Some of you may have seen the Mars Settlement threads. If there is one starting point for the logical development of the multi-pronged approach I advocate, if I have to point to a single basic philosophical / strategic foundation, it is this: Bypass NASA. Bypass Congress even. Do it without them. They can't do it, they've proven they can't do it, do it without them.<br /><br />Pretty harsh, don't you think?<br /><br />Me too.<br /><br />Yet by arriving at the conclusion that bypassing NASA was absolutely necessary, a myriad of possibilities appeared. Thus, the Mars Settlement threads. Actually, there is a long long ways between the Bypass NASA thing and the Mars Settlement threads - in which you can find out that Mars Settlement to me is just part of an even larger vision for the steps we need to take to become a space-faring society.<br /><br />I keep saying "Space-Faring Society" because that is the true raison d'etre for human space flight, is it not? Is there a better general argument to use to convince the general public that space flight is important? If America is to be a Great Country in this century, is there a better way to do that than to be the clear leader in all things space? Is there a society on Earth other than the USA with a better combination of attributes and assets to apply to the goal?<br /><br />From that over-arching goal, I let my imagination run wild - but not entirely without an Engineer's discipline - and came up with what would become my current sig line. My first love was Asteroid Mining. To this day, no one has shown me why we cannot do asteroid mining in the very near term. No one has shown me why we shouldn't put an NEO prospector mission together ASAP. For that matter, no one has shown me why we shouldn't focus on building a very very large pressurized habitat on the Moon as the primary goal for that orb. Some of you may remember the Moon Dome I advocated years ago here at uplink.sdc.com - I still think that's what our goal for the moon shou <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
<font color="yellow">In what ways could a PSA-type entity work with NASA to further the goals of those who want to see space development occur faster than NASA can afford?</font><br /><br />It seems to me that now with Mike at the helm of NASA, NASA is in the best shape it's been in for a while, but due to the nature of the beast, they are still moving slow. Their goal doesn't seem to be a settlement on Mars or the Moon, but instead just long term bases. I quess this is the impatience you were talking about...<br /><br />We need to lay the foundation for a space faring society, but a base or two won't do it, a settlement with following plans to exploit the asteroids will.<br /><br />Saying that, we should accept what they have to offer. We should use their science to help us. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />We could also use any space infrastructure that they would have in place that's useful to us. A new Crew Exploration Vehicle built by T/space for NASA could be useful in getting our people off of Earth.<br /><br />That is what I see the benefits from with a relationship with NASA would be. Now as to how the relationship works, I'm not sure <br /><br />We could invite them to our moon dome. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> LoL. <br /><br />NASA always seemed too passive to me to be the best explorers, but they are excellent for science.<br /><br />PSA should fill the role of the explorers and let NASA stick to science. They could provide us with previous scientific knowledge from the rovers and studies. We could provide them with say a Moon or Mars base from which to do more science from. <br /><br />Just a few thoughts.
Who runs it? What is it's legal authority? How is it financed?<br /><br />I'm pretty unclear what you are getting at with a PSA. It sounds too much like an attempt to duplicate NASA but with preferred policy goals and management.
And don't pull a Dobson <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />.<br /><br />A PSA could attract private donations.
The obvious way to advance private settlement of space is by piggybacking on existing government space projects and goals. The current NASA exploration focus gives private activity niches it can try to fill while NASA goes off exploring. ISS resupply, orbital tug transport, suborbital and orbital tourism, Moon communication and GPS satellites are some things private concerns can shoot for in the immediate future.<br /><br />Once that private infrastructure is built up some, reaching for grander goals will be feasible. LEO and Lunar fuel depots, LEO and Lunar solar power stations, cislunar tug transport, and lunar tourism are then feasible.<br /><br />I think suborbital, orbital, lunar, and martian activities all fall into a distinct hierarchy of difficulty for private exploitation. And the lower category will almost fill up with all the private activity it can support before private activity expands into the next higher category in a significant way.<br /><br />The point at which you begin settlement of Mars looks pretty far off. I think most of the simpler commercial uses of Mars would have to be well established first, such as power, communication, fuel depots, tourism, etc.<br /><br />But if the environmentalists ever get wind of native martian life then settlement plans have a whole new headache to deal with. Can you imagine, instead of a radical environmental group such as Earth First, dealing with some similar group named Mars for Martians?
<font color="yellow">Who runs it? What is it's legal authority? How is it financed? <br /><br />I'm pretty unclear what you are getting at with a PSA. It sounds too much like an attempt to duplicate NASA but with preferred policy goals and management. </font><br /><br />Thanks for getting to the crux of the matter - if you've read the entire Mars Settlement "trilogy" (lol), you would probably still have the same questions. Not knowing who has read how much, the summary thread I'm starting today will try to "take it from the top" so we can begin to cover new ground and hopefully attract more folks to the idea.<br /><br />The short answer is that the PSA would do what NASA cannot or will not do, within the bounds of reason.<br /><br />PSA would most definitely NOT try to duplicate NASA.<br /><br />Mike Griffin is too good to be true, but even after setting all cynicism aside, there are things that NASA cannot or will not do, things that need to be done if America is to be THE leader in space. <br /><br />(To the non-Americans reading this, please accept my apologies for being so USA-centric. Please rest assured that I am not hostile to or dismissive of this being as world-wide an enterprise as possible. It's just that the whole thing is already so broad in scope - and that there are some political realities involved - that I need to discuss this idea in a USA-only context. It's very early in the process of figuring this out, when it gets further along, we'll be thrilled to bring the rest of the world into the fold. Having said that, I anticipate little objection to the USA being the leader as long as we are internationally egalitarian.)<br /><br />As wonderful as Mike seems to be, he is still a scientist and NASA is still a government agency. Is it realistic to expect them to shift from a space-science-based approach to a settlement-based approach? How is that possible given funding limitations, political realities and laws and regulations that stand in the way?<br /><br></br> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Excellent! I'm really interested in your mars plans, i cannot contribute many thoughts though as i really do not understand the subjects very well, but i learn from your posts and those of the others such as arobie and dan.<br /><br />One of your early projects would be a deep space network you say? What would that involve, could you build it from Falcon-1 launches?
Okay now things are more clear.<br /><br />How to legally raise and spend money is a secondary problem. Your primary legal problem is settlement itself. And everyone, including the whole caterwauling mess of the U.N. will have their say. Establishing a permanent and independant human presence on Mars has enormous political consequences. And all of that will have to be hashed out before one person leaves Earth for Mars.<br /><br />Odds are the world "community" as in the mass of busybody non-governmental organizations (NGO) and the mass of authoritarian governments (U.N) will oppose any human settlement they do not control themselves. I have no idea how to get their blessing short of buying them off, which would still be a deal killer because it is too expensive. The only practical alternative may be to find a single friendly government to sanction the PSA goal and also willing to provide legal cover even though proceeding might violate "international law."<br /><br />Financing is a huge problem too. Unless someone like Paul Allen dies and wills you an endowment of a billion dollars to finance your PSA foundation, it's hard to see how you get the money. Yearly expenses for a private manned space program would at the very minimum be 10 million dollars per year and more likely 100 million to 1 billion dollars per year. I think (this is NOT my field of knowledge!) the rule of thumb is that an endowment of ten times as large as the yearly expenditures is required to sustain financing. It's likely the next twenty years would be spent just building up the financial base of the PSA Foundation before a single ride to anywhere in space is purchased let alone Mars. Raising $500,000 per year over twenty years (assume interest growth is eaten up by expenses) gets a base of 10 million dollars, which is enough for 1 million dollars per year sustained operations. Not much.<br /><br /> I'm not trying to rain on your parade, I'm just trying to examine your concept with a practic
Let it rain! Bring it on! The Parade will proceed anyway. 
<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Your primary legal problem is settlement itself.</font><br /><br />I agreee and disagree. Does anybody remember way back in the precursor thread when I stated that the primary problem with the whole shebang is the argument that "they will never allow it"? I didn't want to talk about it at that point in time, I just wanted to defuse it and set it aside. What you're talking about is what I was (not) talking about. So I'm actually excited that we're to the point where I can talk about it somewhat.<br /><br />First of all, I have an answer. But just as when the question of financing first came up, I'm not going to fully reveal the answer just yet. I mean, I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. J/K, we're talking politics here, and I fear that if I reveal my answer, our opponents will use it against us. Still, I want to talk about it, so here goes anyway, treading carefully. I will admit that my answer is a long ways from fully developed, but it does exist. I wish there was a way to discuss this only "among friends", but . . . <br /><br />Yup, it will all have to be hashed out before anyone leaves for Mars, but we've got lots of other things to work out during the same time period, so fine, add it to the list.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">. . . will oppose any human settlement they do not control themselves.</font><br />That's it in a nutshell. It's about power. We want the power to do what we want to do, and thus we are a threat to the PTB (Powers That Be). I'm trying to not get too political here, but it must be noted that there are those within nearly every government who feel The People cannot be trusted to govern themselves, that they must be controlled "for their own good". I call them "Federalists", and I hope they are ultimately a minority faction; if not, this whole idea is in vain.<br /><br />I'm just a stupid engineer, not a political scientist. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Your primary legal problem is settlement itself.</font><br /><br />I agreee and disagree. Does anybody remember way back in the precursor thread when I stated that the primary problem with the whole shebang is the argument that "they will never allow it"? I didn't want to talk about it at that point in time, I just wanted to defuse it and set it aside. What you're talking about is what I was (not) talking about. So I'm actually excited that we're to the point where I can talk about it somewhat.<br /><br />First of all, I have an answer. But just as when the question of financing first came up, I'm not going to fully reveal the answer just yet. I mean, I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. J/K, we're talking politics here, and I fear that if I reveal my answer, our opponents will use it against us. Still, I want to talk about it, so here goes anyway, treading carefully. I will admit that my answer is a long ways from fully developed, but it does exist. I wish there was a way to discuss this only "among friends", but . . . <br /><br />Yup, it will all have to be hashed out before anyone leaves for Mars, but we've got lots of other things to work out during the same time period, so fine, add it to the list.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">. . . will oppose any human settlement they do not control themselves.</font><br />That's it in a nutshell. It's about power. We want the power to do what we want to do, and thus we are a threat to the PTB (Powers That Be). I'm trying to not get too political here, but it must be noted that there are those within nearly every government who feel The People cannot be trusted to govern themselves, that they must be controlled "for their own good". I call them "Federalists", and I hope they are ultimately a minority faction; if not, this whole idea is in vain.<br /><br />I'm just a stupid engineer, not a political scientist. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>"I also don't like the "flag of convenience" approach. Ultimately, we need this to be a world-wide project, ..."<br /><br />Maybe.<br /><br />If your flag of convenience is Liberia, I agree. But if your flag of convenience is the USA that is an entirely different and eminently workable matter. And in fact if the USA is on board they rest of the world doesn't matter, and if the USA is opposed then the rest of the world doesn't matter either.<br /><br />The way I think events would really develop is -- the USA would allow the PSA Foundation and defend it, while most of the rest of the world would oppose it.
<font color="yellow">while most of the rest of the world would oppose it.</font><br /><br />Why?
Why would the rest of the world oppose it we make it clear we want them to be part of the team? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
"Why would the rest of the world oppose it [if] we make it clear we want them to be part of the team?"<br /><br />If things develop the way I suspect they could, eventually some of the world would drop their opposition and maybe even join in. But in the beginning I expect rabid opposition.<br /><br />Why? There are many reasons. Some have to do with domestic politics, as in the internal politics of the other nations. Kowtowing to environmentalists is part of that domestic politics. Aside from the "Mars for Martians" crowd, there would be those claiming a large human presence on Mars would contaminate it's science value and the anti-nuke environmentalists that would oppose the vital systems needed for survival on Mars.<br /><br />Another domestic political concern is knee-jerk anti-American sentiment, which the politicians in France, Germany and Canada love to play to and exploit. Those domestic sentiments would oppose PSA just because America supports it.<br /><br />Then there are the aspects of international power politics. If the United States is perceived in any way of gaining from PSA, then these other nations would oppose PSA, because they see world power as a zero sum game. Anything which makes the USA stronger must make them weaker. Russia, China and France fall into this category.<br /><br />Then there is the so-called developing world. Those mostly authoritarian governments like to shift the blame for domestic problems to the United States so they can avoid taking responsibility themselves. They will oppose the PSA and accuse it of being just another instrument of rich world colonialism.<br /><br />And like I said before the costs of compromising with these international opponents would outweigh the benefit of eradicating their opposition.
BTW, kdavis007, if you're out there, this is a good time to discuss the 1967 UN Space Treaty. I haven't looked at that document in a long time, mainly because I came to the conclusion it is not an obstacle to this plan. I would be very interested in hearing your point of view; you seem to think it is of paramount importance but I don't recall hearing why you believe that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
OK, like I said a long time ago, I haven't worked out all the geopolitical ramifications <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Those are valid concerns. Quite frankly, I've done a lot of writing today and I'm at a bit at a loss for a response just now. I'm trying to finish the summary, it's proving difficult for some reason. IOW, let me get back to you on that and if anyone else wants to comment, as always you don't have to wait for me . . . <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Part of me wants to say, "Do it anyway. If they don't like it, they can come to Mars and tell me all about it. But, until they can get there, possession is 9/10 of the law..." but, since I don't see anyway we can just pack up and go, even if we do add up all our pennies into one bank, we're going to need backing.<br /><br />However, to get other countries on the project with us, we might consider inviting "x" number of representatives from each participating nation. This way, every participant can see themselves as having equal representation. Another option is to allow them to send representatives based on the amount of their cotributions to the project. The first option allows for smaller countries, without as much to contribute, to participate. The second might encourage more contributions, so that they can send more representatives. A third option would be "x" number of representatives for those participating, plus additional representatives based on contributions. (Contributions can be figured as money, equipment, technology... Anything that helps supply the settlement with what is needed)<br /><br />Rae
<font color="yellow">"Possession is 9/10 of the law"</font><br /><br />That's a good thing to keep in mind. My understanding is that, while there is no legal framework providing for private property rights on Moon / Mars, if you set up shop there, it would be illegal for anyone to try to kick you off. Squatter's rights, as it were.<br /><br />Not that opposition groups won't try to file lawsuits to keep us from going in the first place. <br /><br />Can't we all just get along?!? <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />I'm thinking along the same lines as far as participation by other countries and their representatives. Er, actually, I'd rather refer to everyone as Martians from the start, but that's probably not realistic. Everyone holds citizenship somewhere on Earth, and governments would be looking to their citizens to be patriots.<br /><br />A very t&%$#@! issue.<br /><br />(OK, now I can start contemplating the concerns gunsandrockets brought up) <br /><br />edit: lol, it's been a long time since I've been censored - the word was t h o r n y <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
What about the old "pay to play" philosophy on this? Those with the big bucks are paying millions to go to the ISS for a few days. Wonder how much they would pay to go to mars for 2 1/2 years? Maybe this would be a way to help fund the mission? At a crew of 28, even paying a couple mil a piece, either in services or equipment, would certainly go a long way towards the goal.<br /><br />Rae
When we think we are close to a workable plan, we need to put a presentation together and start presenting at space conferences and trekie conventions. I think the support is out there, it just needs a dream that is possible.<br /><br />I would think that NASA would be like the research arm of PSA. From what I can find, NASA has done much of the research that is required to make a space faring society. We just need to build hardware and test the theories.
That sounds like a workable arrangement, if NASA will go for it. Have a "private" or "civilian" arm of NASA. Let them do the research, but have the implementation of that research be civilian. That may also help various groups with the same goals work together a little better, under the civilian branch. Not sure what we would need to do to make something like that happen, tho. Just seems like all those great minds, ideas, and enthusiasm poured into a common research area, to be used by all would be an incredible bonus for everyone.
That sounds like a workable arrangement, if NASA will go for it. Have a "private" or "civilian" arm of NASA. Let them do the research, but have the implementation of that research be civilian. That may also help various groups with the same goals work together a little better, under the civilian branch. Not sure what we would need to do to make something like that happen, tho. Just seems like all those great minds, ideas, and enthusiasm poured into a common research area, to be used by all would be an incredible bonus for everyone. <br /><br />And then we can have world peace, and everyone would get along....yeah, ok, maybe that's asking too much, but I can dream....<br /><br />Rae
That sounds like a workable arrangement, if NASA will go for it. Have a "private" or "civilian" arm of NASA. Let them do the research, but have the implementation of that research be civilian. That may also help various groups with the same goals work together a little better, under the civilian branch. Not sure what we would need to do to make something like that happen, tho. Just seems like all those great minds, ideas, and enthusiasm poured into a common research area, to be used by all would be an incredible bonus for everyone.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
A video made by me about space and the loneliness in the universe- Started by drakotol
- Replies: 54
-
SETI chief says US has no evidence for alien technology. 'And we never have
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 11
-
Latest posts
-
-
Question Recommendations for International Research Competitions- Latest: Andrii Dzygunenko
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram