perfidy

Dennis Powell has an interesting idea. Sell or give the Hubble Space telescope to a private foundation, and let them raise the money for a rescue mission. He argues that it would remove pressure from NASA at this awkward stage, and be a useful test case for more general space privatization. And hey, it might save Hubble. And that would be a good thing.

The President's Commission on the Moon, Mars and Beyond is soliciting comments. Go here and you can submit your thoughts on space exploration, or just complain about the boring design of the website.

And speaking of governments seeking comments, this bit from Wired talks about how the government has been talking to game developers - specifically the designers of large multiplayer online games. At a conference arranged by Beth Noveck of the New York Law School, game developers and government officials sat down to talk about democracy, feedback and public participation in the legislative process. Interesting stuff, which puts me in mind (as do many things) of this essay by David Brin.

I have thought for quite a while now that pure democracy is overrated. Rule of law and a republican system are more important. But, that does not mean that I place more importance on the government that I do on the individual. As Brin talks about in his essay, the largely untapped capacity of individual citizens to operate in self organizing and directed groups is consistently ignored by the "experts." While we have (with the exception of central planning Marxists and Senators from New York) based our entire economic and social lives on this principle, we are reluctant to embrace it for security or government purposes.

I think that we lost something when we gave up on the idea of the general militia. But, the growth of the internet, and yes even the blogosphere has perhaps led to the rebirth of this ideal. Websites like the Northeast Intelligence Network, and others like it; Winds of Change and the Command Post; and hundreds of fevered bloggers collecting, analyzing and annotating countless bits of information are like a general militia devoted to military and strategic intelligence.

Obviously, much of the heavy lifting militarily will still be done by the Army, Navy and Marines. But that does not mean that we don't have a role, and one that the government should begin to take seriously, and not hinder us from performing.

NASA has decided to end support for the Hubble Telescope, arguing that further repairs to the aging satellite would be to dangerous to attempt.

While the NASA brass seem to be in accord that this is a sound, though sad, decision, I'm not so sure: I just think it's sad. Of all the projects NASA has attempted in recent years, Hubble is the most emblematic. They spent a bundle. They threw it up there. It didn't work. Some dudes went and fixed it in orbit. We see the ends of space, and glory ensues.

Its value to cosmology aside, NASA should keep Hubble operating as a constant reminder of the perils of bureaucratic planning and the intrepidness of engineers and astronauts.

The New York Times has uncovered compelling evidence that NASA has been tampering with the color of photos beamed from Mars, and today published a shocking exposee of mechanical malfeasance , deliberate deception, and sloppy science.

[D]id NASA fiddle with the [color images from Mars] to make [them] look that red? As Mars buffs have pointed out in recent weeks on Web sites like Slashdot.org, a closer look reveals that parts of the rover itself, in the foreground, are oddly garish. Even the color chips placed on the rover to calibrate the color photographs had shifted. What should be bright blue is instead bright pink; what should be bright green is brown. . . .

What was going on? On Jan. 31, during a lull in the control room at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Jason Soderblom, a graduate student at Cornell who is a member of the science team, gave a talk explaining the odd Martian colors. . . .

[For the rover to] produce a color photograph, the rover's panoramic camera takes three black-and-white images of a scene, once with a red filter, once with a green filter and once with a blue filter. Each is then tinted with the color of the filter, and the three are combined into a color image.

In assembling the Spirit photographs, however, the scientists used an image taken with an infrared filter, not the red filter. Some blue pigments like the cobalt in the rover color chip also emit this longer-wavelength light, which is not visible to the human eye. . . .

For the scientists, there are good reasons to focus on infrared colors rather than the visible red. "Iron dominates mineral color in the visible, and it causes everything to have shades of red," Mr. Soderblom said.

With the infrared filter, the different iron minerals emit different colors, and the camera can better differentiate between them. "We're trying to identify the minerals in the scene, and the way we're doing this is with subtle differences," Mr. Soderblom said. . . .

Still, there was no reason for the Spirit to see pink on Mars. When producing the panorama, the camera also used the red filter.

"We just made a mistake," said Dr. James F. Bell III, the lead scientist for the camera. "It's really just a mess-up."

A mess-up? Or a cover-up? This administration will stop at nothing to obscure the truth, even blocking authenticity in the name of science. I tell you now, Magentagate will become the deciding factor in the 2004 Presidential elections.

What could they be hiding up there, New York Times? What, indeed? Better get on it.

Space.com reports that the memory surgery performed on the Mars Rover Spirit was a complete success. Spirit will now set about trundling through the Martian countryside, molesting rocks with its RAT and otherwise pestering the locals. (RAT: Rock Abrasion Tool)

Rocket Jones links to Rocketman, who has a reader's guest post on how to get into space for cheap. It's a long one, but very informative and chock full of space goodness.

I've talked about the DCX here before - it was the one moment in my life when I thought real space travel was around the corner. Then NASA killed it and I went back to my normal, existential despair. Kelly does an excellent job of putting it all in perspective, and gives us his own ideas on getting to orbit. 
 

Space.com is reporting that NASA plans to give $227.4 million to Kistler Aerospace for a test launch of the company's K-1 reusable launch vehicle. NASA is looking (finally) to the private sector to provide launch services for support of the ISS. Given that the Shuttle is out of service, they really don't have much choice - but this is still a positive development. Kistler originally began development of the K-1 to meet an anticipated large demand for satellite launches to low Earth Orbit. When that never quite happened, the company hit a bad stretch, and filed for Chapter 11 reorganization last summer. So, their lobbying efforts have probably paid off just in the nick of time.

The K-1 is designed to be a fully reusable, two-stage liquid-fueled rocket.
NASA expects to get flight data from the test launch for its money, and expects that if the K-1 pans out, it could have applications beyond Space Station resupply missions.

I'm not sure how much a vehicle like this will actually lower launch costs - much will depend on how expensive and difficult it is to prepare the vehicle for subsequant launches. (That's a major problem for the "reusable" shuttle orbiter, which costs millions of dollars to recondition after every flight.) There are two very good things about this news - it may set a precedent for going to private space companies for launch services; and it will give us good feedback for developing new launch vehicles. The United States has not introduced a new launch vehicle since the Shuttle, and we need to get moving.

Rocket Jones is spreading the news about the Mars airplane that is under development by Aurora Flight Sciences: 

An exploration vehicle like this would vastly expand our ability to explore Mars. Rather than being limited to a very small area near the landing site, we would be able to cover hundreds of square miles at close range. A very cool thing, indeed. 

[wik] And yes, I was too lazy to make up my own clever title.

Citizen Smash gives us the poop on the increasing militarization of space, and the dangers that it may bring.

While reading the news about the recent Mars landers, I ran across this false color map of the Martian surface:

The colors are keyed to altitude, with blue representing the lowest parts of the Martian surface. This is a serendipitous choice, because we can get an idea what Mars might look like should we ever decide to terraform Mars. If we managed that incredible feat, the blue areas on the map above would roughly correspond to seas on a living Mars.

Terraforming is a rather bold concept - some argue that we couldn't begin to create a new ecosystem on Mars when we don't understand the one we have right here. Others argue that it would be wrong on general principles meddle with the environment as it exists now on Mars. Others, more pragmatically, argue that it's just too hard or it will cost too much, or any of the standard objections to doing anything new. I disagree with all of those objections.

The evidence is increasingly strong that there is water ice on Mars, most likely in great quantity - both in the polar ice caps and frozen in the soil. There is also frozen carbon dioxide in the polar caps, which is a useful source of materials we'd need in a terraforming program. Most of what we would need is already present on the Martian surface, but locked away where it does nothing to support conditions suitable for life. Scientists believe that liquid water once existed on Mars, and that the atmosphere was once far thicker. If we can alter the balance on Mars, we can (hopefully) tip it toward a warmer and wetter environment.

Currently, Mars temperatures are within shouting distance of conditions on Earth - just colder. But the atmosphere is very thin, and composed primarily of carbon dioxide; and the planet is very, very dry. We can engineer changes, but the most effective means will be those that start a virtuous circle of changes, and leverage natural processes on Mars to change the climate towards something that we could live in. So, we need to make it warmer, and wetter, and increase the thickness of the atmosphere. How do we go about it? There have been many proposals, and here are some:

• Cover the Martian ice caps with a thin coating of carbon dust. The black dust will absorb heat, and help to melt the ice caps. Once the ice begins to melt, water vapor and carbon dioxide act as greenhouse gases which will reinforce the melting.
• Construct very large orbital mirrors, made of very thin reflective mylar. Using these mirors, we can increase the amount of heat and light hitting the Martian surface. By aiming them at the poles (where the sun is teh weakest already) we can melt the caps with effects similar to those described above.
• Release large quantities of CFCs and other powerful greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to increase heat retention.
• Introduce genetically engineered algae and other microbes to begin releasing oxygen and other useful gases into the Martian air. These would also form the beginning of a Martian ecosystem.
• Lob a comet or ice chunk from the rings of Saturn onto Mars. Actually, you wouldn't want a big, dinosaur killer type impact. It would be more effective to have a continuous shower of ice rocks which would deposit their loads of water, oxygen, and other volatiles directly into the atmosphere without impacting the surface.

If a terraforming project ever does start, it would likely use a combination of some or even all of these methods. The key, at the start is to induce warming. Once we warm Mars, and starting with the polar ice caps, we can begin to get Mars working for us. As the polar ice caps melt, CO2 will sublime directly into the atmosphere, increasing the density. Denser air retains heat better, which will increase the effects of whatever means we are using to melt the caps. Water vapor released into the atmosphere will further push this cycle.

As mean temperatures rise, and pressure increases, we should begin to see the effects of warming all around Mars. Subsurface ice deposits and permafrost (if they exist, but it seems likely) near the equator will begin melting, adding to the effects started at the poles. Here, larger iceteroids might be used to hit concentrations of subsurface ice, and the impact will release water vapor into the air quicker than otherwise would be possible.

At the bottom of the Valles Marinaris, the immense canyon as wide as the continental United States, air pressure will rise fastest. Here we can begin to introduce the first of the microbes that will begin to change the thickening atmosphere from largely CO2 to one more closely resembling Earth's. By introducing bacteria similar to those that once lived on Earth a billion years ago, we can get oxygen into the air. These organisms excrete oxygen as a waste product. As oxygen levels rise, these bacteria will die - because too much oxygen is poisonous to them. They will then form the food for the next wave of colonists. Algae, nitrogen fixing bacteria, lichens, whatever will survive in the thin but increasingly homelike Martian atmosphere.

While the first organisms are being introduced and tested, more mechanical processes will continue. When the Martian air is thick enough and warm enough, and saturated with sufficient oxygen, we can begin introducing life that evolved for conditions at high altitudes, extreme cold and dryness. They will push the ecology further. As the basins fill with water, creating the first seas and oceans, we can stock them with life as well. The seas of Mars will quickly become the primary driving force for thickening the atmosphere, and conditions there suitable for earthly life sooner than the cold desert of the dry land.

One thing that is most promising about the introduction of life to Mars is that beyond a certain point, we don't need to be overly concerned about what we introduce. If we get an atmosphere even a quarter as thick as Earth's, with half the oxygen, we can start introducing Earthly life. Whatever thrives will thrive, and the ecosystem will begin to develop a rude equilibrium. As the air thickens, we introduce a wide variety of other species, and again let nature take its course. The only thing we need to be careful about is making sure we don't introduce mosquitos, horseflies or ticks.

The life that survives will contribute to the process. And the lessons we learn will guide us in the later stages of terraforming. It will be an immense laboratory for the environmental sciences, and those lessons could easily be applied here on earth. Eventually, there will come a day when conditions reach "shirt sleeve" levels - when the air is thick enough and warm enough that men can walk on the surface with nothing more than winter clothing and an oxygen mask. Later, we would reach a point where the air is equivalent to high altitude areas on Earth.

Then, we can build ski resorts with hot tub equipped condos on the slopes of Olympus Mons, the highest mountain in the Solar System.

Smarter people than I have looked at the ideas behind terraforming and believe it could work. Given the resources and the will, it could be done, especially as conditions on Mars are already so close to Earth's. Terraforming say, Venus, would be much more difficult. Thinking about moving comets and building hundreds of mile wide mirrors seems incredibly hard and at the very least hideously expensive. They would be, now. But if we move into space, we will develop the skills to do these things - we'll have to. If we construct solar sailing ships, we'll learn to create large lightweight mirrors. The Martian terraforming mirrors will just be larger versions. If we go to the asteroid belt, we will learn about moving rocks in space. Moving something in space is easier than moving something on Earth, because there is no gravity, no friction to slow it down. Even the largest rocks can be moved by a constant application of even a small amount of thrust. The more we live in space, the more we will learn to do things on a huge scale. Space is big - if Europeans think Americans are bad for thinking big, they will hate our descendants who live and work in space.

Soon enough, we will have the skills do do it. And the cost may not be all that much to a civilization that lives on the scale of a solar system. The biggest objection that the project will have will come from the environmentalists, who will insist that Mars be left as it is. If life is discovered on Mars, terraforming would certainly kill it. That would be a reason not to proceed. But if Mars is a dead planet, I see no reason why we shouldn't expand not just human life, but all earthly life to another home. For insurance against accidents like the dinosaur killer if for no other reason.

Instead of a dead, dry and cold world, we could have another Earth. Beautiful as Earth is, but different, with new wonders for us to experience. Dolphins and whales could swim in Martian seas; and who knows, perhaps we can make good on the Jurassic Park idea and bring back the dinosaurs, and give them a new home on Mars. Along with Mammoths, Mastodons and sabertooth tigers.

And hey, if that ends up looking a little like Edgar Rice Burrough's Barsoom, so much the better.

The Mars Rover Opportunity made a perfect landing Saturday night, and is already sending back pictures: 

That makes five operational probes circum Mars - two American landers, two American Orbiters, and the European Orbiter. As a bonus, the European Orbiter has found some direct evidence of water on Mars. Now all we have to do is go there in person and set up ski resorts with hot tub equipped condos. Just think of the fun you could have skying in one third gravity! 

[wik] It seems that Spirit has been upgraded from 'Critical' to 'Serious but Stable' condition. Good news there. Link via On the Third Hand.

Two tidbits of good-- nay, great-- news from Mars today:

1) Scientists seem to have confirmed the presence of water ice at the Martian south pole. Water, as you know, is one half of a scotch and water and therefore the midpoint towards confirming the existence of advanced Martian civilization.

2) Game on! This morning the pointy-heads at NASA got the first non-gibberish signals from the Spirit rover in two days. This is fantastic news, and we all of course hope that constant communication can be re-established. Although details are not forthcoming, reports suggest that the signal consisted of a query: "Where the f**c is Opportunity with the damn scotch?"

The first four parts of this series are here, here and here and here.

In the first post, I discussed how we could quickly and relatively cheaply develop the means to launch people and large cargos into orbit. That is the necessary precursor to any significant endeavor in space. While the methods I outlined would reduce costs to orbit, they would not make them exactly cheap. But they would give us a ladder while others could work on building an escalator. The second post discusses, in broad outline, one idea for developing the life support technology that the Mars mission would require. The third post talks about propulsion options and precursor missions to Near Earth Asteroids. The fourth part discusses how to reach the moon, and what to do once we get there.

What Does it All Mean?

What I have proposed over the last four posts is a comprehensive outline for the beginnings of a human exploration of space. If we choose to go to Mars, we need to be certain that in the process we create the means to repeat the feat at any time we choose. That was the great mistake of the Apollo program – we achieved our goal, but to do it again would require another great expenditure of treasure and effort. The four programs I outlined would prepare us not only for a mission to the Red Planet, but for a hundred other missions that we can imagine easily; and many more that we cannot now envision. Once we are in space, new doors will open, and we will perceive opportunities that are hidden from our planet bound eyes.
The four programs are interlocking, and each will develop important capabilities that will be essential for a Mars mission. One of the greatest advantages of a scheme such as the one I have outlined is that setbacks in one area (save the first) will not hinder the progress in the others. The end result will be that lessons learned in all of these can be incorporated into the final Mars mission design, and that mission will be more robust, and safer, than anything we could plan or execute from the ground.

We can leverage our existing launch technology to get more people and material into space far cheaper than we can now. The designs that I propose are not complicated, and there is little reason that they could not be brought into being within the next couple years. Any aerospace company could design the OSP, so long as NASA stayed out of the development process. We should create a not overly detailed specification – crew capacity, safety margins, and rockets it must be capable of being launched on. Then, several companies will submit bids and prototypes. Then, we select one. The military has always been able to get this kind of thing done in several years, and once upon a time, NASA did it in months. Given a high enough priority, we could have these things flying by the end of 2005. The Shuttle-C is even easier, given that nearly every single bit of design work has already been done. We could have a heavy lift launch vehicle by the end of this year if we really wanted to.

Once we have these two vehicles in place, then the ball starts rolling. We develop our life systems technology in earth orbit while sending the first pieces of the lunar outpost to the moon. Astronauts begin exploring the moon and developing the skills we will use on Mars while prototype nuclear rockets are tested in space. Later, an NEA mission spacecraft is assembled at the ISS, possibly fueled with lunar ice, and incorporating life support systems developed in the orbital laboratory. While that mission is underway Mars rovers and landers and all the equipment the explorers will use is undergoing brutal testing on the airless moon; and new experiments in propulsion, life systems and all other useful things are underway. When the NEA mission returns, we gather all that knowledge together, and plan the Mars mission.

What form will the Mars mission take? I don’t know. But there are several things we can predict. If for more than a decade we have been expanding our ability to live and work in space; we will be able to build a bigger spacecraft than most have imagined to this point. An experienced crew at the ISS will enable us to assemble in orbit a more capable spaceship than could be launched in one piece from the ground. This allows us to make the ship safer, through redundant systems; and the mission more fruitful, because we can take more equipment to Mars with us. Whether we use a variation of Zubrin’s Mars direct plan, or opt for a nuclear rocket, doesn’t really matter. Either way, we can take advantage of direct experience in exploring space both on the NEA mission and on the moon.

So what's the timeline? I would suggest the following:

• Shuttle-C by the end of 2005
• Orbital Space Plane first flight in by mid 2006
• Mass production of disposable rockets and shuttle components should lower costs
• Launch life support research lab by end 2006
• Test wingless OSP (interorbit shuttle) by end 2006
• Test land an automated lunar lander 2007
• Begin construction of lunar base 2008
• Slowly increase fleet of OSPs, interorbit shuttles and lunar landers through 2010, add on to ISS or launch lunar orbit station
• Test propulsion and ship assembly methods through 2010
• Hopefully, by 2010 we have better earth to orbit vehicles, and launch costs decline
• Launch NEA mission in 2011
• Test Mars exploration equipment on lunar surface 2010 and forward
• NEA mission returns 2012
• Begin construction of Mars spaceship 2014
• Launch mission 2016
• 2017, we land on fucking Mars.

A key component to keeping this schedule without breaking the Treasury would be lowering the per pound cost to orbit. But I think, truly, that we can invent the vehicles that will do that. If we can invent a spaceship that costs no more than twice what a Boeing 747 costs, and that costs little more to operate and turn around between flights, sending a pound to orbit will cost perhaps three times what it costs to air-freight that pound to Australia. On that cost level, we can move into space in a big way.

Well so what?

This plan assumes that the government would be the prime motivating force behind the Mars mission and all the precursor programs I have outlined. This is merely one sensible way we could go about it – at least in terms of getting to Mars. Getting to Mars is an inspirational idea, and we would learn and see incredible things if we did it. Enough to justify the expense? Perhaps. However, this plan has many advantages in relation to the civilian space industry.

In the 1830s, it would have made little sense to build an intercontinental railroad in the United States. There was no need, because the United States itself did not span the continent, and there was little worth going to on the left coast at that time. Decades later, of course, there was gold, and growing settlements, and a hundred other reasons that people wanted to go to California. The Federal government – for its own reasons – assisted private industry in creating the means for people to travel west to California, but in the process created the means to travel to everywhere in between – for their own reason.

In the early part of the twentieth century, the federal government assisted the nascent aviation industry. First, by offering contracts for air mail delivery which helped early airlines and airplane manufacturers both. Second, by conducting basic research into aerodynamics which was shared with the aviation industry. This allowed aviation companies to convince financiers to invest in their projects with some confidence, because government scientists said it was possible.

These two models should guide us in our thinking about how to approach space development in the 21st century. NASA’s adversarial stance toward private space industry needs to end now. If anyone doubts this – remember the fuss that NASA raised over the flight into orbit of Dennis Tito. Tito was rich, to be sure, but used to work for NASA and was not exactly the least qualified space tourist you could have found. Government can have a role – but it should be to assist private industry rather than hinder it. Like the railroads, the government can sponsor the creation of the means for anyone to get into space. Offering contracts for vehicles and services, we will unleash the creativity of the marketplace to produce solutions. And the government funding will get the nascent space industry “over the hump” to the point where they are as viable in the marketplace as Lockheed or Boeing.

I proposed the two vehicles from the first post simply because they would be the easiest and quickest way to get us into space. But frankly, they are stopgaps. They would get men and material into space until private industry can supply us with a more cost effective alternative. The companies competing for the X-Prize may – even without government help – soon provide us with a better way to orbit. But there is little doubt that if the government offered a guaranteed contract for purchase to the first space capable, fully reusable vehicle, this would happen a lot sooner.

In a future where the government pursues deep space exploration but leaves the grunt work of travel to orbit to private industry, there are many possiblilities. We could see the production of true aerospace planes that can take off and land from airports and deliver small cargoes to orbit or to destinations on earth. Cone shaped SSTOs like the Delta Clipper might take off regularly from spaceports on the Florida coast, and gigantic cargo lifters might launch from floating platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. If the government defines only the goal, any number of technologies might be produced to meet it. Specialization will increase efficiency as well.

And once these thousand flowers have bloomed, there is no reason that they cannot be used for purposes other than government funded deep space exploration. If access to space becomes if not cheap, at least affordable – then people will find ways to use it. Hotels in space, research labs sponsored by universities and corporations, and privately owned shipyards for Mars missions all become possible. And we should not forget that throughout the history of the space age, most commercial space activity has focused on Earth. Communications satellites, GPS, weather satellites, and the like all serve the needs of people on Earth. What other services could be provided if we could lift bigger and more capable satellites into orbit? And any vehicle that can reach orbit can just as easily reach the other side of the Earth in 45 minutes. I am confident that FedEx or United Airlines could think of ways to profitably use that capability. Space technology is not confined to utility only in space – everything that we develop will allow us to do things here on Earth as well.

And once we begin to move into space, there are other possibilities as well. Instead of chemical or nuclear rockets, entrepreneurs could explore the use of solar sails and ion drives. These do not have the brute power of the rockets we know, but accelerate continuously – and slowly. Over time, they can exceed the greatest speeds possible by conventional rockets. And solar sails have the added and great advantage of requiring no fuel whatsoever – just the skill to spin an aluminized Mylar film a couple square kilometers in area.

And when we think of space habitats, we think of aluminum canisters hauled to orbit at great expense. But there is no gravity in space, and no need for immensely strong structures. Some clever fellow could invent an inflatable habitat, taking next to no space in a launch vehicle, but expanding to tens of yards in diameter. Modern materials like Kevlar would provide protection from micro-meteors even better than aluminum does. String several of these together, and you have an instant space habitat; instant real estate in fact that could be rented or sold for profit. If we make it possible to get there, people will create places to go and reasons to stay – that is in our nature. In time, people will travel to the moon, the asteroids, and Mars on commercial spaceliners, and build lives there. Travel in space, in zero gravity is much easier than getting into orbit. In terms of energy expended, once you’re in orbit, you’re halfway to anywhere in the solar system. Once we build a road over that barrier, ordinary people (like me!) could travel into space, and pursue whatever dreams they have.

If we build the transcontinental railroad, all the things that come after it will happen naturally, and in ways we could never plan in advance. All the connecting spur lines, whistle-stop towns, mining communities, industry and agriculture, settlement and so on will develop on their own. People will become rich and poor, but the world will be a more interesting place. (Hopefully, we won’t run into hostile Indians, though.)

The first three parts of this series are here, here and here.

In the first post, I discussed how we could quickly and relatively cheaply develop the means to launch people and large cargos into orbit. That is the necessary precursor to any significant endeavor in space. While the methods I outlined would reduce costs to orbit, they would not make them exactly cheap. But they would give us a ladder while others could work on building an escalator. The second post discusses, in broad outline, one idea for developing the life support technology that the Mars mission would require. The third post talks about propulsion options and precursor missions to Near Earth Asteroids.

Getting to the Moon

President Bush mentioned a return to the moon as a primary goal. This is one of the few things he got right. A permanent presence on the moon will allow us to conduct research and development that will directly aid a future Mars expedition. The utility of a lunar research outpost falls into two general categories:

• Developing technology and skills for the exploration of a hostile environment.
• Research into the production of materials and fuel that could be used in a Mars mission.

Before we discuss how a lunar base will be useful to us, let’s discuss how we might get there. In the first post, I mentioned the development of a variant of the Orbital Space Plane that could be used as an Earth/Moon shuttle. Unlike a standard OSP, this model would be wingless – saving mass by eliminating wings that will never be needed. It will be a small pressurized cabin, with life support for several crew for perhaps a week. By adding a service module along the lines of that used by the old Apollo capsules, we can extend the life support duration by a couple weeks, and also add a rocket motor that will give our shuttle the ability to leave Earth orbit and travel to Lunar orbit.
Back with Apollo, we had to launch everything needed for the mission all in go. Since there is no need for the massive thrust necessary to leave the earth’s surface, a much smaller rocket will allow us to move crew and cargo back and forth between Earth and Lunar orbit. Since we now have an orbiting space station, we no longer have to worry about getting everything we need into orbit all at once. Empty Shuttle-C fuel tanks can be used as refueling depots to top off the tanks of the inter-orbit shuttles. Cargo and crew will reach orbit on OSPs and conventional disposable rockets. All of these will be assembled together at the ISS, and depart for Lunar orbit.

Once we reach Lunar orbit, we have the problem of getting to the surface. To establish a Lunar base we need to get habitat modules, crew and supplies down to the moon. In keeping with the idea that specialized vehicles are better than general purpose ones (as long as you have the lift capacity that frees you from the necessity of doing everything in one launch) we can develop one or two more vehicles. But to save on design effort, we should make them modular, so that we can get the most use out of our design dollar. We’ve already adapted the OSP for a crew and small cargo shuttle. The immense cargo payload of the Shuttle-C will allow us to lift something bigger into orbit – something more on the lines of a truck rather than a taxi. This vehicle would have a rocket and fuel tanks at the back, an open framework for cargo in the middle, and a crew module at the front. The rocket would be powerful enough to land the vehicle on the lunar surface, and be equipped with landing gear and a crane.

The cargo shuttle could carry a standardized habitat module and land it wherever we intend on setting up a base. Once on the moon, the crane would lower the hab to the ground where it could be linked to other modules, forming a small outpost. Once free of the habitat module, the now empty shuttle would begin service as a shuttle between the lunar surface and lunar orbit. Subsequent moon bound cargos could even be automated – launched from Earth on a Shuttle-C, and boosted toward the moon by a smaller rocket. Once in Lunar orbit, the cargo shuttle could dock, load up the cargo and return to the lunar base. Crew transfers would also be done in lunar orbit. (In time, it might be worth the expense to deploy a small lunar orbiting space station – something much smaller than the ISS – basically a habitat module, a docking port and a solar array. This would simplify the process of cargo and crew transshipment, and give a refuge for emergencies in Lunar Orbit.)

For the first few years, there might be only one or two cargo shuttles, both likely in use on and around the moon. (The cargo shuttles would also be the best means for long range transportation on the moon.) Three or four of the OSP-derived interorbit crew shuttles would meet the needs of transporting crew between different locations in Earth orbit; and to lunar orbit. But as time goes by, we could slowly add more of each of these vehicles, steadily increasing our space transportation infrastructure as our presence in space expands. At no point is there a need for large, single expenditures. There is no reason why a simple OSP – either the space variant or the regular earth landing style – should cost more than a single jet fighter; and the cargo shuttle should not be that much more.

As we build this infrastructure, we can create a lunar base and keep it staffed and supplied. The lunar base at the start would be one or two habitat modules approximately the size and shape of the ones making up the ISS, and similar in construction. Once on the moon, a lunar bulldozer would cover them with soil to protect the inhabitants from solar radiation. As needs require, more habitat modules can be launched and integrated into the base. From this small but safe outpost, the astronauts could begin the research that will allow us to successfully explore Mars.

What to do on the Moon

What research will they be doing? As I mentioned above, there are two main avenues: exploration technology and skills, and materials and fuel. First, exploration. Research has already been started on the construction of Mars rovers – and prototype vehicles will be tested in desolate areas like Canada, the Antarctic and Detroit. But there can be no better place to test than the moon, which has the dual advantages of being in some respects a harsher environment than Mars and yet is close enough to allow for the rescue of our astronauts in case of accident. As we develop rovers, models for Mars habitats, new space suits, Mars rated exploration gear and so on, we will ship them to the moon. There, astronauts will use these vehicles to explore the vicinity of the lunar base and gain practical skills in exploring a hostile environment. These skills will be necessary when we get to Mars.

As far as materials go, many have proposed that we could mine for minerals on the moon, and use those materials in the construction of our Mars bound spaceship. The advantage of using lunar materials for deep space activities is that they only have to be launched out of a gravity well one-sixth as deep as Earth’s, with the cost in fuel proportionally lower. Aluminum, silicon and oxygen are the major components of the lunar regolith, or soil. Using relatively simple techniques, the loose soil of the moon could be baked to remove the oxygen, and smelted for aluminum and other elements. It is conceivable that lunar aluminum could be used for structural components for a Mars mission, but on the whole I think this is unlikely in the timeframe we’re talking about here - though in future decades, there is little doubt that lunar building materials will play an important role in our expansion through the solar system.

The first usable export from the moon will likely be oxygen, and it is possible that some lunar oxygen might find it’s way into a Mars mission. The major problem is that even with the smaller gravity well, the transportation infrastructure would not be up to bulk shipment of oxygen for use as fuel or for life support. The small number of landers will be used to deliver crew and materials to the lunar surface, and deadheading the landers back to orbit will save precious fuel. If lunar oxygen was being produced, the quantities in the early stages would be small. These would be small prototype facilities, designed to learn how to best use the moon’s resources, and not geared toward mass production.

There is one exception to this general forecast – if large quantities of ice were discovered at the lunar poles, hidden from the sun at the bottoms of craters that have not seen daylight in billions of years. This would present a wonderful opportunity. With a small amount of electricity – easily available on the moon for two weeks at a time – water ice could be directly converted into rocket fuel. (Of course, the water can also be used for life support – but in much smaller quantities.) Lunar landers could refuel at the moon, saving the cost of shipping fuel from Earth, and load their cargo bays with fuel for use elsewhere. One of the worst logistical bottlenecks in space development is getting sufficient supplies of fuel into orbit, because for every pound of fuel you end up with in orbit, you have to burn ten times as much to get it into orbit. Then, to get a store of fuel to the moon, you have to burn more fuel to leave earth orbit, and more again to get down to the lunar surface. Finding a convenient source of fuel on the moon would greatly ameliorate that bottleneck, and reduce the cost of any endeavor we undertake in Earth orbit or beyond.

There are of course other reasons to go to the moon. If we established a presence on Mars, we could use that foothold to pursue several scientific endeavors. Selenology, or lunar geology would keep many planetologists busy, and teach us much about the origins of the solar system. The lunar farside would be an ideal place to look into the heavens. A farside observatory would be shielded from Earth by the entire bulk of the moon, have no interference from atmosphere, have a low gravity to make large mirrors easier to construct and install, a stable base free of the problems of orientation that had to be solved on Hubble, and (given a regular human presence) easier to keep in good working order. Space several of these around the edge of the farside, and you could use interferometry to get resolution far in excess of anything we’ve done so far. These scientific projects and others would be made possible by a human presence on the moon.

Nat at "Bad Thoughts" takes a break from his well-argued international affairs coverage to provide this bon mot on the President's moonshot proposal:

Bush works on space program, gets dizzy from model glue

W00t! In other news, the new issue of the Economist features a story on Bush's space plan that discusses much of what Buckethead and the rest of us have been talking about this past week (part 1, part B, part III, etc.). We should feel good: their analysis mirrors ours, and as you know the Economist employs smart-type people.

The only head-scratcher in an otherwise balanced and thoughtful article is this: "One expensive lesson of the Shuttle programme is that trips into space are too infrequent to justify building a re-usable spacecraft." Huh? All the shuttle program has shown us is that government trips into space are infrequent and expensive, and much of that depends on the nature of the Shuttle itself.

Later in the piece, the Economist staffers note the X-Prize and tout the potential profitability of private manned space flight, and the greater dividends yielded by confining NASA to the unmanned sciency stuff. Yet they don't put two and two together to see the grandiose vision that the members of this weblog unanimously espouse. Does that mean they're wrong and we're right? Damn skippy, it do!

The first two parts of this series are here and here.

In the first post, I discussed how we could quickly and relatively cheaply develop the means to launch people and large cargos into orbit. That is the necessary precursor to any significant endeavor in space. While the methods I outlined would reduce costs to orbit, they would not make them exactly cheap. But they would give us a ladder while others could work on building an escalator. The second post discusses, in broad outline, one idea for developing the life support technology that the Mars mission would require.

Once we have the first step under control, we can begin thinking about the precursors for a Mars mission: the ability to live, unsupported, in space for long periods; a ship that can get us to Mars; and the technology to live and explore on the Martian surface.

How do we get around?

There is much more research to be done on propulsion systems for a future Mars mission. Right now, the two best possibilities are Bob Zubrin's Mars Direct concept and nuclear fission rockets. Zubrin suggests that we send, in advance of the human crewed flight, unmanned gas stations to Mars. These automated facilities would land in a likely spot, and then use solar or nuclear-thermal energy to suck in Martian air and refine it into oxygen and rocket fuel. Only when the gas station signals that its tanks are full will the crewed mission depart. This is a very clever idea, because it does not require that we take every last ounce of food, fuel, water and air needed for the return journey all the way around. There is every indication that Zubrin's idea is feasible, but it would require some solid engineering effort to bring it into being.

The second idea is to use nuclear rockets. In this concept, instead of using the traditional chemical rockets we're all familiar with, hydrogen fuel is passed through an extremely hot, Uranium reactor core. The as the hydrogen passes through the reactor, it is heated and the expansion of the hydrogen gas provides the thrust. This type of rocket is more effective than typical chemical rockets for two reasons: 1, the reactor can operate at a higher temperature, yielding greater thrust; and 2, since only very light hydrogen is used, we need far less mass to get the same thrust compared to burning hydrogen and much heavier oxygen. The first experimental nuclear rocket, called the Kiwi, achieved a specific impulse of over 850 seconds. (Specific impulse is a measure of a rocket's efficiency.) The Shuttle Main Engine is among the most sophisticated and efficient chemical rockets ever built, and has a specific impulse of around 450. With a little effort, there is no question that we could develop nuclear rockets with twice the efficiency of the best chemical rockets.

Either way, the effect is to cut the fuel requirements for a trip to Mars, which makes the whole thing significantly easier to manage. While we research both methods, we can begin planning our first mission beyond the moon. To prepare for the Mars mission, we should have some experience with long duration flights. We can do a dress rehearsal of the Mars mission by mounting an expedition to one of the Near Earth Asteroids. These asteroids are small bodies of rock or metal that have orbits that cross Earth's. Some of these asteroids are very close to Earth, at least in terms of how much fuel we need to burn to get to them. Rather than a three-year mission to Mars, we can plan a one-year mission to an asteroid.

There are several advantages to an NEA mission. First, we get to test much of the hardware for a Mars mission on a shorter mission. Second, we can test the propulsion, guidance, system integration, and construction of our space ship without being held up by delays in either the life sciences or surface exploration programs. A shorter mission means that if need be, we could do the whole thing on canned air and food in toothpaste tubes if necessary - though obviously we would want to test whatever life support technologies have emerged from the lab described in the previous post. Also, we won't need to worry about complicated tasks like refueling on Mars' surface, aero-braking, etc., that a full Mars mission would require. Third, it will provide good science - asteroids are remnants from the formation of the solar system, and will tell us much about that history. Further, geological assays will tell us how easy it might be to mine or otherwise develop asteroids for commercial uses. All in all, it would be a good work up to prepare us for our ultimate goal of reaching Mars.

Whichever method - chemical or nuclear - the NEA mission will be both a useful test of Mars mission technology and skills and valuable in its own right for prestige and scientific gain. 

The first part of this series is here.

In the previous post, I discussed how we could quickly and relatively cheaply develop the means to launch people and large cargos into orbit. That is the necessary precursor to any significant endeavor in space. While the methods I outlined would reduce costs to orbit, they would not make them exactly cheap. But they would give us a ladder while others could work on building an escalator.

Once we have the first step under control, we can begin thinking about the precursors for a Mars mission: the ability to live, unsupported, in space for long periods; a ship that can get us to Mars; and the technology to live and explore on the Martian surface.

Living in Space

The Space Station is the second American experiment in living in space. (We allowed the first attempt, Skylab to burn up on reentry because we had stopped using disposable rockets before the shuttle was operational.) The space station will have value in the near term as a way station in orbit – a place for crews to rest, to assemble other vehicles for other missions, and a transshipment point for crews and supplies heading from the earth to the moon. As such, it will eventually need to be expanded, possibly with components from Shuttle-C vehicles, or with components launched directly from earth. Because of the constant comings and goings, and due to the need to use the ISS as an orbital construction site, it will not be suitable for experiments in long duration survival without outside inputs of supplies and so on.

To begin to solve the problem of living in space as the crew of a Mars mission, we would need to set up a separate laboratory to develop the technology needed to achieve self-sufficiency for periods of one to two years. This laboratory would be another orbiting space station, located near the ISS in case of emergency, but designed from the outset to take in a crew and remain isolated for a period of months, and then years as they test the equipment and techniques that will eventually keep the Mars crew alive. The philosophy behind this facility would have to be one of constant build/test/rebuild/test. Since there is little chance that we’d get it right in one, we should allow for the need to slowly and incrementally refine our knowledge, in conditions closely resembling the eventual mission.

The inhabitants (or inmates) of the lab would research closed cycle life support systems, growing food in space (and eating it), the effects of freefall on the human body and a thousand other needful things. While we branch out to other missions – on the moon, or elsewhere – we will have this laboratory constantly increasing our knowledge of how to survive and thrive in space. It will take years to prepare for the final departure of the Mars mission, and this laboratory will be working the whole time without holding up any other aspect of the preparations. (And naturally, this orbital facility would be backed up by many more researchers and engineers on Earth.) Some links: space station life support, Plant based life support, and an overview.

Yesterday President Bush announced a plan to "explore space and extend a human presence across our solar system." My initial reaction to the speech was one of general disappointment, with a few small slivers of hope. Disappointment because the plan sounds like many previous plans that have amounted to little more than wasted money and wasted opportunity. Disappointment because the timeframes are very long, and the plan has little focus.

Slivers of hope, because at least it is now the established policy of the United States to extend a human presence across the solar system, and more importantly the plan does not make any statements that threaten to extinguish the small candle of private space endeavors. Of course, it does not incorporate them, which is another disappointment. As I look around the blogosphere, intelligent commentators have expressed similar sentiments. Rand Sindberg, Joe Katzman over at Winds of Change, and Jay Manifold of A Voyage to Arcturus. For a good discussion of the rationales behind space exploration, see Laughing Wolf's take.

There are several problems with the plan the President outlined. First, if the Shuttle is going to be retired by 2010, but the new Crew Exploration Vehicle will not be available until 2014 at the earliest; what are we going to use in the intervening four plus years? Second, this CEV is intended to transport crew from the surface of the Earth to Low Earth Orbit, and from LEO to the lunar surface. It also might be intended as a crew habitat on the moon and part of a Mars mission as well. It is unlikely in the extreme that a vehicle can be designed that will satisfy all of these requirements; and even if one is designed, it will likely have fatal flaws like those of the shuttle. Third, there is no mention of developing a heavy lift vehicle, which would be necessary for most workable concepts for lunar development or trips to Mars. Fourth, the design timeframe for a Mars mission would stretch over six presidential elections and 13 congressional elections. I don't see how any program can maintain focus over this long a period in the face of that much politics. It seems inevitable that it will drift off into waste and endless redesign as many other programs have in the past.

There are other objections to the mission assumptions. Why are we planning a return to robotic exploration of the Moon? We have after all already walked on the moon, and there are currently orbiters circling the moon that should be capable of mapping out landing sites. Why is a human return to the moon placed more than a decade in the future? We managed to get to the moon in less than a decade, starting from scratch over forty years ago. I should think that nearly half a century of progress in computers, materials, engineering, and science along with the knowledge of how we did it the first time should reduce that timeline significantly. (Granted, cost certainly is an object this time around. Nevertheless....) Why are the Moon and Mars named as the only destinations? A mission to a Near Earth Asteroid would provide a shorter, but still long duration mission; enabling us to test our ability to survive away from Earth without worrying about the problems of landing on a planet. Further, such a mission would have the added benefit of providing some really good science and experience that will certainly come in handy as we move out into the solar system.

With these thoughts in mind, how should we go about getting to Mars?

First, we need to have a clear idea of what it takes to get to Mars: A Mars mission will necessarily be a long one, in all likelihood well over a year on the inside. There is no possibility for rescue in the event of a mishap, which puts additional pressure on planners. It takes a significant amount of energy to get there, slow to enter Mars orbit, and then land. New technologies will have to be developed to allow us to live on and explore the hostile environment of Mars' surface. And finally, we need to be able to get into Earth orbit in a safe, reliable and relatively cheap manner, or else all other considerations are moot. Most of the cost of the Bush Sr. Mars plan in the early nineties was driven by the astronomical cost per pound to orbit. Reduce that price, and things begin to be possible. So, we have in front of us several tasks that need to be addressed:

1. Design, build and test effective, safe and cheaper means of getting to LEO.
2. Learn how to survive without outside inputs of supplies for several years in space
3. Design, build and test an interplanetary spaceship capable of delta-v on the order of a couple km/s.
4. Design build and test the equipment the explorers would use on the Martian surface.

Each of these programs could be started simultaneously, and could run concurrently. As we will see, the technologies developed in these programs can be tested separately, and finally combined in a full-scale Mars mission.

Earth to Orbit The first and most crucial component of any plan to get to Mars, or indeed to anywhere beyond the surface of the Earth is to develop more effective ways to get to Earth orbit. The major flaw of the space shuttle is that it is an attempt to meet too many mission goals simultaneously. We would be better served by a variety of vehicles; each specialized to meet one mission profile. In the near term, there are three basic mission profiles:

1. Crew transport
2. Satellite and regular resupply missions to the space station
3. Heavy lift

There is little need and great expense in launching the 150,000lb. Shuttle orbiter merely to get seven humans into orbit. Our first goal should be the rapid design and testing of a new crew vehicle. There is a significant body of research already in existence, we should merely choose the most cost effective means of getting people into (and back from) orbit. The most likely candidate, at least in the short term, would be to design something along the lines of the Orbital Space Plane that NASA was talking about last fall. Launched on a reliable, disposable, multistage rocket such as the Atlas or Delta, this vehicle could carry several astronauts into orbit, and reenter the atmosphere much as the shuttle does. Advances in materials technology should make this vehicle reusable - at least for several missions. The OSP would be much smaller and much simpler than the Shuttle orbiter, and as a result should be much cheaper. An OSP docked to the space station could also serve as a emergency crew return vehicle as well. A vehicle as simple as this should take no more than a year to develop, given even remotely adequate program management. This is not groundbreaking technology, and should require mostly off the shelf components. If we developed this fast enough, there should be no need to reactivate the shuttle fleet. Our primary goal should be a first launch of an OSP by early 2005.

Initially, several of these vehicles could serve our needs to get astronauts into orbit. As our space endeavors grow, more could be constructed. Once launched, the base version would be capable of supporting its crew for several days - providing air, water, food and shelter. It would have a retro rocket that would allow the vehicle to de-orbit and come back to earth. While we are using the OSP, more advanced crew vehicles could be designed to further reduce costs and increase efficiency. But it would not require us to go without a crewed vehicle for any length of time, and while allowing us to retire the unsafe and inefficient space shuttle.

With a little forethought, the design could be made more useful. If allowances are made for wingless versions, and for the attachment of service modules, the same vehicle could serve as a template for a whole line of space vehicles, easily adapted for different roles. A wingless (and lighter) version could be lofted into orbit, mated to a modular service module. The service module would contain a more powerful rocket, fuel tanks and additional life support capability. This vehicle could then be used within Earth orbit as a utility vehicle, taxi or tugboat. If the service module included a small robotic arm, the OSP would become a construction vehicle. Further, the service module would turn the OSP into an Earth-Moon shuttle. Without the need to reenter the earth's atmosphere, or to land on the Moon, the OSP could transfer crew and small cargoes between Earth and lunar orbit. Thus, one vehicle would serve many needs without the massive over-design we see in the shuttle.

For satellite launch and regular resupply missions, we should emulate the Russians and use disposable rockets. Our Delta and Atlas rockets are reliable and not too expensive, at least in the short run. Without the space shuttle, more launches would go to these platforms, and prices should come down somewhat through economies of scale. As a enhancement to this general scheme, any restrictions on American companies using these rockets for private launches should be lifted. Developing a commercial launch industry, even with "primitive" disposable rocket technology, is only to the good. As with the crewed vehicles, we can continue design efforts for more advanced vehicles while using what we have.

The final mission profile is much easier to achieve than many would think. For decades now, ideas have been floating around for Shuttle Derived Vehicles. (Go here for a nice overview.) Essentially every time we launch the shuttle, we are using a heavy lift launcher. The shuttle orbiter weighs over 150,000lbs, and all of that is technically payload. Add in the nearly 50,000lbs of payload that the orbiter carries, that runs to quite a load. If we eliminate the orbiter, nearly all of that becomes useful payload.

Of the several schemes that have been proposed, the Shuttle-C idea is closest to reality. This system essentially replaces the orbiter with a cargo pod. The back of the cargo pod is identical with the orbiter's "Boat-Tail" and contains standard shuttle engines. In front of this is a thin, lightweight shell that would protect the cargo during launch. The payload capacity of the "C" is two to three times larger than with a standard orbiter, and costs would certainly be no more than a standard shuttle launch, as we avoid the expensive refurbishment that the orbiter goes through after every launch. There is no reason that I am aware of that we could begin launching Shuttle-C's in less than a year or two, as absolutely no new technology is required, and the redesign involves only an unscrewed cargo shell.

Once we have the Shuttle-C operational, we drop the per pound cost to orbit by at least a factor of three, and make possible launches we could not have attempted previously due to payload constraints. We could expand the space station if necessary, and launch the components for lunar bases and interplanetary missions. And again, while we are using the Shuttle-C, we can be designing more efficient follow-ons. The Shuttle-B would have a similar configuration, but would use cheaper engines designed for disposable rockets. More involved redesigns could use more Solid Rocket Boosters for even greater payload, or a wide variety of other variations.

(And of course, with some forethought, some of these components can be made more useful. The Shuttle-C cargo pod could conceivably become new pressurized living space, needing only retrofitting with furnishings. The perfectly functional shuttle main engines could be reused. The External Tanks could be brought into orbit and used as pressure space or fuel depots. Endless possibilities.)

The amazing thing is that with a little effort, and a willingness to actually build and test rather conduct endless studies; most of this hardware could be operational within a year or two, and none of it requires any new technology whatsoever. Once we have a new transportation infrastructure, we can go back and come up with better vehicles - or better yet, request bids for new vehicles from private industry rather than design them within NASA. These vehicles would allow us to almost immediately expand our presence in Earth orbit, and begin to gain the skills we will soon need further out. They would allow us to launch the hardware that we will use to return to the moon in style, rather than via robotic proxy. There's no reason we can't have a moon base by the end of the decade. I'll tackle the next three tasks in the next couple posts.

Based on the early reports, I am disappointed. My eight month old son will be out of college before the earliest date we imagine being on Mars. We might not even be back on the moon until 2020, and they're talking about robotic missions to scout the way to the moon. Jeebus! We've done that, we've been there! Just go back for Chrissakes. At most, put up a lunar orbiter with a really good camera to pick a landing site.

Also, I am very dubious about this crew exploration vehicle. Something that launches from the Earth and lands on the moon does not sound smart. I'll do some more research, but this doesn't sound like a bold plan to explore the cosmos.

... and pretty soon you're talking real money. Before we have all the details on the President's bold plan for space exploration I'd like to make one comment about the objections that are already being raised.

One billion dollars. It sounds a lot like Dr. Evil if you say it right. But spread over five years, this is chump change to the federal government. In this article, Stephen Moore of the very conservative Club for Growth (and someone whose economic thinking I generally admire) says that the new program is a "total fiscal absurdity."

Well, I call bullshit. If the liberals and old people can have $400 billion for drugs, well I want a goddamn flag on Mars for .25% of the money needed to keep grandpa in viagra.

It is all well and good to provide for the needs of our citizenry, and to build bombs to smite those that offend us. But we can spend a little (relatively speaking) to do something that merely expands the horizons of our knowledge, inspires us with pride in accomplishing something truly unprecedented, and lays the groundwork for our grandchildren's exploration of a boundless frontier.

Screw you, penny pinchers.

[wik] Of course, there are also very real benefits. There are the nifty technological spin offs. There is the pleasing thought that this will maintain our strategic dominance of space in the face of possible Chinese or even European interference. Also, it keeps us at the cutting edge, and assures that all the smart people will keep coming here to work with the smart people already here, and keep us on top. And don't forget, condos on Mars will piss off the environmental wackos no end!

[alsø wik] Johno comments,

"But I'm a sentimental man and place a LOT of stock in grand historic gestures of combined human enterprise. We can either embrace the stars, or turn our backs on them. It's this dicking around in low-earth-orbit with expensive and delicate experimental machinery that I can't freaking stand. "

Too true. As I commented over at Insults Unpunished, the space station and shuttle were entirely useless unless there was a large goal, or at least enterprise in space. Its like building a billion dollar greyhound bus to travel back and forth to a four billion dollar bus station in the middle of Death Valley. Unless we go to the moon or planets or asteroids, or actually create a "there" in orbit ourselves, neither of these expensive technological gimcracks have any purpose or utility.

People who favor robotic exploration go on and on about scientific bang for taxpayer buck, blah blah blah; but they can never answer the question, "well can your robot plant a fucking flag on Mars, and feel the exhilaration that every man on Earth can identify with?" The answer is no. Grand Guestures are expensive, but they are grand; and no penny pinching, cost cutting bureaucrat will ever get them for us.