Hollywood blazes a trail into the Solar System – Film at Eleven.
The release of a hit movie about the adventures of an astronaut marooned on the Red Planet, coupled with the “discovery” of liquid water running on the surface of Mars, has been an intoxicating moment in an otherwise dry spell for the Marsophiles at our national space agency. This confluence of events, accompanied by hosanna-singing press coverage (at least partly orchestrated by the agency itself), has advocates toasting each other – our “#JourneyToMars” is proceeding apace. Hallelujah! Our national space program might be saved!
Then again, maybe not. How much of this hype is rooted in real accomplishment and how much is mere puffery? If finding “water on Mars” sounds familiar, that’s because finding “water on Mars” is announced every couple of years and each time, we get the same breathless assertions that “human missions” to the planet (sometimes even habitation) are now possible. But is any of this true?
Publishing a scientific paper does not mean that its conclusions are correct or that a problem has been solved. Even if the new interpretation is correct, it does nothing to advance the cause of a human Mars mission; it is only an incremental advance in our knowledge of the planet (previous alternative explanations for crater wall streaks did not involve the flow of liquid water).
Some news accounts assert that the availability of liquid water makes human surface missions easier to undertake, as water is a vital consumable for long-term presence of people on the martian surface. However, this liquid water is extremely saline (a brine) and needs extensive distillation and processing to make it useable, requiring much more energy than would be needed to simply melt ground ice, which is already relatively pure and whose presence on the planet has been known for the last 40 years. The existence of saline brines is geologically interesting but it has no significant implications for sustaining a human presence.
The real impact of this discovery relates to the supposed link between liquid water and the possible emergence and presence of microbial life. The Quest for Life Elsewhere obsession has consumed NASA for over 50 years. The “Follow the water” strategy for Mars was a surrogate for the “look for the bugs” quest. In an amusing twist, the increasing likelihood of microbes existing on Mars creates a problem for a NASA intent on sending astronauts there, as we could permanently contaminate the martian biosphere, rendering future scientific results questionable to the extent that they might be unanswerable. This mindset is expressed in a recent Planetary Society blog post, where potential Mars astronauts are characterized as possessing “filthy meatbag bodies” that should be kept in orbit, so as not to irreversibly change the Eden-like martian surface.
New scientific discoveries enjoy short press cycles and then rapidly exit, stage left. But not to worry, the real event – the one that NASA is hitching their star to – is the release of the movie The Martian, based on Andy Weir’s novel of the same name, in which an astronaut struggles for survival after being accidentally left behind during a future human mission to Mars. The story is entertaining and I enjoyed the book (I have not seen the movie). It reminded me of another movie with a very similar plotline, the classic Robinson Crusoe on Mars (1964). Of course, there’s nothing new under the sun and nobody in Hollywood ever lost box office by re-making something previously done. What is remarkable is the agency’s clear intent (during a time of unclear goals) of hitching their Mars mission dreams to the movie’s anticipated popularity.
NASA’s manned space efforts relate not so much to current accomplishment but rather to publicizing promised future accomplishments. In the case of The Martian, the agency’s PR warp engine has slipped into hyper-drive. Leading this media charm barrage is a 19-page memo sent out to agency employees instructing them how to take advantage of the release of a new movie about Mars. Among the gems in this document are mantras to be chanted (“NASA = Mars, Mars = NASA”), sage advice (“Be a Martian”), technically true but misleading exaggerations (“NASA is at Mars”) and aspirational self-deception (“NASA is working on sending people to Mars”). But it doesn’t stop there. This top-level direction is followed by a dozen more pages of lists of PR events, movie screenings, astronaut appearances, and the invidious “talking points,” those full-metal jacketed rhetorical bullets loaded in the firearms of modern societal discourse.
Apparently, NASA believes that as this movie takes off in popularity, a public wound-up about space exploration will demand that the agency be showered with additional money. Once that happens, the Marsophiles say they will achieve their human mission to Mars fantasy sooner than the “sometime within the next 25 years” timeline currently in place. This is inline with the agency’s unsuccessful 50-year strategy of believing that in order to stay in business they must generate enthusiastic public support (apparently they are the only federal agency that has adopted this mindset). Thus, Congress and the administration have not been excluded from this PR blitz strategy, which includes a date-unspecified “White House screening” of the film. Instead of actually doing something, we can all watch the movie. It isn’t surprising that the public has become cynical about what is science and what is politics – what is real and what isn’t. “Science” has become a useful political tool and because of that, the credibility of scientific inquiry and the public’s understanding of science and how it works have suffered greatly.
Reporter Eric Berger complains that nothing in the new movie shows the presence of New Space companies, those allegedly private sector, commercial entities that are currently taking the universe by storm. Science writer Ed Regis thinks we should forget about “settling Mars” because people have unrealistic views about the hazards of such an activity. (Done Ed – nothing in NASA’s current plans leads to anything remotely resembling human settlement of another world.) The Explore Mars crowd urges everyone to “stay the course” on NASA’s humans to Mars efforts, without explaining (do they even know?) exactly why anyone should desire this course of action (a “world class” example of how politicized science has done great harm to the public’s understanding, expectations and to their education about what is possible).
NASA’s #JourneyToMars, Inspiration Mars, Mars One, and Elon Musk’s settlement fantasies all fall into the category of what I call the Mars obsession, the spaceflight idée fixe that has kept us busy with devising new architectures and composing beautiful artwork for the past 25 years, but has not advanced any actual spaceflight. Instead of focusing our efforts on an achievable, extendable goal, like building a cislunar transportation infrastructure that could carry us to the planets, we obsess on pie-in-the-sky Mars missions and Hollywood productions that whip up unrealistic expectations, yet accomplish nothing. As mission rationale, Mars advocates have nothing beyond some esoteric science questions (“Do microbes exist in seeping brines on crater walls?”) or wildly unrealistic dreams of planetary settlement (the logistical requirements of which are not even understood, let alone being addressed).
I have little doubt that unless something changes, NASA will “stay the course” they’re wedded to. Politicians, focused on other things, go along with NASA’s Mars dreams because they don’t have to pony up any additional money – they can just smile, cheer and say, “someday – soon.” Some agency employees are okay with “the mission” because they don’t have to do any real engineering – honing instead their considerable Powerpoint skills. The entertainment world likes it because they already work in the field of fiction. And space advocates? Well, they like anything that talks about future space activities – because talking is what they do best.
Going beyond LEO requires us to develop a new mindset and a new approach. We need to build an incremental spaceflight system that advances first to cislunar space, then to the Moon, and then into the Solar System beyond. It should be composed of small pieces sent into space on any available launch vehicle. It must have a flexible plan of deployment and operations, adjustable to budgetary boom and bust cycles (mostly bust for the foreseeable future). And most importantly, to create new spaceflight capabilities, we must learn how to use the vast material and energy resources of space. I advocate going to the Moon to do this because it is close and it has the resources that we need. And learning to use extraterrestrial resources is a skill that we must master if we are ever to become truly “spacefaring.” When a program is realistic and sound, you don’t need to go begging hat in hand to the public, or face ridicule for shamelessly associating yourself with a popular science fiction space movie to suggest that you’re on the right path. When there truly is a real program, business, success and money will follow.
Enjoy The Martian but don’t take it too seriously. Remember all this hoopla next time – along with the wasted time, the wasted budget and the lack of progress.
Good article.
I had noticed the PR extravaganza around the Martian (never read the book, but Ridley Scott is a good director and the trailers for the movie look great) and the first thing I thought of was Robinson Crusoe on Mars.
Also saw Eric Berger’s (to me at least) rather lame complaint that the movie is not a SpaceX infomercial and that ridiculous Planetary Society article. Writers at the satirical site The Onion must be getting nervous. How do you parody something that is (presumably unintentionally) parodying itself.
Hopefully, at some point, a real program to learn to use Lunar resources and develop Cis-Lunar space will be put forward.
The question remains, how to get the appropriate people to pay serious attention?
Mr. Brown managed to score some public support by utilizing the talent of Chesley Bonestell and articles in Colliers magazine, and by working with Walt Disney. The representations of his space station “wheels” are mesmerizing (to me at least) even today.
I guess we need someone to step up and give the public something to dream about. Something practical and believable instead of this LEO/Mars garbage. I have seen Dr. Spudis speaking on YouTube and he is acceptable for the job. What he needs is a hook that will get the media interested in him and keep them giving him airtime.
He could propose a “space navy” or an amazon woman survival colony in a lunar super-lava tube or a return to O’Neill’s space solar power plan or Criswell’s lunar solar power concept or assembling water-filled space stations in lunar orbit (my favorite). Whatever lights a fire and gets him on TV. Some outrageous statement. Maybe naming Musk as the anti-christ would do it.
Von Braun was an excellent showman in addition to his engineering skills.
He also got very lucky to have Disney, take an interest in publicizing his concepts.
Without what were considered the more practical drivers of national prestige and security it is doubtful, however, that Apollo would have ever happened.
Still the Disney Programs are interesting. As an example check in at the provided link and go to the 30 minute mark to watch a live action enactment of a circumlunar mission using some of Von Braun’s design concepts.
I wonder if Sputnik and Gagarin didn’t happen then Von Braun’s Saturn series of rockets would have had a couple flights and then all that’s left are excellent presentations and artwork. Work horses for ICBMs and satellites were the Atlases, Deltas, and Titans as Saturn was too big for almost all space missions except Apollo. Those Disney and Colliers presentations are quite fascinating, much like Mars themed stuff is today. Then all of sudden came Apollo but it seems many are hoping some kind “thing” will happen like in 1961 and we’ll be charging off to Mars.
Getting back to a movie about the Moon, how about a theme of “How The West Was Won” were billionaires and emerging space economies like China compete with lunar mining and industrial infrastructure. And then they realize some areas of the Moon are more valuable than others (equator with days of too much sun and then too much nighttime, compared to poles of no sun or always sun, and then there’s the sweet spots but have to deal with terrain). Can have all kinds of characters trying to put their place in history like those from bandits to barons of the 1800s.
“Mr. Brown”???? Maybe you were thinking of Dr. von Braun?
First need to realize this is a movie. It is entertainment, it is fiction, it is a story well grounded in science fact but there are conceits. Don’t confuse it with reality. However, it seems for many in general public get the two confused. But I guess that’s the same for any movie plot i.e. I don’t know anyone who actually experienced a relationship as portrayed in “Love Story” or “Sleepless in Seattle.”
Paul, I am personally delighted that NASA has energized their PR/Media folks. We certainly saw the power of media to drive positive public sentiment during the Gemini and Apollo days. People of voting age who see this new movie are likely to encourage funding space programs – and it is up to those of us in space advocacy to encourage them to do so. And so regardless of whether you are a Martian or wish to return to the Moon or build out cislunar technology, let’s not find fault with NASA. And let’s remember also that ‘working across the aisle’ applies to members of Congress and those of us in space advocacy.
We certainly saw the power of media to drive positive public sentiment during the Gemini and Apollo days.
A myth. Public sentiment about space has always been only fair-to-middling, even during the height of Apollo glory. See THIS.
And so regardless of whether you are a Martian or wish to return to the Moon or build out cislunar technology, let’s not find fault with NASA
When they do smart and correct things, I am happy to support their efforts. When they waste time with stupid stuff and spend money on dumb programs, I plan to call them on it. Just FYI.
And during the VSE when it was BACK TO THE MOON 24/7 you were happily along for the ride.
It was never “BACK TO THE MOON 24/7” during the VSE. Many in the agency never got behind the idea of lunar return (this includes at least one (and possibly two) AAs with primary responsibility for same). I believe that the VSE was doomed at least in part by agency foot-dragging and dissimulation. I talk about this in my series of posts on the history of the VSE and also at length in my forthcoming book mentioned below.
About the VSE:
“But “Mars” was the only word that many in NASA and elsewhere in the space community heard or wanted to hear. Almost immediately, the intent of the VSE to go to the Moon and learn to use what it had to offer was forgotten or ignored,-”
-“exit strategy” (i.e., develop a way for NASA to extract itself from any lunar activities so that money could be spent on Mars missions.) Consider: we had yet to accomplish a single step toward lunar return and the agency was spending more effort worrying about leaving the Moon than planning to get there.”
What was needed was a cargo version of the space shuttle with no orbiter and this was continually revisited- but sadly over the course of the 30 year program it never happened.
“NASA named a new Associate Administrator for Exploration Systems, Admiral Craig Steidle, who had previously overseen the Joint Strike Fighter program.”
The Junk Strike Fighter is the most expensive program in DOD history at one trillion dollars over the next half century. To paraphrase Dick Jones in Robocop II, “Who cares if it doesn’t work?”
“As most estimates suggested at least one million pounds in LEO was needed for the fully fueled Mars spacecraft, the launch requirements would be formidable indeed.”
And that was a sham because the requirement for radiation shielding and artificial gravity was not included and this would have turned the spacecraft into “Battlestar Galactica.”
“Norman Augustine, the former CEO for Lockheed-Martin, chaired a blue-ribbon committee made up of members tapped from government, industry and academia.”
Cold war toys (like the JSF) are easy money, spaceships are hard money. Norm could explain that.
“-the report noted that the chosen Constellation architecture would create the capabilities it claimed. However, costing estimates suggested to the committee that an additional $3 billion per year was needed to meet the chosen schedule goals of Constellation.—alternatives (e.g., Shuttle side-mount for heavy lift) were possible and affordable without funding augmentation.”
I still get depressed when I think about Sidemount not being pursued. It was a major defeat for space exploration. And 3 billion? Chump change for the DOD.
“-many on the Hill were concerned with the unabated scheduled retirement of the Shuttle – sensing that a critical national capability was being irretrievably lost.– To date, no clear, achievable mission that materially advances our space faring capability has been identified.”
The ice on the Moon should be the central focus of the entire Human Space Flight community. And SLS as the way to get there. It is the Obi-wan Kenobi rocket- the only hope.
“-those of us in space advocacy.”
Space “advocates” are their own worst enemies and space exploration might even be better off if there were no groups like “The Mars Society” or the “The National Space Society” or “The Planetary Society.”
It is us up to those of “us” with a lick of common sense and knowledge about space technology -who are not kool-aid drinkers- to point out the various flaws in the many schemes to conquer space. At the top of the list of impractical fantasies are space elevators and landing rockets on barges. The problem with space advocates, like X-files fans, is they “want to believe.” Some of their talking points are undisputed by NASA which actually makes the space agency look very bad. Among them:
1. 500 day missions to Mars with little or no radiation shielding and no artificial gravity. The extremely bad health effects of such a mission on the astronauts is presently just being “managed.” In reality it is THE showstopper. Nobody is going to sign off on it no matter how willing the astronauts are to screw up their bodies. NASA is largely silent on this. Only nuclear energy can push a true spaceship, a fully shielded and rotating construct, anywhere Beyond Earth and Lunar Orbit.
2. “Small rockets and fuel depots as the miracle substitute for Super Heavy Lift.” This is one of the basic tenets of the NewSpace movement and is completely riddled with unsolvable technical problems. Start with the fact that hydrogen is a nightmare to transfer or store in space and that this has never even been attempted. There is no substitute for a SHLV with hydrogen upper stages. The Moon is the only place to go that offers the resources and location (outside the magnetosphere) to build true spaceships.
3. “Entrepreneurs creating new industries will open the solar system to human beings.” The only revenue generating industry in space is telecom and most of the money comes from GEO satellites. All the other grandiose plans for tourism, mining asteroids, and colonizing Mars, are a joke, have been a joke for decades, and will remain a joke. A sad joke the unwashed masses just don’t get. Only massive public works projects can create the cislunar infrastructure necessary for “entrepreneurs” to create their wealth.
The resources on the Moon are the key to any progress. LEO and Mars are dead ends.
http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~ucfbiac/Lunar_resources_review_preprint_accepted_manuscript.pdf
Figure 10 page 23 tells the whole story. This infographic should get an award.
One of most interesting facts I have ever read about sci-fi movies is that the spaceship in 2001 was originally modeled after Freeman Dyson’s Project Orion and was to have been portrayed being propelled by atomic bombs. The story goes that Kubrick was totally burned out on nuclear weapons after Dr. Strangelove and left that detail out.
It is one of those things that might have captured the public imagination and actually had some real effect. The failure to capture any interesting footage of the Astronaut Maneuvering Unit during the Gemini program or footage of the tether-generated artificial gravity experiment are some very real things-that-did-not-inspire. NASA talks a good game but they do not have anyone with any real creativity working on their P.R. gimmicks- they have missed tremendous opportunities in this arena and thus deserve mockery.
“-the Mars obsession, the spaceflight idée fixe that has kept us busy with devising new architectures and composing beautiful artwork for the past 25 years, but has not advanced any actual spaceflight.”
My view is well known to regular commenters here; Radiation is square one and according to Eugene Parker hundreds of tons of water would be required to shield a small capsule from cosmic radiation. Realistically that means well over a thousand ton water shield will be required to go anywhere Beyond Earth and Lunar Orbit (BELO) on long duration missions. It follows the only system available to push such a spaceship around the solar is the very same concept Kubrick left out of his masterpiece. It also follows that lighting off H-bombs in the magnetosphere is not acceptable and the only place to get the water shielding, assemble, test, and launch any such deep space mission is…..the Moon. Not Mars.
That is the Movie I am waiting for.
Anyone ever consider that agency interest in the project has more to do with inspiration and getting students and people excited about our future? No one believes it will lead to an increased budget. However, it illustrates what humanity could do if it worked together to achieve a laudable goal in exploration, and all without warp drive and light sabers. Would it have been better to have turned its back on the project? As for the destination of the book and the movie, take that up with the author and producers.
No one believes it will lead to an increased budget
Wanna bet?
I’ll take the bet. Oh yes: and the next time you push for lunar stuff I am certain the Martians will beat a quick path to the blogosphere to dump on your ideas. That’s what this has all devolved into.
the next time you push for lunar stuff I am certain the Martians will beat a quick path to the blogosphere to dump on your ideas
Did you actually read what I wrote? Or did you just react to it? My theme here is not “Moon” vs. “Mars” as destinations but the pointless pursuit of “public excitement” in the belief that it will enable a more ambitious program. I don’t believe that; it hasn’t worked for the last 50 years because most people simply don’t CARE about space. They are not violently against it — they are simply indifferent to it. NASA sees this as a problem; I see it as an opportunity, if you can craft a program that fits under the current budgetary envelope. A small-piece, incremental program to develop cislunar does this, while a Mars mission does not. This is not a value judgement on their relative merits – it’s simply what is possible vs. what isn’t.
In any event, the Mars Nazis descend upon me regularly, so the arrival of new hordes of them will be nothing new.
//I see it as an opportunity, if you can craft a program that fits under the current budgetary envelope.//
Thing is, they only have the current budgetary envelope they got due to their “pointless pursuit of public excitement”, take a look at how much every other country funds their space program and compare it to how much NASA gets and you’ll see how bad it could get, even your beloved cislunar project would be untenable. If Congress just wanted to keep up with everyone else, they could just NASA’s budget to a fraction of what already is, but they won’t. Why? It’s because NASA makes America look good, and in order to continue making America look good and maintain their budget, they are going to have to play up their achievements whenever they can.
I am certain the Martians will beat a quick path to the blogosphere to dump on your ideas. That’s what this has all devolved into.
That is what you want it to “devolve” into. I think you would ban anybody from your blog for doing what you just did. As a matter of fact, as I recall, you banned me after about 3 comments you did not agree with. The NewSpace goon squad marches on.
Paul Spudis, I am still awaiting the time when I’ll be called to assist in building technologies for a cislunar transportation system, go to the moon (certainly) but not to be prematurely deceased through impromptu encounters with solar radiations before reaching that brine on Mars.
Wonderful reflections (your article) comme toujours.
No, Paul I have yet to find a single person even remotely involved in PR or EPO efforts at NASA who thinks that this is going to happen and/or have adopted this as a strategy. Indeed a lot of them are a little leery that some space advocates seem to be operating under this delusion. NASA PAO folks are doing the PR for the reasons I cite below in “Growing The Next Generation Of Space Explorers” I do have to pose the question: why are so many movies (viewed by the public) about going to Mars, and so very few about going to the Moon? Hollywood (at least) tries to make movies that large audiences will go and see. The Moon is not sexy right now – hate to burst your balloon. Whose fault is it that the Moon is not hip right now? More at http://nasawatch.com/archives/2015/10/moon-huggers-la.html
I have yet to find a single person even remotely involved in PR or EPO efforts at NASA who thinks that this is going to happen and/or have adopted this as a strategy.
You should take a look at the document “The Martian – Integrated Strategic Communications & Events Plan” produced by NASA PAO, which outlines their PR campaign designed to “cash in” on the popularity of the movie. It includes the names and contact info for just about the entire PAO office.
I do have to pose the question: why are so many movies (viewed by the public) about going to Mars, and so very few about going to the Moon?
Because we’ve been to the Moon with people but not yet to Mars. Science-fiction tends to concentrate on the future and events that have yet to transpire.
The Moon is not sexy right now
Yeah, good. “Sexy” is certainly what I look for in a federal program. Let’s just forget about establishing a permanent, spacefaring infrastructure and learning to use space resources — that’s hard, dirty, UN-sexy work. It also happens to have real economic and societal value. But NASA is for laughs and excitement!
How’s pursuing that strategy worked for you over the last 50 years?
Does the PAO document say “to increase NASA’s budget?”
Does it have to? What else could be the object?
Did you read what Bob Jacobs posted? Just because you (and I) have become cynical and crusty in our old age doesn’t mean that everyone else is.
“I do have to pose the question: why are so many movies (viewed by the public) about going to Mars, and so very few about going to the Moon? Hollywood (at least) tries to make movies that large audiences will go and see.”
That is an interesting way of looking at it, so I will pose an alternative question using similar “logic”: In 1998 two major motion pictures were made on the subject of going to asteroids and comets (Armageddon and Deep Impact) and none about going to Mars. Based on your “logic” why was Mars not sexy in 1998?
Posting the link to an article on your website attacking this article is an interesting way to decry in fighting in the space community (as you do in your other post at October 2, 2015 at 3:32 pm – “Oh yes: and the next time you push for lunar stuff I am certain the Martians will beat a quick path to the blogosphere to dump on your ideas. That’s what this has all devolved into.”).
Things getting a little slow at NASA Watch?
Paul sought me out by email and told me about his post.
I bet he won’t do that again. Remind me never to seek you out.
I am sure Paul will – as I have sought him out too over the years. He is good man and is totally dedicated to the exploration of space. As for anonymous posters … caevat emptor.
“Paul sought me out by email and told me about his post.”
So?
I don’t see how that has anything to do with what I said.
You wrote “Things getting a little slow at NASA Watch?” No. Quite the contrary (you have not been reading it apparently). Paul sent me a note. I always feature his stuff when I know about it – and this time his words got me going. If you find NASAWatch offensive, then do not read it.You will feel much less stressed. Have a nice day.
keithcowing says: October 3, 2015 at 7:44 am
(1) “you have not been reading it apparently” (with the it being NASA Watch.)
(2) “If you find NASAWatch offensive, then do not read it.You will feel much less stressed.”
You would be a little more coherent if you decided which way you are trying to brand me:
(1) Ignorant because I have never read NW
(2) Reading it and “stressed” because you apparently believe I cannot handle the content.
It cannot be both.
Truth is I stumbled upon and began reading NW during the VSE period when you seemed to have an inside track to legitimate information.
Then when NASA Administrators changed you appeared to loose that inside track. I stopped reading it not because it “stressed” me, but because it became redundant to what I consider to be other better sources of information.
That was years ago and I have felt neither deprived nor stressed.
You “Have a nice day” as well.
“why are so many movies (viewed by the public) about going to Mars, and so very few about going to the Moon?”
Oh, I don’t know about that. There have been many recent movies about the Moon and cislunar space:
Cislunar Cinema Pt. 1:http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2518/1
Cislunar Cinema Pt. 2:http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2523/1
The entire second part is movies since the turn of the millennium. The fact that most tend not to be very good (like most sci-fi, it seems), makes it tough for audiences to engage.
I’m convinced that MARS! MARS! MARS! is just about the Baby Boomers finishing out the Space Station/Moon/Mars bucket list sold to them by Von Braun & Disney all those decades ago. So long as they’re running things (and they intend to do so for a long, long time, no matter the societal cost), nothing will change. Even though the equation seems to be something right out of the underpants gnomes:
Mars Plan
Step 1: Put humans on Mars
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Great and glorious future for humanity!
They will see humans on MARS! in their lifetime, and you will comply in making that happen. Nothing else is important but that end.
While few contemplate the question “So what happens when the bucket list is complete?”
//If finding “water on Mars” sounds familiar, that’s because finding “water on Mars” is announced every couple of years and each time, we get the same breathless assertions that “human missions” to the planet (sometimes even habitation) are now possible.//
Note: They found evidence of actual liquid water on the surface of mars, not just evidence of it’s ancient existence, it’s a tad more important than the announcements that have been made before. Of course if you were intellectually honest you would have made that distinction.
//Apparently, NASA believes that as this movie takes off in popularity, a public wound-up about space exploration will demand that the agency be showered with additional money.//
In lieu of an actual rival (NASA, in it’s emaciated state, still gets more funding than all other Space Agencies combined, let not kid ourselves that NASA actually has one at this point.) that’s all NASA really has to further any agenda. Even if they decide to go with going to the moon instead, it’s going to need substantial lobbying on their part in order to keep the government and the population focused. If anything advocating for a moon mission is probably going to less effective than what they are doing now, as we have already been to the moon. Better to advocate to go to Mars, then eventually retool as things get built so that we end up going to the moon first.
it’s a tad more important than the announcements that have been made before. Of course if you were intellectually honest you would have made that distinction.
Only a “tad” more — that’s why I didn’t make the distinction.
And yet everyone else did, you are pretty much the only person I’ve found on the internet that has greeted this news with ‘pfft, big deal, it’s just a difference in the state of matter’.
“Better to advocate to go to Mars, then eventually retool as things get built so that we end up going to the moon first.”
How does that work? Really? I don’t know what to say about that actually, except…..no.
Only the government really needs to maintain the objective of going to the Moon, following the Cislunar Next strategy.
Nothing will keep the population focused. The population as a whole always seeks the next big thing, the next toy, the next app, etc.
The news of water on Mars will eventually fade and be forgotten and we’ll be no closer to achieving the supposed goal of “man on Mars”.
I figured that the announcement of liquid water on Mars would not only be twisted, but also fuel the “Mars mania” that comes with every cycle before fading into obscurity.
“This has happened before and it will happen again.”
We really need to put the Moon back on the radar of politicians.
And I think a re-release of your work, “The Once and Future Moon”, with added material from recent lunar missions and discoveries (just as Zubrin did with “The Case for Mars”), would help raise some awareness that there is a better way than what we’re doing.
And I think a re-release of your work, “The Once and Future Moon”, with added material from recent lunar missions and discoveries (just as Zubrin did with “The Case for Mars”), would help raise some awareness that there is a better way than what we’re doing.
Funny that you should bring that up…
To be published in April, 2016.
Outstanding!
Will look for it.
The Moon Vs Mars thing – a dichotomy of being both a manufactured AND real problem(?!) is to me a reason why the shaky ‘Mars One’ venture should build a prototype lunar outpost first to test somewhere between a little and a lot (all?) of their technologies and intentions. If they could live successfully for a year or two on Luna (dubious) they’d have a much better chance of succeeding on Mars. Perhaps just six pioneers, in a couple of landed Bigelow inflatables? I know Moon-Mars is not directly nor perfectly analogous, but important lessons and technologies will be learned. Smarter people than me think so…
Actually they should start even more modestly and try to live two years in the dry valleys of the Antarctic without a constant supply run, and with a built in 20 minute delay in all their communication systems, except the an emergency one only used when they have to be evacuated. That is about a close you will get to Mars on Earth.
Then if they survive that you could consider the Moon as the next step.
Antarctica is not Mars. Not even close. There have been LEO space stations going in circles over our heads for decades and humans have survived there. The first problem for any long duration mission on the Moon (forget Mars) is a radiation sanctuary and everything else comes second. Water has always been the logistical showstopper for a lunar base- and that changed with the evidence for ice at the poles.
The only point I see about this latest water discovery is that if water on Mars is leaving these brine trails on the surface than it means Mars is still losing its water to space. In short it is still in the process of drying out.
“Thomas Matula says:
October 2, 2015 at 10:19 pm
The only point I see about this latest water discovery is that if water on Mars is leaving these brine trails on the surface than it means Mars is still losing its water to space. In short it is still in the process of drying out.”
I think earth has and is drying out more than Mars has.
I think most the Mars water has sunk into the surface- as it would on any planet without plate tectonic activity.
It also seems likely that more water has being added from Space to Mars, then Mars water leaving from Mars into space.
Likewise I doubt Ceres has lost much water over the millions or billions of years. Or Ceres with it’s lower gravity is more likely to lose water than Mars should.
–Enjoy The Martian but don’t take it too seriously. Remember all this hoopla next time – along with the wasted time, the wasted budget and the lack of progress.–
I didn’t like Gravity and I doubt the Martian would be better- I suppose I will eventually watch the Martian or at first 10 mins of it.
I think the fans of Mars have done more damage than good, but I do think we should explore Mars, but first we need to explore polar regions of the Moon.
And agree the excitement over the possibility of life on Mars has also been huge distraction in terms of exploring Space. I think there could life on Mars just their is life on Earth, a mile under solid rock. But I think the search for life on Mars is an emotional connection to sentient life on Mars of the old sfi/fantasy of Mars. And is fundamentally irrational/silly.
“Going beyond LEO requires us to develop a new mindset and a new approach. We need to build an incremental spaceflight system that advances first to cislunar space, then to the Moon, and then into the Solar System beyond. It should be composed of small pieces sent into space on any available launch vehicle. It must have a flexible plan of deployment and operations, adjustable to budgetary boom and bust cycles (mostly bust for the foreseeable future). And most importantly, to create new spaceflight capabilities, we must learn how to use the vast material and energy resources of space. ”
Yes we do. But we is not another word for NASA. We must use space to greater extant than just use earth orbits for satellites. For us to do this, we need some entity that will explore space, and since paying about 20 billion a year, that entity should be NASA. But it seems NASA is being managed by goofy morons who think what is needed is stupid movies about Mars.
“-an emotional connection to sentient life on Mars of the old sfi/fantasy of Mars. And is fundamentally irrational/silly.”
Stephen Hawking has warned of the dangers of contact with sentient life. I tend to listen to really smart people like him, Freeman Dyson, Eugene Parker, and a few others.
Not “fundamentally irrational.”
What is silly is the mass marketing of unobtanium, wishalloy, and that old sci-fi standby handwavium. I commented a few months back on the actual existence of a couple forms of unobtanium and wishalloy but there is no handwavium (violations of physics) being reported that can be taken seriously and I do not expect any. Handwavium includes “solutions” to heavy nuclei radiation exposure that include miraculous magnetic shields. Call me conservative but my universe does not include the possibility of going faster than light or teleportation.
Here is the unobtainium (Am-242) and wishalloy (scandium alloy):
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/01/010103073253.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141210140840.htm
More handwavium:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151002103306.htm
Like reusable rockets, fusion reactors are a scam that have been around for a half a century. The rocket equation and the fantastic temperatures and pressures required to sustain fusion mean both these items are not in the near, or probably even the far future.
Sci-Fi on TV and at the movies has gone through three phases in my view. First there was the 50’s and space cadet shows, then Star Trek, and now Star Wars. It was all new in the 50’s so novelty was the hook, Star Trek was a mix of Horatio Hornblower exploring new lands and hi-tech miracles, and Star Wars was…….brain candy.
After Avatar it looks like space movies are going stay closer to reality in the coming years and this means some valuable P.R. opportunities will present themselves in my opinion. It would be a good thing if Dr. Spudis signed on as a “technical advisor” for some of these projects. Really good.
So far the string of movies over the last few years have been extremely disappointing for me personally. I shut Gravity off 15 minutes in and did not even bother watching Interstellar after my daughter gave me her opinion on it. The problem with being a space buff is the nonsense portrayed on screen is profoundly dissatisfying.
I saw ‘The Martian’ last night in 3D. I thought it was a wonderful film with a very inspirational message about the importance of science, technology, and teamwork. But I had already read Weir’s excellent novel last year– even though it does have some flaws as far as the meteorology and geology of Mars, IMO.
Money is really not at the core of NASA’s problems, IMO, since I continue to believe that an $8 billion a year human spaceflight related budget is plenty of money for NASA to return the Moon in the 2020’s and then use lunar water resources to go on to Mars in the 2030s– if both goals are prioritized.
And I actually believe that NASA would receive a little more funding if Congress finally saw that NASA was progressively proceeding in logical direction towards the Moon and Mars.
The problem is that the current administration has banned NASA from returning to the Moon, publicly criticizing any human lunar return by NASA and even publically ridiculing the idea of a lunar outpost.
I have no problems with a long term goal of sending humans to Mars– as long as it not an Apollo style stunt.
NASA needs to return to the Moon to stay in the 2020’s in order to proceed towards Mars in the 2030s to stay. Establishing permanent water producing outpost on both worlds is the cheapest and most sustainable way for NASA to continuously explore the surfaces of both the Moon and Mars.
Roving microwave water extraction robots, IMO, would probably be the most efficient way to exploit water resources at the lunar poles and on most of the surface of Mars. And the more nuclear and solar power units humans deploy on the surface of those worlds, the more water they will be able to produce.
Marcel
“-an $8 billion a year human spaceflight related budget is plenty of money for NASA to return the Moon in the 2020’s and then use lunar water resources to go on to Mars in the 2030s-”
There has to be a compelling reason to go to the Moon and for Mars no such reason exists. Three industries lunar resources can revolutionize are communications, defense, and energy. But to make that happen will require a public works project in the style of the Panama Canal or Hoover Dam. That means a multiple of 8 billion- and I would add the public really has no comprehension of what a trivial amount that is compared to….I won’t go there. So though I identify with you as a brother space enthusiast Marcel, I cannot support your conclusions at all.
https://iceonthemoon.wordpress.com/2015/02/03/seven-steps-to-space-travel/
“But I had already read Weir’s excellent novel last year– even though it does have some flaws as far as the meteorology and geology of Mars, IMO.”
The author actually addressed most of my issues with the novel and film during a rather entertaining lecture he gave at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in September:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tfh6OUUYUw
Marcel
While agreeing wholeheartedly that we – “need to build an incremental spaceflight system that advances first to cislunar space, then to the Moon, and then into the Solar System beyond” – I would add that any plan that gets caught up in destinations, or even technical capabilities, as accomplishments can easily lose itself along the way.
Primarily economic capabilities must mature if there is to be some advance of humanity beyond Earth. A day when NASA and other space agencies have exploratory crews anywhere in the solar system, the Moon or beyond, pre-supposes a level of accomplishment that can’t just gloss over how that happens with vague arm waving about NASA budgets.
At some point, someone has to define how incremental advance lives inside a real NASA budget. Such a plan has to address difficult questions, looking at many scenarios. To find money, do we cancel a program, SLS and/or Orion? What are the programmatics of redirecting all those funds for what, and to which centers to manage? Barring that, suppose an extra $250M or $500M a year were added to just human spaceflight. How would an efficient use of such funds avoid being caught up in interactions and delays (and budget vultures) from already existing programs? How might such an addition upset the decades long balance of NASA funds between human spaceflight and science? Commercial options have to be explored not as far term, but as near term –in cislunar. When do we stop making this odd-ball assumption too about budgets that keep up with inflation (dream on with that one)?
Before we think the first step is the Moon, let’s back-track a bit to getting the cost of the step to LEO down even further, and to a point where a mature, competitive industry there can stand on its own. Similarly, before we think a first step is something out in the middle of cislunar no-where, lets assure space stations after the ISS are a thriving business NASA can buy time on, cheap, and by the yard.
Once all the steps into cislunar space are economically vibrant, getting to LEO, and making money there, and likely as some existing programs end as well, pain and disruption and all, NASA can focus its spaceflight budget on more steps beyond with some chance it will add up.
At some point, someone has to define how incremental advance lives inside a real NASA budget.
Someone did.
Your questions presuppose that the NASA status quo must be preserved at all costs. I contend instead that if we want a space program that produces value for money, we need to decide to strive for that and re-budget accordingly. $18 billion per year is a non-trival amount of money. Although not as much as we space buffs would like, it’s not chicken feed. The nation needs to decide what it wants from its space program — lasting value for the money spent and a return on its investment or stupid stunts designed for a TV reality show.