Marburger speech -- reasons for the Moon

[radarredux]

John Marburger, the science gatekeeper at the White House, gave a speech last week at the 44th Robert H. Goddard Memorial Symposium. The text is online at the link below. While the speech covered a range of issues, here are some snippets I found interesting: <blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>We must never forget that within our Solar System the object most important for humankind is Earth, and Earth-oriented space applications merit priority in a balanced portfolio of public investment.<br />...<br />The Moon is the closest source of material that lies far up Earth's gravity well. Anything that can be made from Lunar material at costs comparable to Earth manufacture has an enormous overall cost advantage compared with objects lifted from Earth's surface. The greatest value of the Moon lies neither in science nor in exploration, but in its material.<br />...<br />A not unreasonable scenario is a phase of highly subsidized capital construction followed by market-driven industrial activity to provide Lunar products such as oxygen refueling services for commercially valuable Earth-orbiting apparatus.<br />...<br />It is difficult for me to imagine, however, that such a complex activity could be sustained without human supervision and maintenance. This, in my view, is the primary reason for developing the capacity for human spaceflight to the Moon.<br />...<br />What makes the Moon operation economically viable are the Earth-oriented markets. That is not likely to be the case for a similar operation on Mars unless economically attractive materials are found on Mars itself or among the asteroids. Consequently, a Mars operation complex enough to warrant human oversight will have to be fully subsidized by governments during a long period of robotic exploration beyond Mars orbit.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=19999

 

[bwhite]

He also said Mars is not currently affordable

 

[JonClarke]

"He also said Mars is not currently affordable"<br /><br />No he did not. This exact words were:<br /><br />"What makes the Moon operation economically viable are the Earth-oriented markets. That is not likely to be the case for a similar operation on Mars unless economically attractive materials are found on Mars itself..."<br /><br />In other words, he believes that the Moon can become economically viable by "extracting elements and minerals that can be processed into fuel or massive components of space apparatus."<br /><br />In contrast a "Mars operation complex enough to warrant human oversight will have to be fully subsidized by governments..."<br /><br />Just because it is not economically viable does not mean it is not affordable. National Antarctic programs are not ecomically viable as stand alone operations, but are supported none the less.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[spayss]

Antarctic programs cost millions, not tens of billions.

 

[josh_simonson]

Antarctic exploration also yields important data about the climate (ice cores), prehistoric microbes frozen in glaciers, and extremophiles that have evolved separated from the rest of the world in ice lakes. All these things affect our understanding of our planet's life and climate - which is important since we live here and the climate is a big issue at the moment.<br /><br />Mars research OTOH will not yield results that are nearly as useful as the antarctic ice cores for earth applications. If no past or present life is found on Mars there won't be any science to be done there that could justify the expense of a manned mission.

 

[tap_sa]

Who says Mars science has to yield results for Earth applications? Manned Mars missions are precursor for permanent Mars settlement. Some day people will choose to live on another planets just because they <i>can</i>. There's an entire planet rich with volatiles and tolerable conditions waiting to be owned.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Antarctic exploration also yields important data about the </font>limate (ice cores)<font color="yellow">, </font>rehistoric<font color="yellow"> microbes frozen in glaciers, and extremophiles that have </font>volved<font color="yellow"> separated from the rest of the world in ice lakes.</font>/i><br /><br />Sigh...<br /><br />Haven't you been following what the government leaders say?<br /><br />There is no climate change.<br /><br />There are no prehistoric microbes because the Universe started only 6,000 years ago.<br /><br />And there is no evolution.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /></i>

 

[spayss]

Folks aren't going to settle on Mars. Next century we might have a permanent research station like the Antarctic but that's the extent of human habitation on Mars.

 

[arkady]

Wow, omnipotence must be nice. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "<font color="#0000ff"><em>The choice is the Universe, or nothing</em> ... </font>" - H.G Wells </div>

 

[mlorrey]

Depends on what policies government takes. Marburger fails to account for one market in particular that Mars can provide: freedom.<br /><br />Given today's politically correct climate, plenty of governments ought to see great value in humanely getting rid of embarrassing dissidents and minority groups by deporting them to Mars, just as was done in the colonia era. What better way to get noisy individuals out of the body politic?

 

[josh_simonson]

>Who says Mars science has to yield results for Earth applications? <br /><br />Taxpayers like to see something in return for their investment. You might be able to sell settlement related research if you've already sold the public on mars settlement in the first place. At the moment though people are most interested in the search for life on mars. That search has many direct scientific and philosophical applications right here. <br /><br />

 

[subzero788]

I think it would be a hell of a lot easier and cheaper just to lock them up than send them all the way to mars <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[JonClarke]

Not going to work. It's going to be a long time before mass transport of hundreds or thousands of people to Mars will be feasible. Mars is not the Americas or Australasia. It is a vastly more hostile frontier. It would be cheaper and simpler to create settlements on the sea floor than on Mars. The Raison d'etre for large scale Mars settlement has yet to be discovered.<br /><br />It would be better to work for the preservation and expansion of freedoms here on earth than by thinking that we can escape terrestrial problems by going to Mars.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"it's going to be literate, well-educated, scientifically-minded individuals chosen for their ability to get along with others and possessing a desire to expand the boundaries of life as we know it. "</font><br /><br />Exactly. It will be a very interesting society. And those people will value the freedom of living in an entirely new world.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"Aren't treaties over property rights and/or "preservationists" going to hamstring lunar strip-mining?"</font><br /><br />Outer Space Treaty prevents nations from claiming ownership of celestial bodies, but does not prevent private enterprising in any way. Since nobody owns the Moon everybody can go there and start digging the resources.<br /><br />Moon Treaty is has more hippie context, mumbling about 'banning all exploration and uses of celestial bodies without the approval or benefit of other states'. It's dead treaty since it's ratified by only a handful of non-space faring nations.<br /><br />There will probably be some sort of de facto homesteading around permanent bases.

 

[mlorrey]

Not to mention the fact that the US has never ratified any treaties limiting its, or its citizens, rights to develop the moon for industry.

 

[josh_simonson]

Correct, and there's no reason to think that martian settlers would be more 'free' than an american living in Utah. You'd still pay taxes, perhaps in the form of working on something for the common good - but it's taxation all the same. <br /><br />If one were intent on 'comparative planetology' wouldn't you want to explore all the planets, moons and other large bodies equally, rather than pouring most of the research into mars?

 

[nibb31]

"Exactly. It will be a very interesting society. And those people will value the freedom of living in an entirely new world. "<br /><br />Freedom is a limited notion when you're stuck inside a hab module surrounded by a an unbreathable atmosphere, nothing to eat but home grown salad and a 5 minute communication delay when you want to phone home to your relatives. Not to mention the dust, the radiation and the extreme cold.<br /><br />Mars is not a "new Far West". The history of the USA is not a universal model of how things will always be. <br /><br />Colonies on distant planets can make nice sci-fi stories, but we are at least a century or two away from making sustainable off world habitats for more than a couple dozen people.<br /><br />IMO, advocates of Mars colonization dont realize how alien Mars is.

 

[gsuschrist]

'Free' is a relative term. Whose morality? Will gays be allowed to marry? Women made to wear veils? Polygamy OK? Will there be Hindu castes? Incest allowed? Segregation? All drugs legal? Sexual abuse allowed? Etc. Will the society be run according to Muslim sharia law? Christian morality? Death penalty? Equality of goods...communism? Will all public meetings be in Swahili..Farsi...Indonesian? Can Hindus burn unwanted widows? Is all abortion ok? Infanticide? <br /><br />Any group going to Mars will have no less issues than people on Earth.<br /><br />

 

[mlorrey]

Free is not a relative term. Freedom is being able to do things that do not harm others. Privilege is what you call being allowed to hurt others.

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"Colonies on distant planets can make nice sci-fi stories, but we are at least a century or two away from making sustainable off world habitats for more than a couple dozen people. "</font><br /><br />What break-through technology (without it sustainable off world habitats apparently are impossible) do we have to wait for a century or two?

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"Any group going to Mars will have no less issues than people on Earth. "</font><br /><br />There seems to be a universal law that technical savvyness and fundamentalist crazyness are mutually exclusive. In order to cope with life on Mars the settlers are required to possess former.

 

[mlorrey]

Glad to see someone that doesn't see libertarianism as 'fundamentalist craziness'. Given the very high prevalence of libertarianism among tech savvy people....

 

[nibb31]

Cheap access to space for the masses. There's no way that is possible with today's tech and space infrastructure. Infrastructure takes investment to build. There is no serious foreseeable return on investments in colonizing Mars.

 

[barrykirk]

The sad part is that not all people agree on what it means, "...do things that do not harm others".<br /><br />Therefore, some people will have different views on whether or not any particular society is free or not.

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"Cheap access to space for the masses."</font><br /><br />Does not require any new technical break-throughs, only more private enterprising and higher flight rates.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"There is no serious foreseeable return on investments in colonizing Mars."</font><br /><br />People today cough up $20M just to spend a few days in LEO. Fastforward 50 years and there will be people paying similar sum for their oneway ticket to Mars. It won't be illiterate illegal aliens/3rd world refugees moving there, it will be the rich with PhDs.