The Art Neuro Weblog

Chris Manifesto notes

Can something as long term as space development be managed by a Democratic state? Quite possibly not if the history of NASA is anything to go on. Yet this is not just about whether there is an external threat. Has USA had too little or too much of that? It seems the lack of a sparring partner (kind of a threat I suppose) has done more to make space stagnate than anything else. They realised, correctly as it turns out, that USSR would not go the distance if they competed harder on the ground and that PRC was not yet ready.

Democracies are just not very good at planting trees for their own sake. This is because the expense is for now (& can be attacked by other interests) and the benefits accrue not only beyond the current political term but beyond the current politicians political careers. Only when there is some competing state going for it (& then they compete only for the glory not the benefits) does USA stir itself, or so it seems.
Yet this is not all bad. Democratic, relatively free countries assume in their political philosophies that anything really worth doing will get done, either by public pressure on government or by private enterprise. So why hasn't it? In part, because we have 'accidentally' and artificially made it NOT worth while. The International Space Treaties signed so far not only demilitarise space by banning weapons there (water on the moon or no - and that may not have been the best idea) they require that development of space be done "for all nations". Sounds good but this means that those who make the effort and investment cannot be sure of reaping the benefits unless that treaty is changed. Too many members of "all Nations" waiting with their hands out even without shared investment. Agreeing to do "develop for the benefit of all" regardless of investment means killing investment. So the threats from space seem a long way off and the benefits uncertain and distant (however huge and critical in the medium/long term). Thus, it is left to 'the next generation'.

Some of us however do not wish to put it off. Indeed the dwindling resources and accelerating consumption suggest we must not. So why Mars Direct rather than other space initiatives? Because we must do more than paddle around in LEO with rickety shuttles. Mars (not Luna) because of its combination of resources and shallow gravity well is the gateway to the solar system. We are far more sure of water there and even more so Carbon, Nitrogen etc that we need to live than Luna or the asteroids. Even the mineral prospects are greater - and when you do the maths it is only slightly harder to get to from Earth than Luna (See Zubrin). We need to do other space initiatives as well, as Chris says. However we need to colonise Mars BECAUSE we need to do other things, not in spite of them or in competition with them. Just a few notes then on Chris list. Each of these is worthy of major discussions in its own right and I suggest we do just that.

Do NOT take apparently glib 'dismissals' below as final. Each is the result of much (past and ongoing) reading & thought on my part, summed up here in reductio ad absurdum. Each of Chris' projects is worthy of more discussion and at least some resources. Prioritising them will be part of our work:

1. Interplanetary robotic exploration. Yep no question, this is being done though and is the main focus of The Planetary Society (www.planetary.org) started by Sagan and others. NASA is big on this too but sure, could be bigger but basically this one is proceeding without challenge.

2. Deployment of telescopes. Agreed & you will note that Zubrin slammed NASA for backing away from maintaining Hubble. We need more observatories(one of the few good reasons to go back to Luna) not just for science but to map the many asteroids that threaten us & offer us resources.

3. SETI. What do you have in mind here? If we colonise the solar system this will be a side effect anyway. Any aliens that we must search that hard for, however philosophically important, do not threaten us directly yet. Chris suggests (to me in private) that it may be important to find other intelligences even if we perish here!) I'm all for it but not with giant resources we need for the asteroid mapping. I want to survive first, find others later - different philosophy I guess.

4. More shuttles? ONLY if the engineering & economics leads that way this time. ONLY if they really offer to lower the boost to orbit costs. So far they have not made the case.

5. Research on humans in zero-G (USSR did lots of this) and small groups (like submarines, research stations & villages?). Agreed - but this is being done. As it happens it is a special interest of mine. It must not be made a prerequisite but a co-requisite for space though.

6. Interstellar probe. Way too expensive & current drive tech is not up to it. I will present details later if anyone disagrees but this one may well be for down the track. It also presents NO tangible benefits in the next few centuries so - think, plan, design... but don't resource it too much because we can't do it yet. Even if we find important stuff we CAN'T go there yet.

7. Aqualogy sure OK. Self contained ship, recycling etc. Absolutely. This will be done as soon as we have a pressing need to maintain bases on Luna, Io, Ceres etc. We must solve these problems and we should research it in advance. No problem. But not at the expense of making a start off world on Mars where we have at least some resources to live off. You can't stop this one even if you try so lets not vote it high priority (even though it is where I personally wish to make my main contribution).

8. Launch ramps and Beanstalks. Yes, same proviso as shuttles. Engineering and economics must drive this but both should be resourced to the extent they can offer near future benefits.
www.g2mil.com/SRT.htm
www.spacedaily.com/news/future-01f.html
www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_elevator_020327-1.html

9. Quantum entanglement based comms. Sure, the research cost is well within our means. It is promising & it could be very important. But it is not critical. The lack would not be a show stopper.

10. Colonies. The order of these should definitely be teased out and argued further. Based on many factors such as energy costs, resources such as water, organics, propellants & the ongoing needs of earthbound humanity - I have come to think the general order should be Mars (resources to do the others), Asteroids, Luna/L5 (research base and maybe Helium 3), Gas giants for energy (Helium3 Fusion). Once we have done that we are on the way to harnessing the system. THEN we can figure out what to do next and it may well include interstellar probes. L5, Luna, undersea etc bases will be done as and when they make real sense. A detailed and reasoned plan here can be a major contribution of the group.

The rest of Chris post deals with the social, economic, political, legal and philosophical remaking of society which must also occur. We want to go to space but we do not merely wish to transplant North America to Mars! In some cases we cannot do what we see that we must unless we remake ourselves and our society. Deciding how best to order our world will be a large part of that work whether or not we expand out world beyond our atmosphere.

Much work to do. Who is in other than me Art & Chris? DMB ; )