Earth to McCain! Mars a no go.

A Mars shot is an excellent idea. Upgrading our capabilities in space has all sorts of practical spinoffs. (I think it was Robert Heinlein who said that NASA was the only government agency that ever managed to consistently pay for itself.) Consider what Apollo and Gemini hath wrought: communications satellites, computer tech. advances, plastics and materials developments. Those things lead to other things: MRIs, medical devices, etc. that we use every day.

Perhaps it hasn't occurred to you that we'd have to do it incrementally; first an upgrade of our Near-Earth Orbit capabilities, since we've let them go to blazes in the 70s. Then we go back to the Moon---proven capabilities, unless you were a "Capricorn One" fan. Build the thing in orbit, launch from Lunar orbit. The materials are there, the ability to handle them can be developed, and quite quickly. It's not a matter so much of new science as new engineering, and not even a great deal of that. We won't get one way to do it, we'll get several.

This sort of thing even has potential in the energy field; solar power satellites have been on the drawing boards since the late 60s. Let's turn the CalTech and MIT crowd loose on the problem and see what happens.

If we're really as badly in the soup, energy/resources-wise, as the Greenie-Weenie Whack-Jobs in DC and California are saying, then maybe it's time to take a flyer on some long shots. Forget Mars; let's go to the asteroids and see what's out there. Heck, if I were President, I'd propose taking $ 50 billion or so out of the entitlement budgets and start heaving cash at the problem right now. At least this way we might see some things we can turn to practical improvements, instead of just sitting around complaining about how there aren't any taboos anymore.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

Rod, you're missing the point. There's probably oil on Mars.

Rod,

I'm normally with you on most issues, but I think you need to cut the old naval aviator a bit of slack here. I read the story and I think Mac's point was not to commit huge new expenditures but to get NASA to sharpen its focus.

Lord Karth has done a good job of discussing some of the likely spinoff benefits and the available options. Our experience with the moon landing and the Gemini and Apollo space programs demonstrated a huge ROI and a whole host of unexpected, positive consequences.

Besides, it's not like we're operating in a geopolitical vacuum. The Chinese are going into space and so are other countries like India. We're already facing cultural decline in this country. Do we have to add to that technological and economic decline as well?

On top of that, how does keeping this country competitive in space affect the price of oil? China and India also have to deal with high oil prices but that's not stopping them from space exploration.

You may consider McCain's attitude toward Mars exploration "so 20th century." But I think a defeatist attitude towards this is so "Jimmy Carter" and reminiscent of his "malaise." Yuuuuuckkkkkk!

Mars exploration will keep us on the cutting edge technologically. I say we dare not try.

So we impose a tariff on imported oil, and use the revenues to fund a Mars shot. Two birds with one stone!

Okay, that was (somewhat) facetious. Seriously, if money's an issue, perhaps we should consider prizes. E.g., an Act of Congress making $30e9 payable to the first US-owned company (or US citizen) that puts three men on Mars for a period of no less than one week, and brings them back safely. Then let old-fashioned greed do the rest.

Reaganite,

You must be new here. Rod is declared big fan of the Carter "malaise" speech.

If you talk to folks at NASA about space exploration, they will quietly but firmly tell you that the real choice is not to explore space or to not explore space, but whether or not the missions need to be manned.

We can put capable and impressive explorers on Mars and other heavenly bodies, including asteroids, right now -- mechanical ones. By contrast, the physics of a manned round trip mission to Mars are currently beyond the reach of our technology, according to a good friend who has worked at JPL for decades. The mass of a space capable of supporting human life for several years, combined with the weight of fuel required to return to earth, make a soft landing impossible. (If we as a nation could contemplate sending astronauts to Mars on a one-way mission, chances would be much better -- but still landing a heavy and fast-moving vehicle in that gravity is far from a sure thing.)

I doubt McCain really cares one way or the other. He's signaling Bush followers that he's still keeping the faith with their hero's fantasies, no matter how far-fetched or impractical, and he's playing the "anything is possible in America" card.

One problem: it's not.

Well, Robert Zubrin switched from advocating Mars exploration to advocating biofuels, so Rod, you may be on to something.

Why does everyone have such happy thoughts about the Manhattan Project and the Marshall Plan, by the way? It's not like nuclear weapons and Europe are working out THAT well for us...

The mass of a space capable of supporting human life for several years, combined with the weight of fuel required to return to earth, make a soft landing impossible.

Just out of curiosity, why pack everything into one vehicle? It could be done in stages, with preparation: Send the return vehicle ahead to Mars, with the fuel necessary for the return trip, and keep it in orbit. Send another vehicle ahead with everything that the astronauts will need while they're on Mars, and try to land it. Then the astronauts themselves need to take with them only what they actually need for the journey. For that matter, various components might be stationed in advance in lunar orbit, so that not everything for the outbound trip has to be lifted into orbit at once.

While I tend to agree that we should commit more resources to current problems on Earth, and that unmanned missions allow us to do the maximum of real science with minimum risk, I think a manned mission -- while risky -- would still be technologically possible, with current or near-current technology, if we could get away from the idea that the astronauts would have to take with them *everything* they need for the *entire* trip, there and back, in *one* ship. (Of course it would be so costly that it might have to be done as an international mission.)

The main thing is to convince the public -- and the self-important talking heads of the news media -- that a manned Mars mission would not be just a longer version of the moon landings. It really would present special difficulties that the moon landings didn't, and I'm not sure that most of the non-scientific people who are pushing it really realize that.

A manned mission to Mars sounds like a wonderful goal, but not in 2008. This seems like a sign that McCain does not have his ear to the ground in terms of the mood of the American people.

FWIW it's worth, I'm reminded of a cover of either Time or Newsweek one weekin the summer of 1996. The two main stories featured in that issue were: 1) Dole picking Kemp as his running mate, and 2) the possible discovery of evidence of microbial life in Antarctic meteorites that originated on Mars. Apparently the editors debated as to which story to "feature" on their cover. They ended up going with Dole/Kemp, but put the "Life on Mars?" story in a "banner" across the top of the front cover. What I remember in particular is picking up the issue, seeing Dole and Kemp on the cover, and then the tagline "Life on Mars?" across the top. ;-)

News flash! McCain is an ex-pilot. Lot of those guys would love to be astronauts. Seriously, this is not a bad idea, though we might do well clear up some basic issues, or maybe someone can clarify for me if they know. When I last read seriously on this (over 20 years ago), there were still major physiologic concerns. Have those been answered? What is the real cost differential of a large unmanned probe vs manned? Both would seem to offer potential for new tech advances.

Given the timing of this presentation, this seems like a trial ballon kind of thing. Throw the idea out and see how it polls.

Steve

All these comments, and not one Dave Chappelle reference. Must be the chilling effect of the Beliefnet censors.

The Petroleum Club of Dallas is a good place to talk about peak oil. I first learned about the concept about five years ago at a luncheon speech at the Petroleum Club of Houston. That simple fact makes me less worried about the concept than some, given that it hasn't been a foreign idea to people in the energy industry for some time. Plus, while peak oil is something that definitely will happen if there isn't any major breakthroughs in oil extraction technology before the "peak" point, that's the main wild card - if the peak point is further in the future than we think or there's a big breakthrough in oil extraction (or other energy production) technology before we reach that point, the whole issue may become largely moot.

Also, there's probably not any oil on Mars. No fossils = no fossil fuels, unless oil is produced by natural, non-biological breakdown means, in which case there may be a lot more oil to be had on Earth than we ever thought.

The 'one square foot' of He-3 figure seems an odd measure, particularly for a 3-dimensional material. I think the actual amount needed for the US is in the range of 10-30 thousand tons, presuming a commercially viable fusion reactor could be made. Of course, we have plenty of tritium and deuterium in the sea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3

(Of course a problem here is that the easiest form of mining would be to bring the entire thing to earth and dismantle it slowly in orbit, but, legally, you can't own asteroids, so anyone could mine from it after you did all the work to get it here.)

Of course, the other problem with that plan is, while aiming a giant asteroid roughly at earth with the intent of placing it in earth orbit is not technically illegal, it would appear to be a good way to get lynched by six billion people because you just aimed an asteroid at their planet.

Agree with Rod's point. Anyway, unmanned probes, like the Phoenix now in the news, is a much more cost-effective way of exploring the solar system.

Call me a dreamer, or watched too much Star Trek (TOS of course) as a kid, but I disagree. It's in our nature to always push on to new frontiers. We'll never be through exploring. Even from a religious perspective, I have a suspicion it's a lot of what humanity will do, when we are fully restored to the state God intended us to be in.

What if this were our last chance? What if this inspired us to cooperate and solve complex energy problems? To look past our own noses and beyond our differences to a common goal?

I don't necessarily think only tax dollars should back this. At least not entirely ours. It could be financed by a combination of national governments and private investors. I know for a fact the Gulf Arab states would outdo each other trying to outbid each other. They are certainly throwing up seven star hotels fast enough, and at this rate, half our businesses will be wholly owned subsidiaries of Qatar and the United Arab Emirates anyway. ;)

Maybe I'm just a dreamer...

104e9
$50e9

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!

"We have to fix things here on Earth first".


That sounds eminently sensible, on the face of it. Problem is, I've been hearing that since the 70's and I don't exactly see things being fixed.


Hey Rod, maybe the plains of Mars would be a good place to try for that "Benedict option".

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".

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.