When are we going to Mars??

[JonClarke]

There's always the exception that proves the rule! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <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>

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">There's always the exception that proves the rule!</font><br /><br />That's almost a perfect lead-in for my post. But of course it's a figure-of-speech and nonsense if taken literally.<br /><br />Jon, do you read my posts after the first sentence? Seriously, it is very easy for me in conclude that you don't. Can you do me the favor of making this post an exception to that rule, if that rule is in place? Can I ask you to read it all the way through? Everything is a repeat of what I've said before, and you not only seem to blow me off, but you make statements which directly contradict mine. What else am I to conclude than that you are not willing or able to answer the points I make?<br /><br />But I'll start with a statement of yours that I take as a major victory in my years-long effort to get you to broaden your perspective.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">. . . perhaps the private adventurer as well. </font><br /><br />YES! JonClarke recognizes the existence of the concept of Private Adventurers! Oh Happy Day! He still attaches a number of conditions before, in his mind, they will actually exist and have an impact, but hey, it's progress from my point of view. <br /><br />BTW I'm allowed to be sarcastic if you always ignore my points.<br /><br />In fact, you know what? I give up. Seriously, I just don't have time to repeat myself over and over again to you. Something just came up this second and I don't have time for this.<br /><br />I will just state that a man who calls himself a Scientist has no right to take positions which are in direct opposition to current reality.<br /><br />IOW there are existence proofs RIGHT NOW that prove you WRONG. Please refer to my posts earlier on this thread. I highly doubt that you will, but I can ask. If you follow your established pattern, just don't object when I label you as being closed-minded. You practically define the term. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Forgotten to take your happy pills this morning?<br /><br /> <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>

 

[spacester]

Actually I'm having an excellent day, the interruption was for the signing of a new customer. My frustration with you is long-term and multi-pronged. <br /><br />Is that the best you can do? You're going to hold to opinions that can be refuted by existence proofs? You are comfortable with being labeled as I have done?<br /> <br />You have influence in the big picture and IMO people like you are actively inhibiting progress in space flight development. I am positive that is not your intent, but I am interested in reality, not dogma-driven perception that flies in the face of current events. Your point of view approaches a religious adherence to an outmoded way of thinking, IMO. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Spacester.<br /><br />I am not going to get involved in a personal slanging match. <br /><br />Address the issues, not the people. This means adhering to the focus of this thread and not derailing it by bringing personalities into it. <br /><br />The overall focus of this thread raisded by the OP was "When are we going to Mars?" The subthread is to do with when commerical companies (e.g. SpaceX) are going to get to Mars. <br /><br />On this topic my position is as follows:<br /><br />1) Companies will not pay for their own Mars missions until it is profitable and safe to do so. This is based on the requirements of real world commerce.<br /><br />2) A lot needs to happen before this can take place. Profitable services or products need to be identified. Appropriate legislative structures need to be in place to allow security of investment. Whole new technologies need to be developed. This is a recognition of the level of our knowledge of Mars and our current technology.<br /><br />3) It will be government funded exploration programs will will pave the way for this to happen. This is based on the pattern of the past 50 years of space exploration and development in the comsat, remote sensing, navsat, launch service, and space tourism markets.<br /><br />Please identify, point by point the flaws in this position with respect to 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>

 

[spacester]

I addressed the issues. You blew me off. I addressed the issues again. You blew me off again. I then shifted to a tactic designed to get your attention. It appears to have worked for the moment. Note that I will include provocative statements in this post in order to maintain your attention.<br /><br />I am staying on topic. But my perspective is broader than the topic, and I make no apologies for that. If you object to me having a broad perspective, that buttresses my contention that you would be well served by broadening yours.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">1) Companies will not pay for their own Mars missions until it is profitable and safe to do so. This is based on the requirements of real world commerce.</font><br /><br />Does SpaceX exist in your real world?<br /><br />I wrote:<br /><font color="orange">But just look at the SpaceX business model if you will. We simpletons can add up the hundreds of millions invested, assign a per-launch profit, multiply by the number of launches, and determine that he is an idiot. A figure of 20% ROI was quoted the other day as a pre-requisite for private capital. That's where my scoffing comes in. We have existence proofs that the rule is not always applicable. </font><br /><br />Of course, the 20% figure was a reference to your post in another thread where you blew me off, so this was at least the second time I tried to call your attention to existence proofs that directly refute your statement. (Jon, I always give you the benefit of the doubt as to your ability to connect dots. Is that my mistake here? Do I need to get pedantic in order to get an answer from you?)<br /><br />Many said, and honestly, IIRC you were among them, that no one would develop lower cost rockets unless they could show a profit that meets Wall Street's standards. SpaceX stands as an exist <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<i>I addressed the issues. You blew me off. I addressed the issues again. You blew me off again. I then shifted to a tactic designed to get your attention. It appears to have worked for the moment. Note that I will include provocative statements in this post in order to maintain your attention.<br /><br />I am staying on topic. But my perspective is broader than the topic, and I make no apologies for that. If you object to me having a broad perspective, that buttresses my contention that you would be well served by broadening yours.</i><br /><br />[Moderator mode on]I told you to address the issues, not the people. This means adhering to the focus of this thread and not derailing it by bringing personalities into it. You are continuing to make this personal. This is not acceptable. Any further such attempts will be deleted to keep this thread focused on this issues not personalities. Failure to do so will not be accepted. This is not the sort attention you will enjoy.[Moderator mode off]<br /><br />1) Companies will not pay for their own Mars missions until it is profitable and safe to do so. This is based on the requirements of real world commerce.<br /><br /><i>Does SpaceX exist in your real world?</i><br /><br />Of course. But SpaceX is not trying to go to Mars. Their goal, as posted on their web site, is to develop "a family of launch vehicles which will ultimately reduce the cost and increase the reliability of space access by a factor of ten." <br /><br />I applaud those goals and hope they will succeed. They haven't yet. They haven't managed to complete a fully successful launch yet, although they probably will soon.<br /><br />Reduced costs will make going to Mars easier, but does not, of it self, make a business case for private companies to go to Mars.<br /><br /><i>But just look at the SpaceX business model if you will. We simpletons can add up the hundreds of millions invested, assign a per-launch profit, multiply by the number of launches, and determine that h</i> <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>

 

[Boris_Badenov]

Bigelow said the business structure that the company will outline next month will not only support destinations in low Earth orbit, but also operations on the Moon and at Mars. <br /><br />Bigelow is 54 years old (or there about) & if he's personally going to Mars he's probably not going to wait much longer.<br /> Somebody is going to get there. <br /> Soon. <br /> My bet is before 2025. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[spacester]

I give up. The basic concept I am trying to get across is not reflected in your posts anywhere. I cannot address this issue further on this thread without violating one or more of your conditions. I do not know how to address a person's views on issues without addressing the person. I find this prohibition to be an artificial condition that necessarily stifles productive discussion.<br /><br />All I can say is this:<br /><br />The great advances of history had more to do with advancing the human condition than making profits. <br /><br />It's called initiative. That's what will get us to Mars. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

I saw that, good stuff. of course "support operations can mean many things". It could mean set up a company to go to Mars (in the absence of any meaningful business plan to do so" or it could mean " sell components and services to NASA or whoeever else might want to go".<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>

 

[JonClarke]

<i>I give up. The basic concept I am trying to get across is not reflected in your posts anywhere.</i><br /><br />I have addressed every one of your points except the rude ones. If your concept is not reflected in what I wrote then perhaps it is because I disagree.<br /><br />I could say the same, that you seem to find it difficult to understand a business has to make money. This is the be all and end all of its existence. If it fails to make money in the long term it goes bust. <br /><br /><i>I cannot address this issue further on this thread without violating one or more of your conditions. I do not know how to address a person's views on issues without addressing the person. I find this prohibition to be an artificial condition that necessarily stifles productive discussion.</i><br /><br />The only conditions I have stimulated are sticking to the point and good manners. If you can't respond without digressing being rude, then it is better that you don't. Most people on this board can manage to do it, I have not been rude to you and I have stuck to the point as much as possible. The choice is yours whether you stick to these simple common place rules.<br /><br /><i>All I can say is this:<br /><br />The great advances of history had more to do with advancing the human condition than making profits. </i><br /><br />I agree. That is why organisations whose primary goal is making profits cannot be expected to make them unless there are profits to be made. That is why many such advances were not made by companies interested in profits - although many may have done well out of it later. <br /><br />It has yet to be shown how profits can be made on Mars. What goods and services available on Mars would justify the investment of 10 billion on the business time scale?<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>

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>3) It will be government funded exploration programs will will pave the way for this to happen.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />(Note: i assume you meant manned exploration in this post)<br /><br />This is one point that is not a foregone conclusion, and you shouldnt preach it as such. I agree with the rest of the points you listed in that post, but this is not objective, proven truth.<br />The point that i am trying to make is that, the world doesnt consist of private aerospace companies, and government exploration agencies.<br /><br />You remember that post a while back, where i talked about risk and cost barriers ? Maybe you also remember, that i referred to candidate mars explorers as an "organization or entity"<br /><br />Here are couple of potential candidates that i had in mind, given that the cost and risk barriers are low enough<br /><br />1) National Geographic<br />2) Planetary Society<br />3) A filthy rich non-space company seeking historic logo promotion or somesuch ( Coca Cola, Microsoft .. pick your evil empire ) or just doing "charity"<br />4) a wealthy philanthropic individual<br />5) middle managers, hairdressers, telephone sanitizers, and the like, that the engineers sent up first to colonize the brave new frontier <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />IOW, its not a foregone conclusion, that any government space agency will, at the right moment, have the money, politicial will and realization that the barriers have been fallen low enough. <br />In a way, any of the candidates above have greater freedom than NASA/ESA/JAXA/RSA, because they are not tied down by political games and disappearing budgets.<br /><br /><br />

 

[spacester]

A membership organization of Private Adventurers - AND those who support them - is not beholden to anyone's financial goals but their own.<br /><br />A private organization with the goal of Settlement is able to structure their activities on Mars in a completely different manner than a Government-led exploration approach.<br /><br />A business organization with the goal of working hand-in-hand with such private organizations is by definition not going to be required to produce profits at the same rate as a NYSE-traded company.<br /><br />New challenges have often produced new organizational methodologies. The greater the challenge, the more innovative the new model. <br /><br />The Nature Conservancy, Greenpeace, Rocky Mountain Institute, Liftport and many others (that do not immediately come to mind) are examples of innovative organizational methodologies that were developed in response to new challenges. <br /><br />The above descriptions are generally what we think of as "non-profits" and they have their limitations. What I am suggesting is the emergence of coalitions of innovative entities that engage in multi-generational investments. If I was able to describe it in detail I wouldn't be hanging out here. But it is an idea requiring more than one brain-case to develop.<br /><br />Positive future outcomes - without guarantees: mere possibilities - can drive people to individually and collectively rise above the profit motive and achieve great things.<br /><br />GENERALLY, businesses have to make money or go out of business. But the GENERAL can be distinguished from the SPECIFIC.<br /><br />I disagree that making money is the be-all and end-all of the existence of every single business that ever has existed and ever will exist. <br /><br />I submit that the primary goal of every business ever is continuance of its existence. <br /><br />Making money on such-and-such time table is far and away the primary model, but not the EXCLUSIVE model for every business.<br /><br />I submit both Sp <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

You've have raised an excellent example of a 4th type of organisation, the non-profit private organisation, as a possible player. Especially as they are not accountable to the market and can follow long range social good goals.<br /><br />I suppose the most pertinent example in space is the Planetary Society (mentioned by non_way) and their solar sail mission, which sadly failed through no fault of their own. The Mars Society Germany's Archimedes project would be another example.<br /><br />Another example would be the National Society (again, also suggested by non_way) which has funded research and exploration for more than 100 years.<br /><br />Do you (or anyone) know what the annual budgets of the largest of current organisations are? Greenpeace must surely be one of the largest, and have a turn over in the 10's of millions. Maybe more.<br /><br />This would give us an order of magnitude estimate of the size of organisation that can be sustained and the degree to which programatic costs that a Mars mission would have to come down to make it worth while for such an organisation.<br /><br />However, I don't see how such organisations can be equated with either SpaceX or Bigelow, which are start up businesses designed to turn a profit.<br /><br />Launching into long-term habitation prior to exploration would be a recipe for disaster. There are too many basic question still to be answered before such a plan can be realistically launched.<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>

 

[no_way]

btw, a good clue is to look at how most of the worlds underwater exploration is getting done. <br />spaceflight has to become a few orders of magnitude safer and cheaper, but after that, the exploration will look pretty much similar to what goes on underwater right now.<br /><br />and the vehicle to make it cheaper and safer, is private enterprise, markets, and seeking profit.

 

[JonClarke]

There are lots of interesting parallels with underwater exploration. What did you have in mind?<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>

 

[spacester]

Jon, my purpose is to cause you to see something that you do not yet see. How do I do that without addressing you? <br /><br />The issue - for me - is that you have made absolute statements about how the future will play out, and you assert your opinion as fact. I am not the only poster here exhibiting frustration with your doing that. You assert your opinion as fact and you ignore refuting evidence. That is the issue here, and that is what I'm addressing. Prohibiting me from doing so is equivalent to you declaring yourself to be infallible!<br /><br />I am not asking you to agree with me, I am asking you to acknowledge that you do not have exclusive claim to prognostication. <br /><br />I am also asking you to acknowledge the existence of a new concept. I can illustrate the concept, and have done so several times over the years and you still do not see, so the the issue has become your inability to see the concept.<br /><br />The concept I am advancing is the possibility of the development of NEW and UNPRECEDENTED organizational methodologies. I just offered my best shot at illustrating the concept, but all you see are EXAMPLES of EXISTING organizational methodologies.<br /><br />If all you will recognize are EXAMPLES of EXISTING things then all is lost here. I cannot give examples of things that do not yet exist.<br /><br />National Geographic Society did not exist in 1878. It was formed to answer a challenge presented by the future. The organizational methodologies employed did not exist prior to it forming.<br /><br />The Planetary Society did not exist in 1970. It was formed to answer a challenge presented by the future. The organizational methodologies employed did not exist prior to it forming.<br /><br />etc. etc.<br /><br />We have a new challenge in front of us: Man on Mars. I am postulating that new organizational methodologies will be developed to answer this challenge. Efforts to do so are already in existence!<br /><br />You have <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

Red Colony is one example, others include 4Frontiers, MarsDrive and of course the Mars Society. All are dedicated to humans-on-Mars. There are many efforts, what they all need is an anchor tenant. <br /><br />Spacester has an interesting take on new types of organization. What I'd like to suggest is an exploration group dedicated to putting a semi-permanent manned platform around Mars (or whatever, pick a target). This could be a media org, non-profit, corporation or agency. There are many opportunities ahead.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Are you so afraid of acknowledging the existence of a concept that you have to make up new rules to avoid doing so?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Careful, you begin to sound like people preaching the crackpot theories.<br />I see your frustrations and i understand what you are saying, but statements like these make you to sound bad.<br /><br />May i recommend, sit back, think it through, and make your point calmly ?

 

[spacester]

Good recommendation, thanks.<br /><br />Tried it.<br /><br />Tried it again.<br /><br />Tried it some more.<br /><br />Didn't work. <br /><br />Calm posts are ignored. <br /><br />Confrontational posts are not. It's a shame, but that's the ground-truth reality.<br /><br />Trying one last time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>There are lots of interesting parallels with underwater exploration. What did you have in mind? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />The fact that groups doing that are a very diverse crowd, financed by very different sources and often from their own pocket. Directly related, underwater tourism, aka recreational scubadiving is also a well developed and money-making industry. ( i am a frequent customer of that industry, myself )<br />There is no single "National Underwater and Submersible Agency" in any country that i know of, or if there is, nobody has ever heard of one.<br />There is government support for plethora of different projects, through different funding channels for all sorts of underwater research and exploration, but no single entity controlling everything, and thus also no single "point of failure"<br /><br />Thats where space exploration needs to go and is going, and profit motives lowering barriers will pave the way. <br />The few government entities controlling things currently are historical relics, brought about by cold war. I am predicting ( and not saying this is the truth, just my guess ) that they will become irrelevant before they know it.

 

[JonClarke]

Therfe are a number of differences though between the recreational diving industry and space exploration. Cost, accessibility are the big ones. The much lower costs and much great accessibility of the oceans means that it was possible for the backyard tinker to have made important inventions. The sea has always been accessible and there has always been a market for improved underwater systems. People have been going under water for millenia for many reasons. <br /><br />Also remember that much of the recreational diving technology was originally developed by government investment, mostly for military and infrastructure maintainance purposes. Scuba, decompression tables, dive computers, prebreathers, wet suits, dry suits, saturation diving, mixed gas diving, all arose because of government investment. <br /><br />Jon<br /> <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>

 

[JonClarke]

I see what you are getting at very well. There is already a place for the the non-profit organisations. They already make useful contribuitions in terms of education, training, outreach, lobbying and some technology development. They until they have billion dollar budgets they are only going to be small players.<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>

 

[JonClarke]

<i>Calm posts are ignored.</i><br /><br />Wrong.<br /><br /><i>Confrontational posts are not. It's a shame, but that's the ground-truth reality. </i><br /><br />Confronting is fine, but rudeness will get you the wqrong sort of attention.<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>

 

[spacester]

A<br /><br />NEW<br /><br />KIND<br /><br />OF<br /><br />ORGANIZATION <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>