Congress, NASA

Mars Society continues its push on NASA budget language

The Mars Society sent out an alert to its members last week regarding language in the House version of the FY2008 NASA budget that would prevent NASA from spending money on projects exclusively intended for human Mars exploration. (It’s not clear exactly how many projects this would affect, although it’s unlikely to be more than a few small technology development efforts.) The Senate version of the budget, approved by the appropriations committee but not yet acted upon by the full Senate, doesn’t have that language, but the Mars Society is concerned that the language could make its way into the final version after a House-Senate conference. “It is highly likely that actions taken in the next few weeks will determine whether the anti-Mars language will end up on the final budget,” the announcement stated. “Although we have done an amazing job thus far – more than 1,000 faxes sent, numerous Congressional meetings organized, innumerable phone calls made, and 200 letters signed at the Mars Society Convention in Los Angeles – we need to intensify our efforts for the next few weeks.” The society is calling upon its members and others to fax and/or call their members of Congress to request that this language not be included in the final version of the bill.

19 comments to Mars Society continues its push on NASA budget language

  • Donald F. Robertson

    While I am not opposed to this effort, it strikes me as a waste of time. The problem is, nobody in Congress cares about Mars right now, and rightly so. It is far more important to our future in space to get some market pull going in cis-Lunar space, which would could reduce launch costs and product the deep space technologies needed to easily get to Mars. In my opinion, our priorities should be keeping the Space Station alive, COTS, a Lunar base, “lunar COTS,” and probably asteroid or Phobos missions, before any further Mars landing missions, whether human or automated.

    — Donald

  • anonymous.space

    “The problem is, nobody in Congress cares about Mars right now, and rightly so. It is far more important to our future in space to get some market pull going in cis-Lunar space, which would could reduce launch costs and product the deep space technologies needed to easily get to Mars.”

    While I understand the logic, it does not represent Congress’s thinking, on the whole or as individuals. One, the anti-Mars language was inserted to appease only one powerful member of Congress (Obey on House appropriations). Two, that member was opposed to Mars on general principles that NASA money should be spent elsewhere. Humans to Mars just represented a wedge (an admittedly mistaken one) to get at that money. There was no thinking about the Moon versus Mars, or the best way to reduce launch costs or develop deep space infrastructure. (And it’s too bad that there’s never really been such discussion in Congress.)

    I’d also argue that it’s highly debateable whether “cis-Lunar space” development is the most direct, quickest, cheapest, and best way to “reduce launch costs”. I’d also note that, although some lunar, NEO, and/or Martian moon experience is probably necessary before taking the giant step to Mars, many of the “deep space technologies” necessary for Mars will not be developed by a lunar architecture.

    “In my opinion, our priorities should be keeping the Space Station alive, COTS, a Lunar base, “lunar COTS,” and probably asteroid or Phobos missions, before any further Mars landing missions, whether human or automated.”

    As I’ve argued before, we don’t need a space station or lunar base, especially in the highly expensive forms that we have and are continuing to pursue them, to have a COTS program that builds a commercial human space flight services infrastructure by addressing NASA’s human space flight needs. But I’ll just note that and not go into the details again.

    I’d also note that the savings from cancelling the remaining robotic Mars program would make only a very small dent in the spending needed to sustain both ISS and NASA’s proposed lunar polar base. Before cutting the Mars program, I would go after bigger game, such as trading Ares I for EELV/COTS or cutting off ISS deployment in 2008 (after the last foreign element is up) to save STS dollars. These are big enough budget changes to actually make a difference, and it would force NASA’s human space flight programs to live within their means for once.

    And if we were to cut more small programs at NASA to feed the giant human space flight beast, there are other programs with a much lower benefits that should be cut first, such as SOFIA, as you’ve mentioned in other threads.) Having automated missions at Mars, continuing to roll back the evidence for water and life, identify resources, and test out technologies for supporting humans there (as the VSE proposed) is a very high value/low cost investment to advance the overall space exploration/development portfolio at NASA. I wouldn’t cut off my nose to spite my face on this one.

    My 2 cents… FWIW.

  • Donald F. Robertson

    Anonymous: While I understand the logic, it does not represent Congress’s thinking

    I fully agree. I was only stating that the thought was correct, not that the reasons for the thought were correct.

    I’d also argue that it’s highly debateable whether “cis-Lunar space” development is the most direct, quickest, cheapest, and best way to “reduce launch costs”.

    Well, we’ve spend decades trying push with no market, and it hasn’t worked. While I agree that my position is “highly debatable,” it’s worth trying, since in a few short years it has demonstrated more progress in the right direction (e.g., COTS) than the alternative (NASP, X-33, et al) achieved in decades.

    many of the “deep space technologies” necessary for Mars will not be developed by a lunar architecture.

    Huh? Almost every one of the critical technologies needed for Mars that I can think of off the top of my head — radiation protection, closed life support, more efficient propulsion, aerobraking, “living off the land” at least for oxygen, better space suits — are also requirements, albeit often lesser ones, for a sustained lunar presence. Many of them would help the Space Station. All of them, developed for the moon, will be useful, at least as general techniques, at Mars.

    As I’ve argued before, we don’t need a space station or lunar base, especially in the highly expensive forms that we have and are continuing to pursue them, to have a COTS program that builds a commercial human space flight services infrastructure by addressing NASA’s human space flight needs.

    The problem is, I don’t think you ever really have gone into the details. What NASA human spaceflight needs? What NASA spaceflight needs exist outside of the Space Station that are large enough to invest grandma’s money in reducing the price of space access? Two dozen comsats a year? A slightly larger number of military and civil science missions? Kistler can’t even raise the money to fulfill a Space Station requirement that approaches the scale of everything else put together and is located in one relatively easy-to-get-to location. The problem is the lack of market, and nothing you’ve said changes my believe that only increasing the market first will start the beneficial feedback of lower launch costs increasing the market still more. [Interesting quotes from Orbital in last week’s Space News regarding developing a Delt-II replacement, suggesting that building a cheap rocket that launches many times, or an expensive rocket that launches a few times, are easy; the hard job is developing an inexpensive rocket that flies only four or five times a year.]

    I would go after bigger game, such as trading Ares I for EELV/COTS or cutting off ISS deployment in 2008 (after the last foreign element is up) to save STS dollars.

    I agree.

    force NASA’s human space flight programs to live within their means for once.

    However, it is not only human spaceflight that cannot live within a budget.

    My point is not that Mars missions are useless, far from it. My (unpopular) point is that we’ve spent far too much time and money galavanting across the Solar System, and far too little establishing the kinds of nearby markets that could actually provide the political and economic justification to develop lower costs — and allow us to truly explore the Solar System in the future.

    We’re spending a large fraction of our money on quick-and-dirty exploration the new world, before we have done detailed exploration of, and learned to live on, the islands just off our coast — is that really a wise strategy?

    — Donald

  • anonymous.space

    “Almost every one of the critical technologies needed for Mars that I can think of off the top of my head — radiation protection, closed life support, more efficient propulsion, aerobraking, “living off the land” at least for oxygen, better space suits — are also requirements, albeit often lesser ones, for a sustained lunar presence.”

    Not true. Radiation protection/mitigation for lunar (or any deep space) missions that take days or weeks to complete are very different from radiation protection/mitigation for Mars (or any deep space) missions that take months or years to complete. Same goes for life support. Although it could be part of a lunar architecture if we demand a more operationally sustainable and higher-tech approach, there is no requirement for more efficient propulsion or aerobraking to get to/from the Moon. Even if there was, aerobraking in the Earth’s atmosphere is very different from aerobraking into Mars’ atmosphere. ISRU (and life support) is also very different in terms of both the available resources (vacuum versus atmosphere, mineral types, and types and distribution of ices, assuming lunar polar ice exists) and the environments (vacuum versus atmosphere, dust types and toxicities, etc.) in which the processing equipment must operate. Even the thermal environments (swings of tens of degrees versus hundreds of degrees) for the space suits are wildly different.

    I’m not saying there’s zero carry-forward from the Moon to Mars. But outside of heavy lift and general development and operational experience, there’s a ton of technical differences lying just under the surface that will drive fundamentally different systems for each destination.

    “The problem is, I don’t think you ever really have gone into the details.”

    I actually have in a prior post. As I mentioned then, even in the absence of a space station or lunar base, NASA spent tens of billions of dollars for a decade-and-a-half putting up dozens of people and tons of payloads on Shuttle. Some might justifiably argue that it was mere make-work, but the requirement existed nonetheless. And, as you have argued before, it doesn’t matter how stupid the activity might be, the key is the requirement and the market it creates. My point has always been that very sizable NASA human space flight launch requirements exist regardless of whether a space station or lunar base do. The key question is how those requirements get addressed, via commercial services or NASA-designed, -owned and -operated systems.

    Look at it this way — Columbia and Challenger aside, the Shuttle flight rate has remained the same regardless of whether NASA was building and operating a space station or not. To first order, the size of the NASA LEO human space flight market — the number of astronauts flown and the amount of payload put up — is static. Either it’s enough to catalyze the development of commercial human space flight systems or it’s not. Like you, I believe it is. Unlike you, I would not argue that the ISS had to exist to create that market. Irrefutably, that market existed, at about the same size, for years before the first ISS element went up.

    “We’re spending a large fraction of our money”

    It’s not a large fraction. We only spend a half-billion dollars a year on Mars. Compare that to $4-5 billion a year on Shuttle, $1-2 billion a year on ISS, and $3-4 billion a year (and growing) a year on Ares I/Orion. I mean, c’mon, the Mars program is costing 1/6th to 1/8th of what we’re currently spending on the systems that are suppossed to (but technically can’t) get us back to the Moon. And the Mars program is 1/16th to less than 1/20th of the entire human space flight program. How can anyone claim that those amounts are a “large fraction of our money”?

    And the Mars program is actually doing exploration. Today. At two locations on Mars. With a third to come. With mobility never demonstrated on any planetary surface (besides Earth) by humans or robots. And uncovering major new evidence about the existence and history of water and habitable environments at that planet.

    The question shouldn’t be whether we should spend less on Mars exploration so we can spend more on human space flight or systems that will maybe someday send astronauts to the Moon. The question should be why we aren’t spending less on human space flight and systems that maybe someday send astronauts to the Moon so that we can spend more on actual exploration at Mars. Hands-down, we get a much, much higher return out of our robotic Mars exploration program than we get out of our human space flight programs, for a very small fraction of the cost. It’s just a much better investment. That doesn’t mean we should put zero into human space flight or the Moon. But the relative amount of spending on each should arguably be much closer to parity, if not reversed.

    “on quick-and-dirty exploration the new world, before we have done detailed exploration of, and learned to live on, the islands just off our coast — is that really a wise strategy?”

    I’d say “yes” even if the cost of the Mars program went way up. We may visit the Moon for a while to gain experience or for vacation adventures, maybe even to produce some propellant, set up a radio telescope, or settle some geological questions, but it’s arguable whether we will ever “live on” that island. There’s arguably just not enough there, in terms of research rationales or useful resources, to justify a long-term presence of the kind that would become self-sustaining. The Moon is the Antarctic, not the New World.

    Assuming it’s not infected with native lifeforms, Mars arguably has much more to offer, in terms of both research rationales and resources, to justify a long-term presence that could become self-sustaining. From mineral complexity to thermal activity to atmosphere to water/ice to biological potential, it’s just a much richer environment — by orders of magnitude — scientifically and in terms of resources. It’s arguably the New World, the destination we’re really shooting for.

    If we accept that context (and you may not), then arguably we have to do both. We have to both efficiently exercise our deep space human muscles on some nearby island to prepare for the longer and much riskier trip to the new continent, as well as understand deeply via robotic precursors the hazards, opportunities, and systems that will be necessary to survive and make the best use of the very high level of resources that have to be invested to make the trip to that new continent.

    My 2 cents… FWIW.

  • Donald F. Robertson

    Anonymous: Radiation protection/mitigation for lunar (or any deep space) missions that take days or weeks to complete are very different from radiation protection/mitigation for Mars (or any deep space) missions that take months or years to complete.

    Well, no, or only if you rely on luck as in Apollo or are willing to accept high levels of risk. You want to be prepared for a solar flare on the way to the moon if you are contemplating regular missions, and in a permanent infrastructure you’d want that. Admittedly, the two requirements are different, but not as different as they may seem at first glance.

    Same goes for life support.

    Well, no, if you plan to stay at the moon at reasonable cost. There is not a requirement for closed life support at Mars either, it’s just very, very expensive if you don’t. Both lunar and Mars bases, if they are permanent, have broadly similar requirements. (Arguably, those on Mars are less, since there is more opportunity to live off the land.)

    Although it could be part of a lunar architecture if we demand a more operationally sustainable and higher-tech approach, there is no requirement for more efficient propulsion or aerobraking to get to/from the Moon.

    Ditto, and Orion’s skipping reentry comes awfully close to aerobraking.

    Even if there was, aerobraking in the Earth’s atmosphere is very different from aerobraking into Mars’ atmosphere. ISRU (and life support) is also very different in terms of both the available resources (vacuum versus atmosphere, mineral types, and types and distribution of ices, assuming lunar polar ice exists) and the environments (vacuum versus atmosphere, dust types and toxicities, etc.) in which the processing equipment must operate. Even the thermal environments (swings of tens of degrees versus hundreds of degrees) for the space suits are wildly different.

    They are different in detail, but the broad requirements are similar — e.g., lower weight spacesuits. Both lunar and Martian dust are likely to be very hard on machinery: once you have developed machinery that can deal with extremely abrasive dust, it should be readily adapted to Mars, especially if you have planned that in advance. The Martian surface is a modified regolith, but it is still a regolith, and thus has much more in common with the lunar surface than with most terrestrial surfaces. I believe we should be thinking about learning to live and work on regolith surfaces, not lunar or Martian surfaces.

    Even the thermal environments (swings of tens of degrees versus hundreds of degrees) for the space suits are wildly different

    Huh? While it is less, I believe the thermal environment on all but very small areas of Mars is far, far worse than tens of degrees. Lets try a smaller number of hundreds of degrees!

    there’s a ton of technical differences lying just under the surface that will drive fundamentally different systems for each destination.

    Maybe, but we should try to minimize this. There are a “ton of technical differences” between operating in arctic waters and equatorial waters, but we don’t design most of our hardware to operate in only one environment. Again, if we want to have a real future in the inner Solar System, we must think of regolith, not lunar, Martian, or asteroidal surfaces.

    the Shuttle flight rate has remained the same regardless of whether NASA was building and operating a space station or not. To first order, the size of the NASA LEO human space flight market — the number of astronauts flown and the amount of payload put up — is static.

    I sincerely hope you are correct, but I doubt it. As many (including you, I believe) complain here, this was completely artificial — a way to keep the Shuttle busy until NASA and the nation got its Space Station act together. In the abasence of the Shuttle, this “market” would not have been there. The real market is very small, and has only increased dramatically with the advent of the Space Station. Yes, the Space Station is an artificial market, too, but there is one key difference. The additional material that must be carried to orbit are very real, while the advent Shuttle did not greatly change the amount of material only the vehicle it was carried on.

    It’s not a large fraction. We only spend a half-billion dollars a year on Mars.

    But, we spend a lot more than that “galavanting” across the Solar System. . . .

    With mobility never demonstrated on any planetary surface (besides Earth) by humans or robots.

    This is simply wrong. Apollo astronauts demonstrated far, far greater mobility on all but the first mission, and, of course, did it in far less time. Go back and apply the same study to Apollo operations that you have applied to the more recent Mars rovers. Nobody wants to look today at the real record, but there is simply no comparison between what especially the last three Apollos accomplished and anything that any automated mission has achieved on any non-terrestrial surface, or is likely to in the foreseeable future.

    There’s arguably just not enough there, in terms of research rationales or useful resources, to justify a long-term presence of the kind that would become self-sustaining.

    Nonesense. I won’t repeat my (and others’) lists of the key scientific questions detailed exploration of Earth’s moon could answer (except to remind you that the lunar surface has almost certainly been a static trap that has captured samples of other bodies, including samples of the very early Earth when life formed. throughout the history of the Solar System), but, again, the majority view here is simply wrong.

    The Moon is the Antarctic, not the New World.

    I think most of us here would be extraordinarily happy if that were true. Remember, it is treaties that have keep Antarctica hands-off, not a lack of resources, or science, or desire to go there.

    Assuming it’s not infected with native lifeforms,

    While it is just possible that we may locate life on Mars through chemical evidence, we will never prove it’s absence, and certainly not with robots. I agree with you that it is a richer environment (though less so than generally supposed, both because the moon is more interesting and because Mars’ regolith dominated environment is less different), as you have pointed out, we cannot yet send geologists there who could really answer our questions at reasonable cost. We can afford to send them to the moon, so that is what we should be doing. Walk before you run. . . .

    then arguably we have to do both. We have to both efficiently exercise our deep space human muscles on some nearby island to prepare for the longer and much riskier trip to the new continent,

    I fully agree, but unlike you, I believe we should do the latter, and do it right, first, rather than trying to do both at once and doing neither of them right, that is, in such a way that we are likely to get superficial answers if that.

    I’d say “yes” even if the cost of the Mars program went way up.

    Well, you and almost everyone else. But, I don’t think so, and I don’t think the full history of all space science (that is, including not excluding Apollo), or the wider history of human exploration, supports your majority contention. It’s popular, but it’s also wishful thinking.

    — Donald

  • anonymous.space

    “You want to be prepared for a solar flare on the way to the moon if you are contemplating regular missions, and in a permanent infrastructure you’d want that.”

    To be clear, it’s not the transient events like solar flares that I was referring to. To keep the crew from getting sick during the mission, I agree that we’d have to protect against transient radiation spikes at both locations. A simple water or regolith enshrouded shelter will do.

    Rather, it’s the much higher cumulative rad exposure that one gets by staying in deep space for months or years (versus days or weeks) that drives the difference. Unless we accept that everyone that goes to Mars will come back (or stay there) with cancer, we’ll have to develop much more effective radiation countermeasures. (In fact, IIRC, all our existing countermeasures are not adequate to meet radiation safety standards for women of reproductive age on a typical Mars mission — i.e., today we’d have to send all men and/or only post-menopausal women.)

    “Well, no, if you plan to stay at the moon at reasonable cost.”

    It’s not just a matter of how closed the life support system is. It’s also a matter of how reliable/rendundant the Mars system has to be to support the longer mission. As Biosphere showed, we can do a closed life-support systems that works reliably for weeks. This is adequate for the Moon. But we can’t yet do a closed life-support systems that works reliably for months or years, even with an unconstrained (for the purposes of space missions) mass limit. Mars missions will require this.

    “Orion’s skipping reentry comes awfully close to aerobraking”

    Not really. I’m no aerodynamicist, but the thermal loads are substantially higher with aerobraking and there is much less room for error.

    “Both lunar and Martian dust are likely to be very hard on machinery: once you have developed machinery that can deal with extremely abrasive dust, it should be readily adapted to Mars, especially if you have planned that in advance.”

    It’s not just dealing with degrees of abrasiveness. The Mars dust is way more toxic. Unlike the lunar dust, Mars dust has to be kept completely out of certain systems or it will pose an immediate threat to the crew’s health, on top of wearing down moving components over time.

    “While it is less, I believe the thermal environment on all but very small areas of Mars is far, far worse than tens of degrees.”

    Not true. Just from a quick internet search, the Viking landers measured temperatures ranging between -107C and -17C. Even if we compare the coldest Martian pole readings to the warmest equatorial readings, orbiters have measured temperatures ranging from -143C to +27C These differences are admittedly greater than one hundred degrees (i.e., tens of degrees), but they’re not multiple hundreds of degrees (i.e., hundreds of degrees). But multiple hundres of degrees is what we’re dealing with on the Moon, where just going from shade to Sun creates a temperature difference of almost 300C (-184C to +101C). And that says nothing of the radically different techniques for rejecting excess heat in a vacuum (Moon) versus an atmosphere (Mars).

    “Apollo astronauts demonstrated far, far greater mobility”

    IIRC, the farthest rove from an LM was 7.5 kilometers on Apollo 17, and it was limited by the requirement for the astronauts to be able to walk back to the LM if their rover failed.

    By contrast, in February of this year, Opportunity hit 10 kilometers and is still going.

    If we want to do good science, we have to be able to reach scientifically interesting sites, not be artificially constrained to a minimum radius from our landing site. Robots allow for this; human missions (at least the way we have done and are continuing to do them) do not.

    “except to remind you that the lunar surface has almost certainly been a static trap that has captured samples of other bodies, including samples of the very early Earth when life formed. throughout the history of the Solar System”

    Agreed. But Mars has an active geology. And an atmosphere. And a hydrosphere. And biological potential.

    Geological records are great and necessary. But they are far from the be-all/end-all when it comes to the planetary sciences.

    “But, we spend a lot more than that “galavanting” across the Solar System”

    No we don’t. All planetary science spending at NASA is only $1.6-1.7 billion per year. That’s less than half of what we’re currently spending on Ares I/Orion per year ($3-4 billion), and it will be less than one-quarter of what we’ll be spending annually on Ares I/Orion after Shuttle retires ($7 billion plus). We could cancel all of planetary science at NASA for several years and maybe, just maybe, buy back a year of Ares I/Orion schedule. Whoop-dee-freaking-doo… we’d still have to pay for Ares V/EDS/LSAM before we can actually go to the Moon.

    Cutting planetary science is not going to save our screwed up, overpriced, and underpowered human lunar (but not really) program, not by a long shot. If we want to fix the Moon, then we have to fix the Moon, not kill what little space exploration is actually ongoing at NASA.

    “Remember, it is treaties that have keep Antarctica hands-off, not a lack of resources, or science, or desire to go there.”

    This is confusing cause and effect. It’s the lack of cost-effective means to identify and get at resources in the Antarctic — at least in comparison to demand for those resources — that keeps those treaties in place. If we really needed Antarctic petroleum, the treaties would fall by the wayside. If I was a betting man, I’d say that the same will probably hold true for the Moon for a long time to come. It’s probably a sad economic inevitability.

    “I believe we should do the latter, and do it right, first, rather than trying to do both at once and doing neither of them right”

    I think we lose our major rationale for going to the Moon, at least at the costs we’re currently pursuing it at, if Mars is not part of the mix.

    Moreover, again, I have to point out the huge disparity in costs between Ares I/Orion ($3-4 billion per year), ISS ($1-2 billion per year), and STS ($4-5 billion per year) and the Mars program ($500 million per year) or the entire planetary science program ($1.6-1.7 billion per year). Unless we fundamentally restructure our human space flight program, cancelling and redirecting the entire Mars budget or even the entire planetary science program to these enormously expensive human space flight programs will make no substantive change in their content or schedule.

    Killing the Mars program or the planetary science program will not save the Moon program. There’s just not enough money to be saved from the robotic side of the house. In fact, killing Mars will probably only hurt the key justification for the Moon program. If we want to save the Moon, then we have to fix the Moon program (and other parts of human space flight). Or give up on human space exploration until the human space flight technology and industrial base is more affordable and cost-effective.

    “We can afford to send them to the moon”

    Theoretically, yes. In reality, probably not on the path NASA is pursuing… unfortunately.

    “Well, you and almost everyone else. But, I don’t think so, and I don’t think the full history of all space science (that is, including not excluding Apollo), or the wider history of human exploration, supports your majority contention. It’s popular, but it’s also wishful thinking.”

    Sometimes, popular is right. Look, we’ve spent hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars on human space flight/exploration (including Apollo) over the past five decades and managed to visit only one object which happens to be the closest to us. We’ve spent a small fraction of that (and probably a fraction of Apollo) on the robotic planetary program, and yet we’ve conducted exploration of every major body in the solar system (I’m counting Pluto as a minor body) and many of the large minor ones. And I know you think highly of what Apollo did uncover on the Moon, but it pales in comparison to the discoveries made at all, or even just one or two, of these other locations.

    I’d argue it’s wishful thinking to claim that “the full history of all space science” does not lead to a conclusion that more should be spent on robotic exploration and less on human. The disparities in effectiveness are just too great.

    As always, my 2 cents… FWIW.

  • Donald F. Robertson

    IIRC, the farthest rove from an LM was 7.5 kilometers on Apollo 17, and it was limited by the requirement for the astronauts to be able to walk back to the LM if their rover failed. By contrast, in February of this year, Opportunity hit 10 kilometers and is still going.

    Think about that a second. 7.5 kilomters in a few hours with a first generation human lunar expedition versus 10 kilometers in almost three years with a third generation Mars lander or second generation rover. Setting cost aside, I don’t see any better science in the latter. That is the problem, when scientists say they can get better science with robots, rather than “we can only afford robots so that’s what we’re stuck with,” they way over-state their case.

    It’s not just dealing with degrees of abrasiveness. The Mars dust is way more toxic. Unlike the lunar dust, Mars dust has to be kept completely out of certain systems or it will pose an immediate threat to the crew’s health, on top of wearing down moving components over time.

    I’m not going to argue further about the details of Mars versus lunar risks, both are perspectives are in some ways correct when looked at from our respective points of view, except to point out that here you over-state your case. You would not want to be breathing lunar dust a whole lot more than Mars dust — the abrasiveness would kill you almost as quickly as the oxidizing environment.

    We’ve spent a small fraction of that (and probably a fraction of Apollo) on the robotic planetary program,

    No we haven’t. You are including launch vehicle development in the human missions, and excluding it in the automated missions because they were in a different budgetary box. While human missions do cost far more, it is no where near as much as commonly believed, even the rediculously expensive way NASA is doing them with ESAS.

    yet we’ve conducted exploration of every major body in the solar system

    No we haven’t. We’ve taken a quick-and-dirty, mostly remote look at these bodies. Look at the history of Mars exploration, where every time we get a little more detail the prior view is proven mostly wrong. That’s neither science nor exploration — its reconnaissance, and in most cases barely even that.

    I agree with you about almost everything that is wrong with the human spaceflight program. But, that does not mean you should oversell what the automated program is capable of achieving, or undersell what might be achieved by a properly designed human program — which is what we consistantly do.

    — Donald

  • anonymous.space

    “Think about that a second. 7.5 kilomters in a few hours with a first generation human lunar expedition versus 10 kilometers in almost three years with a third generation Mars lander or second generation rover.”

    I still pick the rover. Who cares if it takes Opportunity three years operationally to do what it took Apollo astronauts three hours? The MERS missions cost a fraction of an Apollo mission, went to a much more distant and interesting target, and STILL exceeded Apollo mobility.

    You might have a point about first generation versus third generation. But it depends on how we define “generations”. Apollo followed very rapidly on Mercury and Gemini’s heels, just as MERS followed hard on Mars Pathfinder’s heels. And even if we set aside nitpicking over “generations” for a moment, NASA’s current plans for lunar exploration aren’t going to come close to the kinds of leaps in capabilities that we’ve seen going from Viking to Mars Pathfinder to MERS, and will see again with the 2009 Mars rover).

    We have yet to even grasp, nevertheless tap, the limit of robotic space exploration capabilities. But based on the evidence in front of us, human space exploration capabilities have arguably plateaued at Apollo’s level.

    “Setting cost aside, I don’t see any better science in the latter.”

    Exactly. The rover did science roughly equivalent to Apollo — evidence of liquid water on the surface of Mars billions of years in the past versus evidence of the Moon’s billions of years of age. And the rover did so on a much more distant target, one where astronauts, for a variety of reasons, have failed to go. And the rover mission did so for a fraction of the cost of that Apollo mission.

    “You would not want to be breathing lunar dust a whole lot more than Mars dust — the abrasiveness would kill you almost as quickly as the oxidizing environment.”

    That’s not true. The lunar dust will give you asbestos-like lung cancer some years down the road, but the Mars dust will kill astronauts during the mission.

    “You are including launch vehicle development in the human missions, and excluding it in the automated missions because they were in a different budgetary box.”

    Well then, let’s include it. The MERS rovers launched on Delta II vehicles. The Delta II was developed for between $317 million and $989 million, depending on whether we only count the base contract for the first seven Delta II missions as the development cost or also include the contract option for the additional 13 missions that followed. See:

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/report/1994/cape/cape1-7.htm

    Spread across Delta II’s 129 launches, that’s a per-mission development cost of somewhere between $3 million and $9 million, or $6-18 million for both MERS launches.

    Accounting for launch development does increase the cost of MERS, but it’s such a small number, especially in comparison to human space flight costs, that it gets lost in the noise.

    “That’s neither science nor exploration — its reconnaissance”

    First, exploration is a synonym for reconnaissance, at least according to my MS Word thesaurus.

    Two, it may be your opinion that robotic planetary exploration (or reconnaissance) is not science, but the 1,400+ professional members of the Division of Planetary Sciences at the American Astronomical Society will tend to disagree.

    FWIW…

  • anonymous.space

    Didn’t scroll down far enough before completing my prior post…

    “But, that does not mean you should oversell what the automated program is capable of achieving, or undersell what might be achieved by a properly designed human program — which is what we consistantly do.”

    Could’ve, would’ve, should’ve arguments are fine for discussing how to fix the human space flight program. But they should not be used as arguments for cutting a highly productive and cost-effective robotic planetary program. If we prove that we can actually pull off a productive, cost-effective, sustainable program of human planetary exploration at even one target within the existing multi-billion human space flight budget, then we can start having discussions about hundred million dollar trade-offs with robotic program investments. But not until.

    I’m all for trying again with human space exploration at the Moon or elsewhere. But that experiment (and maybe if it was treated as an experiment, human space exploration would advance a lot more quickly) should never come at the expense of the planetary exploration we’re actually doing, especially when the sums involved on the robotic side would hardly make a dent in human space costs. That’s the very definition of a bad investment.

    My 2 cents… FWIW…

  • Yes it’s a shame the Mars Society couldn’t have propagated a positive message along with that sharp rebuttal. So much effort for a negative message that may well be redundant. At least it’s refreshing the concept of a human Mars mission in the minds of politicians and perhaps seeding it for the very first time.

  • FYI, the Member in question is Barney Frank of Massachusetts, not David Obey. Frank wanted to take a symbolic swipe at the President via his vision, which is only slightly more objectionable than Congress’ historic small-minded hysteria over federal funding of SETI research.

    As for the limited impact, actually I am guessing that it would influence the selection of of SBIR contracts, which is PRETTY DAMN OBJECTIONABLE.

    I agree that Dr. Zubrin should advance a carrot + stick message, but I’m not going to fault them for vigorously defending their vision.

  • anonymous.space

    “FYI, the Member in question is Barney Frank of Massachusetts, not David Obey.”

    Thanks for the correction. I thought Obey carried the objection, but you’re right that it originated with Frank.

    “As for the limited impact, actually I am guessing that it would influence the selection of of SBIR contracts, which is PRETTY DAMN OBJECTIONABLE.”

    Good point. Hundreds of millions of dollars annually at stake there. Agreed.

  • al Fansome

    Donald,

    I have mostly kept quiet on your “science” arguments because I love science. But I need to speak up.

    In my opinion, your proposed strategy to promote/defend “human exploration” based on the “scientific benefits” is extremely weak at best, and fundamentally flawed at worst.

    The real reason for “human exploration” is not for the science — although we will get science benefits as tertiary “spin offs” — but to expand the sphere of human civilization into space. This means … 1) permanent human settlement, and 2) to “incorporate the Solar System into our economic sphere” (ala Marburger).

    Zubrin makes a *much* stronger and more effective argument for the human exploration of Mars (or any other location in space for that matter) — to create the second branch of human civilization.

    Putting “flags & footprints” on Mars, and spending several orders of magnitude more money — for the purpose of “science” — is a bad idea. More important than my opinion, asking our politicians to do so, based on this reason, will almost certainly fail.

    Not only is Apollo on Mars is a really bad idea, but as you continue to promote “science” as a (the?) justifying purpose, you increase the risk that Apollo on Mars will be the outcome, as bureaucracy’s have an amazing ability to mess things up. Setting up the initial requirements is critical.

    For that reason, we should either go to Mars (and the Moon) with the purpose to permanently extend human civilization to those places, and design the strategy from the ground up for that purpose from the beginning, or (if we can’t summon enough national vision, will and commitment) we should continue to send robots.

    – Al

  • Donald F. Robertson

    Anonymous: First of all, exploration is a synonym for reconnaissance, at least according to my MS Word thesaurus

    I wouldn’t trust Bill Gates with the definition of anything, except maybe money and bad software. According to the compact Oxford English Dictionary on my desk, the full version of which is at home but is widely considered the ultimate authority on the English language, reconnaissance is defined as, “> Military observation of a region to locate an enemy or ascertain strategic features. > Preliminary surveying or research.” From Latin via French. To explore is defined as, “> Travel through (an unfamiliar area) in order to learn about it. > Investigate or discuss in detail. > Examine by touch.” Also from Latin, via Middle English and French.

    I stand by my use of both words.

    Exactly. The rover did science roughly equivalent to Apollo — evidence of liquid water on the surface of Mars billions of years in the past versus evidence of the Moon’s billions of years of age.

    Not exactly at all. Apollo provided precise dates for many major events on the moon, and detailed chemical analysis of many different locations. All the rovers can say on Mars was, there was standing water at some unknown time in the last four billion years, and even that is by inference rather than direct measurement (although, less I be misunderstood, I do think it is fairly solid inference). We have yet to caugh up even one measured date at any location on Mars. By any definition, that is reconnaissance, not science.

    Also, Apollo-17 did three traverses in as many days, not one in three years. Likewise, the learning curve during Apollos 11 through 17 was both far, far faster and far more comprehensive, than it has been in the history of lunar and planetary rovers, on Mars or anywhere else.

    the 1,400+ professional members of the Division of Planetary Sciences at the American Astronomical Society will tend to disagree.

    I know they do. They are not outside observers looking at human exploration in a wider picture, they are only looking exclusively at their own field. It’s like looking at Mars with Mariners and drawing conclusions — you can do that, but you’ll be (mostly) wrong. We are drawing way to many conclusions on the basis of totally inadequate exploration, and claiming that we understand something about the Solar System. Apparently, it really does not take a rocket scientist to see that there’s something wrong in that — since the rocket scientists out there seem unable to look beyond their own immediate activities.

    Regarding the Delta, let’s compare the operations cost of a single Apollo mission — the flight and flight hardware alone — with a single Mars rover mission — the flight and flight hardware alone. Or, let’s compare the entire cost of developing the Saturns and Apollo spacecraft with the entire cost of developing the Delta from ICBM to date plus the automated technology needed to land on Mars and operate there. That is a fair comparison of the real cost of the two programs. True, with either measure, the rovers are going to be a lot cheaper — but not anywhere nearly as much as is generally claimed. Compare that with the very limited science they or their descendents are capable of doing compared to first-generation Apollo mission, and the cost per unit science is not clearly dramatically less. We have not continued to develop Apollo techniques — we abandoned the learning curve — so we do not know what could have been achieved by continuing to use vehicles we had already developed. But it is certainly more than any robotic set of missions could have achieved at the moon, even using today’s vastly superior technology.

    Al: but as you continue to promote “science” as a (the?) justifying purpose,

    While it may sound otherwise, that is not actually my argument. I fully agree with you that there are far higher reasons for human spaceflight than science alone. That does not change the fact (as I see it) that you would also get better science, and that if you are going to explore space solely for scientific reasons, you need a large human component and that the latter is the most important element. I am not arguing that we should cancel automated exploration of Mars. I am arguing that we should put it in perspective — that it can never answer our major geological and biological questions and that, therefore, missions should be seen as preparation for future projects that possibly could answer our major questions — and, as anyone who has done field work (or looked at the generally sorry history of entirely non-experimental “sciences”) will know, those missions will not, and probably cannot, be solely robotic missions.

    — Donald

  • al Fansome

    DONALD: While it may sound otherwise, that is not actually my argument. I fully agree with you that there are far higher reasons for human spaceflight than science alone.

    If so, then why invest so much effort in arguing for “far lower reasons”.

    DONALD: That does not change the fact (as I see it) that you would also get better science, and that if you are going to explore space solely for scientific reasons, you need a large human component and that the latter is the most important element.

    If you ignore budgetary and political realities (that no one part of the scientific community can claim the lion’s share of the nation’s scientific budget) then I agree with you.

    But if your primary purpose is “science”, for the “sake of science”, and if you admit the reality of budget limits, then I agree with conventional wisdom of the scientific lobbyies. Robots are a better investment.

    Justifying a $100+ Billion investment based on your argument that humans do better science is fundamentally flawed.

    However, if we do decide that we should send humans to the far frontier for other reasons — as I think is inevitable (the real questions are “when”, “who” and “how”) — we should pursue scientific objectives when we go.

    Let me put your argument in historical context. The exploration of this planet has been driven by two fundamental drivers — fear and greed. Curiosity has always been secondary at best to one of these two factors.

    – Al

  • Donald F. Robertson

    Al: Let me put your argument in historical context. The exploration of this planet has been driven by two fundamental drivers — fear and greed. Curiosity has always been secondary at best to one of these two factors.

    I’m afraid that I agree with that.

    If so, then why invest so much effort in arguing for “far lower reasons”.

    First, I overstated myself. I don’t consider science a “far lower” activity; it is one of many important activities and probably necessary for most of the others.

    However, “colonization” and “industrialization” don’t really need my defense, here, but real science apparently does. Space scientists have let self interest bring them to a set of beliefs that are clearly wrong when seen in a wider context. Thus, they place priority on activities that will give them extremely limited answers in the short-term, but will certainly fail to answer our wider questions about the inner planets. We need to give priority to concepts — if not specific projects — that could provide real answers about detailed geological and biological history on other worlds — and achieving those answers will certainly involve a significant human presence, and probably a large one. Yes, robots are cheap, but they cannot and will not do the scientific job, so it doesn’t really matter how cheap they are or are not.

    — Donald

  • anonymous.space

    “I stand by my use of both words.”

    Fair enough.

    “All the rovers can say on Mars was, there was standing water at some unknown time in the last four billion years”

    Not true. Thanks to the MERS data, the timeframe for extensive Mars surface water is much narrower than four billion years. Try 300 million years, 3.8 to 3.5 billion years ago.

    “We have yet to caugh up even one measured date at any location on Mars.”

    Not true. We have thirty or so (and growing) Mars meteorites ranging in age from 165 million to 4.5 billion years old, with most having formed less than 1.3 billion years ago. We’ll have more and better samples if NASA can ever afford to pursue a Mars sample return mission again.

    Even without such samples, scientists have dated three major epochs in Mars history and their associated surface formations using cratering rates and other dating methods:

    Noachian Epoch (3.8 to 3.5 billion years ago): The Tharsis bulge and extensive surface water, for example, date from this period.

    Hesperian Epoch (3.5 to 1.8 billion years ago): Mars lava plains date from this period.

    Amazonian Epoch (1.8 billion years ago to present): Olympus Mons dates from this period.

    I’d also note that it was not Apollo or human space exploration per se that enabled accurate dating of the Moon. It was sample return and radiometric dating in Earth laboratories. That can and could have been done robotically.

    “By any definition, that is reconnaissance, not science.”

    Says you. No actual scientist (space scientist or otherwise) that I know of would define science as the dating of rocks, especially on a planet that also harbors an atmosphere, a hydrosphere, and maybe even a biosphere. Science is about understanding the fundamental processes of nature. Geological dating, along with many other types of observations, helps reveal these processes. But it is the means, not the end, and only one among many means for doing so.

    “Also, Apollo-17 did three traverses in as many days, not one in three years.”

    Again, time is not the critical factor here for doing better science. Diversity of samples is the critical factor for doing better science, which is a function of rover range. And the Opportunity rover has exceeded the range of the Apollo rover traverses by over 30 percent and growing.

    “Likewise, the learning curve during Apollos 11 through 17 was both far, far faster and far more comprehensive, than it has been in the history of lunar and planetary rovers, on Mars or anywhere else.”

    Although three years longer, I’d argue that the leap in capabilities going from Mars Pathfinder in 1997 to the MERS missions in 2004 was much, much greater than the increase in capabilities going from Apollo 11 in 1969 to Apollo 17 in 1972.

    “They are not outside observers looking at human exploration in a wider picture, they are only looking exclusively at their own field.”

    I don’t mean this as a personal attack, but the same argument applies to you. You apparently have some experience in geological field work, and view most of the value of human and robotic space exploration and science through that narrow lens, when in fact these activities involve much, much more than geological field work. Members of the AAS planetary science division are arguably looking at a wider picture than you just by virtue of the fact that planetary science involves much more than geological field work.

    Again, not a personal attack. I would just caution using the old diddy about stones, glass houses, and all that…

    “It’s like looking at Mars with Mariners and drawing conclusions — you can do that, but you’ll be (mostly) wrong.”

    But no one is doing that. There have been numerous Mars missions since the Mariner program.

    “We are drawing way to many conclusions on the basis of totally inadequate exploration, and claiming that we understand something about the Solar System.”

    Let’s get specific for once on this argument. What specific conclusions (not ongoing debates in journals but true conclusions published as facts in textbooks) about the solar system would you argue have been drawn on the basis of inadequate data? And why do you think that the data is inadequate?

    “Apparently, it really does not take a rocket scientist to see that there’s something wrong in that — since the rocket scientists out there seem unable to look beyond their own immediate activities.”

    Rocket scientist is a colloquial term for aerospace engineer. It has nothing to do with planetary scientists or any other type of scientist.

    “Regarding the Delta, let’s compare…”

    I honestly don’t know what else to do here. You asked for an apples-to-apples comparison of mission costs that included launch vehicle development. I provided such for Delta II, added it to the MERS mission costs, and showed that it’s still a fraction (practically a fragment) of human mission costs. Yet you still argue — in the absence of any data showing otherwise — that human and robotic mission costs are somehow comparable. I don’t know what else to say here, other than that position is just plain wrong and at odds with the facts, unless you can produce some cost data showing otherwise.

    “We have not continued to develop Apollo techniques — we abandoned the learning curve — so we do not know what could have been achieved by continuing to use vehicles we had already developed.”

    This argument is not relevant. Apollo never became affordable or sustainable, while robotic exploration of the solar system always was and is still today. You’re using a hypothetical to prove that human exploration is better for planetary science, when the reality is that no human exploration, for the purposes of planetary science or otherwise, has been conducted for decades. I would not forgo the data from robotic orbiters, landers, and rovers for non-existant human explorers.

    “But it is certainly more than any robotic set of missions could have achieved at the moon, even using today’s vastly superior technology.”

    The numbers just don’t support that. In today’s dollars, not including the Mercury, Gemini, Lunar Ranger, or Lunar Surveyor programs that it built upon, the Apollo program cost $135 billion. The MERS mission, even when its share of Delta II launch vehicle development costs above and future mission extensions are included, will probably come in well under $1 billion. We could buy 135 MERS missions (that’s 270 MERS rovers!) for the cost of the six Apollo lunar landings. In terms of diversity of data, sheer size of data, range, research time, etc., that many MERS-type rovers just absolutely overwhelms the productivity of the Apollo missions.

    We could play with these numbers and add sample return capabilities to the rovers, but lunar sample return missions are also estimated at about $1 billion each — that would only cut the number of MERS rovers back to 135.

    We could also play with the numbers the other way, take advantage of cost efficiencies through mass production, and probably double the number of MERS rovers/sample return missions back to 270.

    I’d also point out that with the Moon being so close, these missions could be operated in real time, reducing costs associated with automation, greatly increasing operational efficiency, and providing researchers with a very close facsimile of actually being on the lunar surface.

    The point is that the disparity between robotic and human capabilities, on a per dollar basis, is just too great. No doubt that on-site human researchers are more capable than comparable numbers of automated or tele-operated robots. But the cost efficiencies of robots just blows away the costs of keeping human researchers on site. An army of robots — heck just a squadron — will outdo a similarly costed human mission every time. And again, we can actually afford to send the robotic explorers, but have not been able to afford (budgetarily, politically, or otherwise) the human explorers.

    If you have data showing otherwise, please share it. But I just don’t see how else to interpret the numbers as they stand.

    “there are far higher reasons for human spaceflight than science alone.”

    On this we agree. All prior arguments about human versus robotic space exploration for the purposes of science aside, I would still support a (cost-effective!) human space exploration program. I would just never cut robotic program to pay for human programs, especially on the basis of science.

    As always… my 2 cents… FWIW.

  • Donald F. Robertson

    Anonymous: Regarding the Martian dates, those are indirect inferences, not direct measurements. They have (great) value, but you can only develop relative conclusions from them. I have read nothing about narrowing the water down to 300 million years, and I find the number astonishing, please do refer me to the paper.

    We rely far too much on cratering rates that are educated guesses, at best. Of course, I have no problem with that when it is all we have, I do have a problem when we confuse that with real, measured science.

    That can and could have been done robotically.

    Possibly, even probably, but really doing it (including all development plus the sum total of all Apollo traverses plus the large bodies of precisely located samples completely photodocumented with both up- and down-sun and across sun photos — bet most people reading this don’t even remember that was done! — plus the most valuable result of all (in my opinion), the personal and emotional observations resulting from actually being in the strange environment you are studying) is not likely to have cost appreciably less than Apollo. Go back and read Mr. Siddiqi’s comparison of what the Soviet’s achieved with the alternative given a similar level of technology — that is, comparing Apples with Apples.

    I’d argue that the leap in capabilities going from Mars Pathfinder in 1997 to the MERS missions in 2004 was much, much greater than the increase in capabilities going from Apollo 11 in 1969 to Apollo 17 in 1972.

    That is complete and utter nonsense, but since you along with everyone else refuse to look honestly at what Apollo actually accomplished, I’m not going to repeat what I’ve already said.

    I don’t mean this as a personal attack [likewise, my comment immediately above], but the same argument applies to you. You apparently have some experience in geological field work, and view most of the value of human and robotic space exploration and science through that narrow lens,

    Fair enough. Yes, looking at the history of science, I value direct measurement and direct personal experience far more than remote measurement and analysis. All have their place, but we value the latter too much and the former too little. Today, that appears to be a minority view — but that, by itself, does not make it wrong. It’s certainly possible I could be proven wrong, and none of us will probably live long enough to know who was right, but it is certainly fair and reasonable for me to stand by my position, here, and I continue to do so.

    But no one is doing that. There have been numerous Mars missions since the Mariner program.

    Of course, but they all of the Mariner program’s primary limitation. They are looking at a very tiny set of mostly relative data and attempting to draw sweeping conclusions — which, mark my words, will prove just as “correct” and “wrong” as the Mariner results. To do that is human nature, and it’s an essential part of science. But, when we confuse that with the far higher value of direct measurement and having the scientist fully immersed in the environment they are measuring, we are vastly over-stating what we have actually accomplished and under-stating the value of the latter.

    Rocket scientist is a colloquial term for aerospace engineer. It has nothing to do with planetary scientists or any other type of scientist.

    That was a joke. Sorry to confuse things with it.

    Let’s get specific for once on this argument. What specific conclusions (not ongoing debates in journals but true conclusions published as facts in textbooks) about the solar system would you argue have been drawn on the basis of inadequate data? And why do you think that the data is inadequate?

    I’ll get back to you on that. However, a part of the answer is, we don’t and cannot know. The scientists who concluded that Mars was a lunar-like wasteland from the Mariner flyby could not have known they were entirely correct but simultaneously (and that’s important) mostly wrong. Yes, Mars, like the moon and quite unlike Earth, is a regolith-dominated environment, but it is a modified regolith and that modification has proven all important. In the same way, we don’t and cannot know what or how the conclusions being drawn from the current robotic missions are wrong, we only (should) know that they are so limited that they almost certainly are largely wrong.

    There is nothing wrong with the science, it is our failure to put it in a wider perspective, to recognize its limitations, that will get us into trouble later on. Look at the history of science, not just what we think we know today.

    that’s 270 MERS rovers!

    Not quite, since you’re (again) comparing the full cost of developing the Saturn infrastructure versus the incremental cost of adapting the Delta to Mars missions. The annual costs I in the next paragraph are a far more reasonable measure. Let’s also not forget that the MERS’ are optimized for science, while the Apollo project was optimized for something else and the science it achieved was on the side. An Apollo project optimized for science probably would have cost the same, but may have achieved rather more.

    Apollo never became affordable or sustainable, while robotic exploration of the solar system always was and is still today

    Huh? The annual costs of Apollo were (in very round numbers) two times an order of magnitude more than we’re spending on Mars each year today. I’ll buy that the latter is more affordable, but to say that spending half a billion every year (your figure) getting severely limited science on one planet “is affordable” by some absolute measure versus spending twenty times that per year getting far better science at an easier location “is not affordable” is nonsense. Both are tiny fractions of the nation’s disposable income, and the scientific value of each is a relative value judgment — on which we happen to disagree. Both are “affordable.” The real questions are, first, which do we value most, and, and a distant second, which provides better value for money. My argument boils down to, we made the wrong choice in the first, and the second is a far more complex and difficult equation than most people want to believe. It is a fair and reasonable argument, notwithstanding the received wisdom that Apollo was “not affordable” or achieved either no science or science of negligible value.

    You’re using a hypothetical to prove that human exploration is better for planetary science, when the reality is that no human exploration, for the purposes of planetary science or otherwise, has been conducted for decades.

    Unfortunately, this is entirely true. It does not change the fact that I think the conclusion that you and most people draw from this is dead wrong.

    — Donald

  • […] this summer the Mars Society has battled language in the House version of the appropriations bill that prohibits NASA from spendi…. Now, as conferees prepare to work out differences between the House bill and its Senate version […]

Leave a Reply to Jim Muncy Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>