction is between a project which might return profits (though perhaps not as quickly as we might like), and a project with no potential for profit or returns to Earth, even at the very end. Just another nation, built for no other purpose than to be another nation.

By way of analogy, the countries of Europe had no intention of deliberately creating a new, independent nation when they sent fur trappers and tea-growing settlers to the New World. They were just pursuing economic opportunities. But a new, independent nation was the end result. Zubrin says forget the profit motive, we should build new nations on Mars because that would be a good thing. But it may not be realistic to expect anyone to pony up the hundreds of billions necessary to realize this goal out of altruism to generations yet unborn.
Granted, a space colony could
probably produce profit sooner than a Mars base, but this is still
not within the range of returns that the attention-defecit public or
politicians want.

This is a good point. It's been argued that the industrialization of space has not yet begun not because there's no possibility of profit, but only because one might have to wait 10-15 years to get there, and that's longer than any investors care to go.
Mike C wrote:
> Zubrin said forget private industry; it's not going to open the
frontier for us. Well, for these reasons I don't see a national
program doing it either, and can't see a 3rd alternative.
Conspiracy.
As unlikely as it seems, a collaboration of the space cadet groups
towards a common agreement. (dreaming!)

My perception is that we space cadets are far too small a percentage of the population to make up an effective conspiracy.
>> 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.
And on getting congress to agree to pay for a program

Only at the very beginning of High Frontier thinking was it envisioned as a large, federally funded program like Apollo (with an Apollo-scale price tag). It almost immediately evolved into a plan where large, Earthlike habitats were deferred against achieving breakeven as quickly as possible. The proposed initial investment was reduced to Alaska-Pipeline proportions, and the expectation was that it would be a privately-funded venture.

I'd say that the continued expectation we must get Congress to pay our way is a major stumbling block of current Mars thinking.

which throws
their campaign contributors out in the cold, not to mention makes all
their oil & coal company stocks so much scrap paper.

There's every reason to expect that if SPS can be proved economical, the present energy production companies will jump on it with great enthusiasm. There will certainly be new companies not yet in existence, but I also foresee SPS with Mobile and Exxon logos on them.
So you think that it will necessarily take a government effort to do
a Mars Direct?

I expect Mars Direct to be a government effort, as the chief result is planetary science data, and at least up to this point only large government space agencies have spent billions for planetary science data.

Any chance a private mission could be done for around
$5 billion?

Only if there is a potential for greater than $5 billion in revenue.
> 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.
I see plenty of emotional content in all the pretty pictures of
idyllic colony settings

"Emotional bias" might be the wrong phrase to use. I would substitute "mythological bias". It certainly shouldn't be argued that O'Neill was emotionless when he devised High Frontier. Specifically, he was mad at the "Limits to Growth" types who were telling all the young people "It's all downhill from here on". I think the correct argument is that O'Neill's viewpoints were free of the biases one might accumulate from exposure to science fiction (our space-age mythology), and prevailing viewpoints.

-families at the beach in Bernal Spheres,
etc.

If we're talking about space settlement, as opposed to just visiting space, then families are what it's all about. The guys who paint the paintings realize this.
I saw far too few referrences to asteroids and their resources.

O'Neill talked about the necessity of obtaining asteroidal material for the substances lacking on the moon. O'Neill co-wrote papers on bringing asteroidal material to HEO. O'Neill said that the Belt was the most convenient source of raw materials in the solar system. O'Neill expected space civilization to begin in Earth orbit, but then expected the Belt to become the center of human civilization for the previous reason. One of the chapters of The High Frontier was entitled "Homesteading the Asteroids". O'Neill did calculations on how many times the surface area of the Earth we could build using asteroidal resources (3,000x). So I have a hard time understanding your comment.

Are you aware that much of our current knowledge of NEAs has been obtained since the days of O'Neill?
Do you really think it's realistic to think of congress-critters
bought into office by entrenched big industries voting for these
things?

If the big industries get to build them for profit, why not?
If you say we'll wait to do Mars until we can do it this way, then
the Martians have a right to be incensed.

I agree, and agree that Mars Direct should not have to wait on High Frontier, provided that some national government is willing to pay for Mars Direct. I think it would be sensible to begin using space resources in HEO prior to any major Mars settlement push, though.
Hence, my proposal for a few Mars Direct missions to get things
started, but then we put a few loads onto Diemos, so we get water &
other ices back to LEO, to build the HEEO-Lunar mine/base.

I'd say that many NEAs would be a better source than Deimos, but would agree that Deimos would be easiest if we already had a federally-funded Mars program going.

Regards,
Mike Combs