Mars Underfoot

[Pharaoh Cat]

Do you think a grassroots "Mars Underfoot" movement (to send humans to Mars) has any hope of catching fire among the general populace?

Do you think a good slogan might be, "JFK would"?

If the government tries again to spend us out of a recession, at least let them spend on something cool.  

What ideas do you have for adding fuel to this meme?  I thought Ecurb Noselrub's Al Qaeda idea was funny and, like most good humor, held several grains of truth.  This is what he said - since on this thread it's even more on topic than where it originally appeared:

I have an idea for reviving space exploration, with all the attendant technological benefits that are derived from it.  Create misinformation that Al-Qaeda has colonized (pick a planet) and tell Congress that an attack is imminent. Congress will immediately appropriate money to invade that planet (there's ALWAYS money for war), and then scientific research can be done in the process. Of course, we will have to establish a base on the planet to make sure that Al-Qaeda will never colonize it again. Then from there we can chase the bastards around the universe.

[Siz]

Do you think a grassroots "Mars Underfoot" movement (to send humans to Mars) has any hope of catching fire among the general populace?

Do you think a good slogan might be, "JFK would"?

If the government tries again to spend us out of a recession, at least let them spend on something cool.  

What ideas do you have for adding fuel to this meme?  I thought Ecurb Noselrub's Al Qaeda idea was funny and, like most good humor, held several grains of truth.  This is what he said - since on this thread it's even more on topic than where it originally appeared:

I have an idea for reviving space exploration, with all the attendant technological benefits that are derived from it.  Create misinformation that Al-Qaeda has colonized (pick a planet) and tell Congress that an attack is imminent. Congress will immediately appropriate money to invade that planet (there's ALWAYS money for war), and then scientific research can be done in the process. Of course, we will have to establish a base on the planet to make sure that Al-Qaeda will never colonize it again. Then from there we can chase the bastards around the universe.

There will surely be no appetite for this kind of spending - particularly in the US. It's only highly skilled workers that would benefit from these jobs on the whole. It's not a vote winner. Other than advancing space travel technology for its own sake there is no other gain here. Now is not the time.

JFK was driven by the space-race in the 60's and threw caution to the wind in getting to the moon. This was irresponsible and he was lucky to get away with it... if it even ever happened... Much as I yearn for space travel and discovery, I cannot condone the required spending - unless it is taken from the war chest.

But I will congratulate his famous line (which I - probably annoyingly - often quote to my children):
"We do this not because it's easy, but because it is hard." Inspired!

[KingPhilip]

I've always felt a sense of dread when people talk about a manned Mars mission. Honestly, look into how often the ISS or any dozens of rockets fail fairly frequently. I personally don't believe we're anywhere near where we need to be technologically to even consider sending humans that far out. That, on top of Scissorlegs' valid points on how the spending would never be approved, seems to make any sort of Mars mission a faraway dream.

I have an idea for reviving space exploration, with all the attendant technological benefits that are derived from it.  Create misinformation that Al-Qaeda has colonized (pick a planet) and tell Congress that an attack is imminent. Congress will immediately appropriate money to invade that planet (there's ALWAYS money for war), and then scientific research can be done in the process. Of course, we will have to establish a base on the planet to make sure that Al-Qaeda will never colonize it again. Then from there we can chase the bastards around the universe.

This, however, is pure brilliance.

[The Magic Pudding]

It's well known that past space programs have brought us unforeseen benefits, I don't know how the dollars balance out or how you value hope and inspiration.

Mark Sephton: Yes, cheaply, and environmentally friendly. One of the techniques that we're using for our instrument on Mars uses a surfactant-based process, and it's very cheap to produce. Ultimately it's environmentally very sound as well, in fact it's edible and we have probably all eaten this as part of the foods that we buy, particularly ice cream.

Robyn Williams: Explain. How did it get there?

Mark Sephton: It's an emulsifier, so it keeps things all nice and tight. When you pour out an ice cream into a cone, the thing that is keeping it upright is this surfactant material, and we use similar things to extract hydrocarbons from rocks.

Robyn Williams: And does that mean you can have certain sources of this organic material that looked prohibitively expensive before but now you can actually use them...like, it seemed impossible long time ago?

Mark Sephton: Absolutely. Because these hydrocarbon deposits are difficult to extract, that's what makes them uncommercial, they are not really economical. There is lots of material there but it's expensive to get them out, and so it doesn't make financial sense to go after them. But when you really need your energy and the price of oil is increasing and your technology is bringing down the cost of production, then these become feasible sources of fossil fuel.

Robyn Williams: And the environmental part that is sound is not simply the process you describe but the actual utilisation of these oils?

Mark Sephton: It's the fact that what we do is fully quantitative. So as a scientist dealing with small samples, we let nothing go to waste, and so we want to get everything out and we want to fully account for all of our products, including any gases. So, leaving of residual material that is contaminated is something we would not do. The loss of gases that could help to contribute to global warming is something we would not do as well. And so what we do is we produce something which is a very complete system, and we use surfactant solutions that are environmentally benign as well. So we think it's a green solution to what is conventionally thought of as quite a dirty problem.

Robyn Williams: Have you been talking to the oil industry...well, obviously you must have, about what this might unleash...(I mean, the shale oil people, I don't know)...what is now possible?

Mark Sephton: We have been talking to industry and helping industry solve their problems, and they are excited about it. Anything that can mobilise two-thirds of the world's oil deposits is something you can expect the oil companies to be really interested in. And we're currently undergoing the commercialisation process.

Robyn Williams: I see. So when will we hear that the world has slightly changed energy-wise in that regard?

Mark Sephton: Hopefully in a few years.

Robyn Williams: It's a wonderful argument, isn't it, if the minister comes up to you and says 'Okay, you're studying on Mars, what bloody use is that?' you now have a very, very compelling answer.

Mark Sephton: That's right. It's this idea of being forced into solving problems that you didn't know existed before you tried to get involved with Mars missions, and it does provide this direct deliverable funding for space missions. You do things on Mars and it provides solutions on Earth, so the politicians should be very happy with the returns they get from this expense.

Robyn Williams: Another scientist keen to assure us that their blue sky, or should I say red sky work is wonderfully productive and useful. Mark Sephton is professor of organic geochemistry and meteoritics at Imperial College in London.

[Pharaoh Cat]

It's well known that past space programs have brought us unforeseen benefits, I don't know how the dollars balance out or how you value hope and inspiration.

I would say hope and inspiration outweigh all else, because without them, we're just food processors.

Robyn Williams: Another scientist keen to assure us that their blue sky, or should I say red sky work is wonderfully productive and useful. Mark Sephton is professor of organic geochemistry and meteoritics at Imperial College in London.

"Red sky work" is a cool phrase that I hope goes viral.

[Asmodean]

Do you think a grassroots "Mars Underfoot" movement (to send humans to Mars) has any hope of catching fire among the general populace?

Probably not. Today, people have bigger fish to fry than space exploration... For many, the paying of monthly bills is challenge enough.

Do you think a good slogan might be, "JFK would"?

Personally, no. I do not think that one is good at all. If I gave any less damn about JFK and what he "would" and "wouldn't", the sum total of ALL my damngiving on all the issues would have gone negative. He's just a dead president. Let dead be dead.

If the government tries again to spend us out of a recession, at least let them spend on something cool. 

Weapons development. There's always coin for that.

As much as I would like to see humans land on Mars, I think we should look to the private sector more than the governments for that achievement... At least in light of the sorry state the world is in right now.

[Crow]

If its government funded by the states I don't think it would happen, simply due to the fact that it costs a fortune and would be primarily for scientific purposes (which from an outsiders perspective isn't the top of the mass voters agenda), there is still a lot to be researched on mars using robots so unless they discover something that warrants hands-on human investigation or are incapable at doing the job most space agencies will stick with robotic investigation. Though there are tests being conducted as a joint project between, Russian, Chinese and European space agencies to gather research on the viability of sending people so far out but is way way off actually sending anyone.

[Pharaoh Cat]

As much as I would like to see humans land on Mars, I think we should look to the private sector more than the governments for that achievement... At least in light of the sorry state the world is in right now.

Maybe these private sector guys will eventually get us to Mars, after they get us to the moon again:
http://www.ptscientists.com/

[Asmodean]

Heheh... Perhaps. Someone probably will, eventually. But I, for one, am not holding my breath.

[Pharaoh Cat]

Good article on our topic:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1914/1

If we are to achieve a human program for Mars, it has to be motivated by 2011 priorities, not 1969 priorities.

The priorities of today, in a global commercial world without many boundaries, are about trade, financial survival, and prosperity as nations compete with each other to "corner the market" in one area or another.

The above, incidentally, illustrates my dictum that all values are subjective.  Enter my subjectivity and you will find incredulity that anyone would think anything matters more than treading Mars underfoot.  And I mean anything.  Unemployment at 90% wouldn't sway me against a Mars mission, so long as the remaining ten percent were in some way facilitating the great and glorious adventure.  Give Joe Sixpack a protein bar and a pint of water and keep your best and brightest aimed at the red planet.

Incidentally, in the above scenario, I would be one of the unemployed.  Tough for me.  I'm expendable.  In forty years (if not sooner) I'll be dead.  Forget about me.  Get to Mars.

But I guess I'm weird.  Even JFK said this:

I'm not that interested in space. I think its good [to explore space], I think we ought to know about it, we're ready to spend reasonable amounts of money. But we're talking about fantastic expenditures. We've wrecked our budget, and all the other domestic programs. And the only justification for it, in my opinion to do it [on this schedule] is because we hope to beat [the Russians], to demonstrate that starting behind, and we did, by a couple of years, by God, we passed them.

I am such a geek about all this that I take pride in the coincidence that I was born the very year (1961) when JFK announced we were moonward bound.

This is why simply sending some crewed missions to Mars for flags and footprints will not work in this time.

Nor should it have satisfied us last time, damn it.  We should have built and maintained a permanent settlement.  We could then have used that as the staging area for Mars expeditions.

SpaceX has the cheapest large rockets available today and any human mission to Mars within a private/public consortium would do well to focus their plans on this company at this time. They provide access to the cheapest space transportation means at present.

SpaceX is my own personal Jesus.

By selling two crew spots to governments for $2 Billion a piece, and by selling rock samples to science organizations across the world, by gaining private corporate sponsors and media rights and merchandising tie-ins, the profit of this mission could easily be above 20 percent in real terms, along with the technological marketing and self-promotion this would produce for companies involved over the long haul.

So this could be done for around four, say five, billion.  Spent in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya thus far: over 200 times that.

And to those who say we should aim first for a settlement on the moon, rather than focusing right now on Mars - hell, go for it!  I'll support that 100%.  Put a settlement on the moon and going from there to Mars becomes almost inevitable.