John McCain would like to see a man on Mars. :
"I am intrigued by a man on Mars and I think that it would excite the imagination of the American people if we can say, 'Hey, here's what it looks like," he said."We know that now, and here's what may be there and let's all join in that project. I think Americans would be very willing to do that."
I know it's obligatory for American politicians to come up with new goals in the space race. It's also obligatory to tell people who criticize this kind of thing that they're a bunch of plodders who have no sense of adventure, and who fail to honor something deep in the human spirit.
But you know what? Plodder that I am, I don't want this country to put a thin dime toward sending a man to Mars until we have figured out what to do about the long-term energy crisis in this country. I know, I know, you could substitute any cause you want to for space exploration (How can we send a man to the moon when there are people going without health care?!, etc.). But get this: oil just closed today a smidge shy of $140 a barrel -- up over $10 in a single day. Biggest one-day jump ever.
True, I'm a little sensitive on the point today because I had lunch today at the Petroleum Club in Dallas -- total J.R. Ewing territory, let me tell you -- with an oil investor friend, with whom I discussed peak oil. He's a believer. We talked about the traumatic days likely ahead for the US economy, and the need to start transitioning now to a post-peak future in terms of US infrastructure, and the like. My lunch partner said he's not sure to what extent global warming is man-made, but that the peak-oil energy shortage is a far more immediate and urgent crisis.
The only point I want to make here is that the idea that the US should commit itself to a manned mission to Mars strikes me as so 20th century. Not a fantasy we can afford today.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
MI, you keep using numerical notation like this, as if we are all supposed to understand it. I'm sure I'm not the only one on this list who doesn't understand this notation. Please explain. Thanks!
Sorry; I was using "e" to represent powers of ten; i.e., "e3" = 1000, "e6" = 1 million, e9 = 1 billion. In retrospect, this probably isn't proper; I've seen capital "E" used for this purpose, but IIRC a lowercase "e", in science, usually refers to either the irrational number "e" or something dealing with electrons. I'll try & stick with actual words from now on (or a capital "E" if I'm feeling lazy).
Property law might have to be tweaked a bit before this can be done commercially.
If we're going to exploit space via capitalism, property rights for extraterrestrial objects, bodies, etc., would probably have to be established. I recall Heinlein envisioned a system wherein ownership went to the first person(s) who landed on a given celestrial body. Corporations weren't allowed to claim ownership (although they could get rights assigned to them - sort of like with patents nowadays). I don't know how much I that idea, but it's something to consider....
Aw, c'mon, Rob. Don't be a flat tire. It'll be fun. Besides, more often than not, it's when you're looking for a "this", that you turn up a "that".
Listen - before McCain sends anything into space, he better ask advisor Carly Fiorina how to draft an environmentally-friendly
http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/globalcitizenship/environment/productdata/pdf/disassembly_inkjet_200682413312.pdf
"Product End-of-Life Disassembly Instructions" for the Martian recyclers
There's nothing for McCain or anyone else to "figure out" about our energy crisis. Humanity's energy needs have been increasing since the first caveman rubbed two sticks together, and they will continue to do so. Alternative energy sources like wind and solar are great for specific, low-requirement locations; but for the bulk of humanity's energy needs, there are two known options: fossil fuels and nuclear (fission or fusion). If the fossil fuels are running out, as nearly everyone believes, it doesn't really matter whether they're going to last 50 years or 200 years -- they're going to run out, and politicians can't change that.
Nuclear fission can buy us some more years, but it's limited, it leaves radioactive waste, and we're still scared of it anyway because of some movies in the 1980s. That leaves fusion, and the best hope of clean fusion means harvesting the moon or outer planets, which means going to space. For a bunch of different reasons, Mars is the place to start. We can do it (could probably already be on the way now) on a small portion of NASA's current budget, if we stopped putzing around so much with pork projects like the Shuttle and ISS. We can easily afford to go now; will we be able to after the economic crash all the Peak Oil folks are predicting?
Going to Mars wouldn't have to cost us a dollar we're not already spending; it'd be a first step toward new energy possibilities; and it'd be very cool. It's a no-brainer.
That leaves fusion, and the best hope of clean fusion means harvesting the moon or outer planets, which means going to space. For a bunch of different reasons, Mars is the place to start.
Erm...harvesting them for what, exactly? If you're talking about Helium 3, how about we see some working fusion reactors that could actually power anything past 25 watt light bulb before we bother to run around collecting it.
Are they even at that point yet? The point they could power a light bulb? Last I heard, they hadn't managed to even hit break-even yet, it was using more energy to keep the magnetic containment than energy was created. And I believe that was assuming some ideal universe that measured the actual energy content of the heat created, and didn't count the heat-leakage, the inefficient conversion to electricity, monitoring costs, etc. We're nowhere near having net energy gain from fusion.
It is entirely possible that cold or cool fusion is not actually practical, you know. A fusion generator that has any net gain of energy, or at least a non-trivial net gain of energy, might need to be somewhere around 9000 degrees Fahrenheit, like the sun's fusion does, which puts it beyond any practical operation on earth. (Because the sun does not have to be contained in a box that would tend to melt if it got that hot.)
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.