Uncategorized

Mars Society executive director steps down

To pick up an earlier theme of space advocacy and its problems, I’ve confirmed that the executive director of the Mars Society, Chris Carberry, has resigned. Carberry cited “irreconciable differences” with the organizations founder, Robert Zubrin, in an email and follwup phone call yesterday. There hasn’t been an official statement about the leadership change from the organization. In an appearance on The Space Show a month ago, Zubrin said the organization had about 1,500 dues-paying members, and 7,000 people “on the books”. The organization is also fighting an uphill policy battle, as the Augustine committee’s final report ruled out any near-term human missions to Mars.

53 comments to Mars Society executive director steps down

  • All of the space organizations are facing crises of identity right now, not just the Mars Society.

    The old paradigm of “lobby Congress for more money for NASA to spend on our favored projects” is broken and not soon fixed. More and more people are awakening to the relevance a space industry can have to the prosperity of their nation, and not just in the U.S. However, the paradigm of “space industry as a growth engine for wealth creation” is not a message easily understood by a power structure wedded to the idea of NASA=Space, nor a public weaned on Space=Deep Space Astronomy.

    This is an incredible opportunity for the Mars Society to mature beyond an ideology of “Mars Only; Mars Now” and into one of supporting a broader agenda in support of their particular goals. By this I mean things like supporting an Earth-Moon L-1 facility, because that’s really where you want to launch a robust Mars mission from, supporting the use of the Interplanetary Superhighways so that they can have a Venus Equilateral relay to maintain more constant communication with Mars, supporting the development of Lunar resources that play into Mars plans (slag for radiation shielding on the trip, LOX for propellant, regolith for Mars gardens, &c.) and will eventually be cheaper than supplies from Earth.

    I’m not implying that the Mars Society should lose their fundamental message that Mars is the next Solar system destination for a human civilization on a planetary scale (eventually), rather that they should work less at trying to drive everyone else to work only on that goal and more on working with everyone else so that all of our goals can be realized.

    Membership in a space organization is easy to give up in times of economic distress. However, the importance of the space industry to the future of human civilization back here on Earth means that this is the time when that industry most needs broader cultural support, as is provided by the space organizations. Anyone that questions the importance of space efforts should listen to Dr.David Livingston’s recent interview with Howard Bloom over at The Space Show.

    That’s why I encourage everyone to encourage everyone to join a space organization. I shill for the National Space Society and The Moon Society, but it doesn’t matter which one is joined, as they all need new blood and new membership dues.

    Give a gift membership this holiday season. Make sure to renew your existing membership. E-mail the membership link to your favorite social network or chain mail list. Show up for your local chapter meeting to see what projects they’re working on to advance the cause, perhaps even bringing new projects to the fore (like my Santa Space Toy Drive for NSS-NT).

    Whichever group tickles your fancy, join up!

  • If the Mars Society is dependent upon government action to land a man on Mars, then they will be waiting for a few centuries IMHO.

  • Well, I think the reason why I’m no longer involved in any space societies (other than I guess the Space Access Society–since I still go to their conference every year) is that most of them seem farther and farther away from reality every year. It’s easy when one is naive to hear the rah-rah “we could be on Mars in 10 years if those darned politicians just got in-line, or “we can build a commercial venture to land people on the Moon using online communities to raise funds and expertise” and think “cool we’re close”. But after a couple of years most people start wondering how close we really are, and start getting a little jaded.

    I write a space blog that talks about lunar transportation and other space colonization topics, but even I have my days/weeks/months where I wonder if I’m going to see a commercial venture even on the Moon in my lifetime (and I’m still a young ‘un).

    ~Jon

  • Mark R. Whittington

    One of the many problems with space advocacy is the presence of expansive egos within it. Bob Zubrin, for all of his insight and vision (both of which are considerable) is a prime example. Mars uber alles is not a strategy, it is an obsession.

    But things ranging from the making of rocket designs a political issue, to arguments over NASA vs commercial, to the infatuation some seem to have for “look but don’t touch” points to a space advocacy sector that has not a clue about how to use political activism to advance the cause of opening up the high frontier of space. That is because too many people have not a clue how that can be done in the actual physical and political universe where we live.

  • Steve McDaniel

    Chris Carberry is the sort of “glue” we need in the space advocacy network. Those of us that know him and work with him every day can atest to his amazing ability to bring diverse, and even contentious, parties into the global space discussion. Keep your eye on this young man, as the cream always rises!

  • Martin Finn

    Bob Zubrin is probably the prime reason why space advocacy wallows in the circles that it does. His abrasive, egocentric, inflexible viewpoints and penchant for character assassination for those he disagrees with have soured virtually everyone in a position to work with him. His shady business deals, inflated membership numbers, and political tricks from his days with Lyndon Larouche just make things even worse.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ December 6th, 2009 at 10:15 am

    One of the many problems with space advocacy is the presence of expansive egos within it. Bob Zubrin, for all of his insight and vision (both of which are considerable) is a prime example. Mars uber alles is not a strategy, it is an obsession.

    But things ranging from the making of rocket designs a political issue, to arguments over NASA vs commercial, to the infatuation some seem to have for “look but don’t touch…

    yes Mark, this is splendid, you first berate people who have an obsessive viewpoint, then you engage in obsessive behavior yourself attempting to deflate concepts which are held by very serious people, like Jim Oberg for very serious reasons which a lot of people (including Oberg) have laid out quite rigorously.

    This of course all while yourself being an obsessive Ares/Constellation hugger for reasons which you can offer no proof of “The Chinese are going to make us show passports to get to the Moon if we dont keep doing Ares/Constellation” and all while ignoring the gross cost inefficiencies in the program…9 billion dollars and all we got was this lousy two minute test flight.

    Tell us again about the “actual” universe in which we live!

    Robert G. Oler

  • Strangely, in a Twilight Zone of space advocacy, I actually find myself in a rare agreement with Mark Whittington insofar as the problems behind Mars Society has more to do with the personality of Dr. Zubrin. I have heard from more than a few times from many different quarters as to the difficulties in dealing with Dr. Zubrin’s ego.

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Oler, Jim Oberg is a serious guy. He is just mistaken in the case of “look but don’t touch.” In any case the recent confirmation of ice on the Moon would suggest that there is where our near term focus should be and not at points in empty space. I’m all for going to asteroids, as long as the missions involve more than just standing off and admiring them.

    Gary, while Zubrin is certainly the most colorful example, he is not the only one.

  • The Mars Society salutes the service and dedication of Chris Carberry during his several years as Executive Director. We wish him well in his future endeavors. A formal announcement regarding his resignation will appear in the January issue of The Mars Quarterly.

    Lucinda Weisbach is currently serving as Acting Executive Director. She can be reached at: Lucinda@MarsSociety.org

    – Susan Holden Martin,
    (Acting) Director of Public Relations,
    The Mars Society
    SusanM@MarsSociety.org

  • Robert G. Oler

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fo4SblJ_SnU

    a song from ELO which illustrates the state of space advocacy.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington

    the problem is of course that Oberg, unlike you backs up his theories with sound logical reasoning. You are still advocating going back to the Moon as a government run program because “the Chinese are going.”

    Only to those for whom “reality” is a foreign place does water on the Moon change anything.

    First off we have only the most general outline of the “situation” on the Moon particularly its poles. For all you or anyone else knows what we found is either the tip of a frozen Lake Texhoma or it is a single isolated place.

    Once we characterize it, which is worth uncrewed probes to do it, then we next need to develop the technology to 1) get to the Moon at an affordable cost, 2) actually do something with the resources there at an affordable cost and 3) have the industrial base to keep us there. All of which implies rather convincingly that we need a space industry unlike any that exist now.

    Oberg may be as wrong about flexible path as Rumsfeld was about where the WMD was but at least he (Oberg) lays out a convincing pathway to get from where we are now, to some other location.

    You, Zubrin, Spudis all advocates of “lets start anew” all seem to think that we can do quantum leaps in space all for reasons that at best belong in one of the science fiction novels you have written.

    Or put another way. Oberg is a serious guy. YOu on the other hand are advocating positions with non serious evidence.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Susan Holden Martin

    wow you have your work cut out for you

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Ken Murphy wrote @ December 5th, 2009 at 3:05 pm

    All of the space organizat
    ……………..
    well said…

    Robert G. Oler

  • Martin Finn

    Lucinda Weisbach – I give you a month before Zubrin’s psychotic behavior begins to make your life miserable. The man needs therapy – and some serious meds.

  • Major Tom

    “But things ranging from the making of rocket designs a political issue, to arguments over NASA vs commercial,”

    Even if Ares I didn’t suffer from crippling schedule, budgetary, and technical issues, space advocacy organizations have little to do with politicizing upcoming decisions to terminate Ares I in favor of other solutions. There’s a very vocal Alabama delegation that’s been doing that all by themselves for months:

    http://blog.al.com/space-news/2009/10/alabama_lawmakers_in_washingto.html

    http://www.spacepolitics.com/2009/10/22/a-question-of-safety/

    None of these unsubstantiated and just factually wrong attacks on the Augustine Committee had anything to do with a space advocacy organization. Not only is the Alabama delegation politicizing budget, schedule, and technical choices — they’re even politicizing the issue of astronaut safety.

    “the infatuation some seem to have for “look but don’t touch” points to a space advocacy sector”

    You do realize that the Planetary Society is the only national space advocacy organization to have endorsed the flexible path options from the final report of the Augustine Committee, right?

    If so, then why are you painting the entire “space advocacy sector” (whatever that is) with the same brush? If you can’t construct an argument without grossly misrepresenting the positions of a half dozen organizations representing thousands of individuals, then you shouldn’t post.

    If not, then why are you posting on a topic where you don’t know the facts? If you can’t construct an argument without making stuff up, then you shouldn’t post.

    “the recent confirmation of ice on the Moon would suggest that there is where our near term focus”

    You do realize that LCROSS had to blast a crater 20 meters across just to produce 24 gallons of water? You do realize that 24 gallons of water is only half the amount needed for the water (forget coolant or propellant) tanks on one Apollo LM, right?

    Assuming the same profile as Meteor Crater, the material excavated from the LCROSS crater consisted of 13 thousand times more regolith than water. Just to produce 1 kilogram of water, we’d have to put in place equipment on the lunar surface capable of processing and heating more than 13,000 kilograms of regolith. Just to produce enough water for one Apollo LM, we’d have to put in place equipment on the lunar surface capable of processing and heating 26,000 kilograms of regolith. Producing enough propellants for one Apollo LM would require an amount of processed and heated regolith 100 times larger than this — in the neighborhood of 2.5 million kilograms of regolith.

    With such a huge lunar surface infrastructure necessary to process and heat such a enormous amount of regolith to provide water or propellant for just one lunar lander, you do understand that this resource can’t yet compete with water or propellant launched from Earth, right?

    You do understand that making a decision now about the direction of the civil human space flight program based on a lunar resource with such a poor competitive basis versus Earth resources would be very bad policy, right?

    “… has not a clue about how to use political activism to advance the cause of opening up the high frontier of space. That is because too many people have not a clue how that can be done in the actual physical and political universe where we live.”

    Oh, and your well-informed, constructive, and sage advice about how properly apply political activism to advanced the space frontier is…?

    FWIW…

  • I’m all for going to asteroids, as long as the missions involve more than just standing off and admiring them.

    The missions do involve more than that. If you actually read the Augustine report, you might be able to talk about Flexible Path sensibly, without looking like an ignoramus, with your cartoonish characterizations of it.

  • red

    Mark: “One of the many problems with space advocacy”

    I agree that there are many problems with space advocacy, and Jeff has pointed out some of them here recently. However, I actually think space advocacy isn’t doing so bad. The Planetary Society has a Roadmap that’s similar to the Flexible Path that’s getting a lot of attention. The Space Frontier Foundation pushes commercial space, with is also getting a lot of consideration. Some of NASA’s leaders have a strong history with the National Space Society. The Mars Society view is being heard, too, even if we don’t just hop right over tomorrow, with the Augustine Committee laying out a “Flexible Path to Mars”.

  • red

    Mark: “But things ranging from the making of rocket designs a political issue”

    The discussions I’ve seen about rocket designs have generally been engineering discussions, not political ones. The political controversies are at best consequences of the designs. For example, the Ares design and overall program involves very high development cost, very high operational cost, a human spaceflight gap that may approach a decade during which we depend on Russia, decades of inaction before the exploration system is ready to be used, low amount of real world demonstration of safety before putting lives at risk, and discarding the Vision for Space Exploration’s important policy that NASA would acquire rather than build the crew transportation rocket. These are all unavoidably political. For example, the high Ares costs imply that non-Ares areas, such as ISS support, ISS use, lunar robotics, Earth observations, technology development, various items to actually put on the rockets, other NASA areas will be (or have already been) funded less. That should be a political issue. The same is true for various other unpleasant consequences of the Ares design and general approach.

  • red

    Mark: “to arguments over NASA vs commercial”

    It seems to me that this kind of argument is worth having. The mainstream argument isn’t about replacing NASA with commercial space, it’s about NASA turning over certain jobs from cost-plus contracting to commercial arrangements, such as ISS cargo and crew transportation, robotics missions to the Moon, fuel delivery, and more. This still leave NASA and cost-plus contractors with plenty to do: HLV (with crew capability to back up commercial space per Augustine), research and technology development, exploration systems, astronomy, etc. There are numerous important reasons to do this. Certainly a space advocacy organization like the Space Frontier Foundation, where the commercial approach is so important, isn’t going to stick with the program when it sees the VSE discarded and another round of NASA rocket-building starting up in its place. Even the Mars Society, in its response to the Augustine Committee, deemed that the Committee was using HLV costs that were too high … because they think SpaceX can do it cheaper.

  • Doug Lassiter

    Ah, “look but don’t touch” rears its head again. We must touch, we are told! It is now proven scientifically that touching things is essential to bonding with them.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090107134535.htm

    “Consumers are often told that if they break an item, they buy it. But a new study suggests that if they just touch an item for more than a few seconds, they may also end up buying it.”

    “The strength of this attachment seems to increase with greater physical contact. And one explanation is loss aversion; that is, the longer people have an object, the stronger their attachment and their eagerness to keep it. People become attached and they are willing to pay much more to avoid losing that object”

    So, even objects of questionable value gain value just by having touched them.

    Now I get it.

  • red

    I don’t have a preference between the Moon First and Flexible Path approaches. I think either one can be done well or badly, depending on our approach to commercial and international participation, technology development, solving national problems, developing space infrastructure, making the most of robotics, working with rather than against NASA Science, and using local resources. However, I do think Mark gives an incorrect depiction of the “Deep Space”/”Flexible Path” option as described by the Augustine Committee report (which I assume is what he’s talking about).

    Mark: “to the infatuation some seem to have for “look but don’t touch” … ”

    “look but don’t touch” isn’t an accurate description of “Deep Space”/”Flexible Path”. Certainly “Flexible Path” involve a lot of “looking” – by which I assume Mark means remote sensing of various types at various targets (e.g.: the Moon, NEOs, the Sun, Mars moons, Mars). I wouldn’t trivialize the value of remote sensing. However, there is also lots of “touching”, such as:

    1. Earth-Moon Lagrange points and/or lunar orbit: telerobotics with robots touching the lunar surface
    2. Earth-Moon Lagrange points and/or lunar orbit: lunar sample return (allowing us to “touch” the samples”)
    3. Earth-Moon Lagrange points and Earth-Sun Lagrange points: observatory servicing, involving “touching” observatories that might, if it can be done economically and safely, allow a lot more “touching” of this sort in various Earth orbits with our satellites that have so much economic, security, and science value
    4. Multiple NEOs: Actual activity in physical contact with the NEO, sample return, ISRU demonstrations
    5. Mars moons: Actual activity in physical contact with the moons, sample return, ISRU demonstrations
    6. Mars orbit/moons: telerobotics with robots touching the Martian surface and/or atmosphere
    7. Mars orbit/moons: Martian sample return (allowing us to “touch” the samples)
    8. Lunar surface: Yes, the Deep Space/Flexible Path option includes astronauts on the lunar surface, and the lunar surface was costed in the Committee’s options. The lunar surface isn’t the first destination, but that has some advantages: it allows a more thorough pre-astronaut robotic survey, demos, and setup on the Moon, it allows enabling infrastructure to be deployed in lunar orbit and/or Earth-Moon Lagrange points, it allows the commercial sector to mature to the point where the lunar lander can have major commercial components (eg: lunar lander descent stage), and it allows a smoother funding profile (as described in the report).
    9. Just about any of the Deep Space/Flexible Path destinations can involve “touching” space infrastructure: fuel depots, satellite servicing nodes, exploration spacecraft assembly nodes, etc.
    10. Mars: eventually the “Flexible Path to Mars” results in astronauts “touching” the Martian surface.

    Mark: “there [the Moon] is where our near term focus should be and not at points in empty space.”

    Again, I’m not against a Moon-First approach, and I think we should focus a considerable amount of our efforts, if we go the Flexible Path, on (and near) the Moon. I wouldn’t overlook Lagrange points, either, though. Those points can be very useful for observatory servicing, spacecraft assembly, depots, and science.

    Mark: “I’m all for going to asteroids, as long as the missions involve more than just standing off and admiring them.”

    I’m not sure where the idea that we would just stand off and admire the asteroids comes from. Certainly we’d do that, and much more with remote sensing techniques, but we’d also work at the asteroid itself. From the report (Figure 3.5.2-1):

    “NEO’s – Helping protect the planet – Geophysics, Astrobiology, Sample return – Encounters with small bodies, sample handling, resource utilization”

    Also:

    “A more detailed sequence might include: … Visiting several near-Earth objects (asteroids or burned-out comets whose path cross the Earth), to return samples and practice operation near a small body and potentially practice in-situ resource extraction…”

    and

    “This flexibility would enable us to choose different destinations, or to proceed with the exploration of the surface of the Moon or Mars. This allows us to react to … eventualities that are thrust upon us (such as a threat from a near-Earth object). It would lead to a better understanding of near-Earth objects, through evaluations of their utility as sites for mining of insitu resources, and analyses of their structure, should we ever need to deflect one away from the Earth.

    Also see section 7.3 of the report, “In-Situ Propellant Production and Transport”.

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Oler, as usual, misrepresents my position. I’ve been a strong advocate for commercial space and in more widely read venues than the comments section of a blog. Mind, anyone who thinks that the first manned mission back to the Moon will not be by some government s engaging in fantasy. Private business has not incentive to send people to the Moon in anything like the near term. I would prefer that government be that of the United States and not that of Communist China.

    One of the big problems I have with “Look but Don’t Touch” is that its purpose is to pretend to do exploration that (a) is cheap and (b) was not proposed by the hated George W. Bush. In the rawest form it is flags and footsteps without the footsteps and likely without the flags. It is not sustainable because it leaves builds little if anything of permanent value.

    The Moon on the other hand represents the closest and best venue for learning how to actually live in space long term. The water discovery simply confirms that fact. One is simply not going to do that at a point in empty space or standing a few kilometers off an asteroid.

    As for asteroids, by the way, visiting them would be useful if one were doing so to learn how to divert them. Planetary defense is one reason. Getting a rock full of resources into a safe, high orbit around Earth where they can be mined is another. Any other mission is just an expensive stunt.

  • Mark R. Whittington

    By the way, in a kind of back handed defense of Bob Zubrin, he is not a psychotic or insane. Zubrin has developed useful strategies for exploring and colonizing Mars that can also be used for other destinations. Zubrin’s problem is that he is fixed on Mars and Mars alone at a time when it is simply a planet too far. A couple of decades from now, if and when technology develops, that may change.

    In any case, the over heated slams against Zubrin, who certainly is ornery at times, proves my point about ego maniacs in space advocacy.

  • How can you have vibrant space advocacy when most of the missions by main space faring nations involve lack luster human space activity?

    Unless nuclear space activity ban is lifted and put to use private/private support will continue to wane with only limited space activity relegated to only placing military and commercial satellites in orbit.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ December 7th, 2009 at 12:12 am

    Oler, as usual, misrepresents my position. I’ve been a strong advocate for commercial space and in more widely read venues than the comments section of a blog…

    Really? Where?

    All I have heard you advocate is Ares and Constellation. YOu always add a paragraph or two about “some commercial partnership”…but when the going gets tough and one has to chose, well you are truly an Ares hugger.

    You support a program that is in all respects a failure. It has spent 9 billion dollars with little or nothing to show for it, its one visible means of progress was a gimick, it was a 1/2 billion dollar 2 minute demonstration flight of some inert metal and a booster that has almost nothing in common with the booster that is suppose to be the first stage of Ares. The programs time table is well past any usefullness to correct the various problems in space policy (Like access to the station) and that time table is like most NASA ones moving “into the future”.

    Ares 1 has one real role and that is, in theory to lift people and things to low earth orbit…yet there are either current commercial vehicles that can at least lift “things” (a Delta did so last night)…and there are commercial vehicles which currently and in the near future can, with a lot less money already spent on Ares lift people.

    The creation of private lift of people and things into space is an accomplishment far greater then simply a flags and footprints mission back to the Moon sometime in the decades ahead future…indeed we will never get back to the Moon to stay unless we have a space industry…

    and yet you support a program (going back to the Moon) that has as a component zero commercial space endorsement.

    I give up what have I gotten wrong?

    As for the Chinese. “I would prefer that government be that of the United States and not that of Communist China. ” there is no evidence but their rhetoric that the PRC is engaged in such an adventure. There is far less proof that they are engaged in such an adventure then there was that Saddam had WMD’s that were “dangers gathering near our shores” …I know you bought both lines hook and sinker, but the folly of basing a policy on such nonsense should be clear even to you.

    I dont know what group or who will be the next person to go to the Moon. The effort might be sponsored by a government, but if it is the US government there is no reason to suspect that it has to be Apollo revisited…which is what you want.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ December 7th, 2009 at 12:12 am

    One of the big problems I have with “Look but Don’t Touch” is that its purpose is to pretend to do exploration that (a) is cheap and (b) was not proposed by the hated George W. Bush…

    you mean the President that is liked now by about 1 percent of his own party?

    Look dont touch is far more then what you let it on to be. Going to the Moon only has value if you are fixated on places. Flexible path is about creating technologies and capabilities which will, once the space industry of the US matures allow us to go to various major places with some economy of effort and some ability to stay.

    That you have to misstate its opposition and the reasons for them shows how little you can do to defeat such well established and thought out logic such as Jim Oberg used in his presentation on the concept of flexible path.

    If the best you can come up with is that opposition is based on a dislike of Bush the last, then all that shows is that you are not looking well at the opposition.

    having said that with Bush’s track record, anything he was for has to be the biggest pile of animal excrement in the pasture.

    Name me one thing he got correct.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Oler, my apologizes, but that is drivel. As the Augustine Commission pointed out, the only thing wrong with Constellation was that it hasn’t got proper funding. Given that, as various members of Congress have pointed out, why do we need an alternative when the answer appears to be providing the current program with the funding it needs.

    A vibrant public space program and a growing commercial space industry are not mutually exclusive. They compliment and support one another, as COTS seems to be proving. If space advocates were to spend as much time pushing for more of that sort of thing and less on jihads against Ares 1, they would be taken a lot more seriously.

    As for the Chinese, first one wishes you would get over your obsession with Iraqi WMDs. You seem to insert that in every thing you say. “How do you like you eggs, Mr. Oler? “Scrambled like the thinking that led to the Iraqi WMDs that don’t exist.”

    Second, it seems to me that the Chinese are doing exactly what they need to do to get ready for a man on the Moon; manned flights of increasing complexity to learn how to fly in space and unmanned lunar exploration. If they are not planning to go to the Moon, why do both of those things?

  • Mark R. Whittington

    “Flexible path is about creating technologies and capabilities which will, once the space industry of the US matures allow us to go to various major places with some economy of effort and some ability to stay.”

    Look but don’t touch does none of those things. It uses Orion hardware to visit empty places in space and rocks. It is footsteps and flags without the footsteps and the flags.

  • Neil H.

    Mark, are you going to respond to red’s quotes from the Augustine Report which directly contradict your characterization of Flexible Path as “Look But Don’t Touch”?

    The report can be downloaded here:

    http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main_HSF_Cmte_FinalReport.pdf

    You should probably read section 3.5 (which describes Flexible Path) on page 41 of the report. I hope this helps!

  • Neil H.

    Mark wrote:
    > As the Augustine Commission pointed out, the only thing wrong with Constellation was that it hasn’t got proper funding. Given that, as various members of Congress have pointed out, why do we need an alternative when the answer appears to be providing the current program with the funding it needs.

    The Commission’s finding that the Ares I *could* be completed if given unlimited funding resources is different from the question of whether it *should*. From section 6.4.4 of the report:

    “The choice of Ares I as the crew launcher was probably a sound
    choice in 2005. As is often observed, the rocket equation
    has not changed, so any reason that NASA would come to a
    different solution for crew transport to low-Earth orbit today
    than in 2005 would be due to changes in assumptions and
    constraints. The Committee in fact concludes that many
    of the assumptions on which the Ares I crew decision was
    based have changed. In contrast, the Committee found that
    the Orion should continue to be developed as a capable crew
    exploration vehicle, regardless of the decision on Ares I.
    Likewise, it should be emphasized that the Committee did
    not find any insurmountable technical issues with Ares I.
    With time and sufficient funds, NASA could develop, build
    and fly the Ares I successfully. The question is, should it?

    “… When it begins operations, the Ares I and Orion would be a very
    expensive system for crew transport to low-Earth orbit.
    Program estimates are that it would have a recurring cost of
    nearly $1 billion per flight, even with the fixed infrastructure
    costs being carried by Ares V”

  • NASA Fan

    Pardon the thread interruption; however, there is lots of COTS talk above and I have the following question for someone:

    1.Wasn’t SpaceHab a COTS provider of ISS logistics in much the same vein as COTS ISS resuply we are discussing above? and
    2.Does anyone know if their business model worked?
    3. What lessons might their be for Space X et al from the SpaceHab endeavor

    thanks.

  • Anon2

    @Mark

    “In the rawest form it is flags and footsteps without the footsteps and likely without the flags. It is not sustainable because it leaves little if anything of permanent value.”

    It strikes me that a better characterization of the flexible path is the “Flags and Footsteps Odyssey”, because basically it consists of aimless wanderings in the Orion on missions that could be done better by robots at 1 percent of the cost. I would only continue that myth that there is no purpose of humans in space except for national bragging rights. What MIT in their study calls “national prestige”.

    But then it would fit the Obama style of accomplishing little but bragging a lot about it so its probably the one he will pick.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ December 7th, 2009 at 1:41 am

    As the Augustine Commission pointed out, the only thing wrong with Constellation was that it hasn’t got proper funding. Given that, as various members of Congress have pointed out, why do we need an alternative when the answer appears to be providing the current program with the funding it needs. ..

    Mark not so much. Indeed what you are saying is about the same sort of nonesense that the GOP right wing has been using to justify its lousy leadership for the last oh at least 10 years. You are either 1) badly misinformed, 2) exaggerating or 3) misstating.

    The Augustine committee did not say that the only thing wrong with Ares was proper funding. That is a complete misrepresentation. It is not in scope but on par with Rumsfeld saying he knew where the WMD was.

    The Committee did talk about funding…but went on to add that the cost of operation of the vehicle was so high that if we were given the vehicle we could not afford to fly it…that the schedule of building it made the vehicle available at best assuming that there are no further slips toward the end of the life of the space station, even if the station gets extended to 2020 (which it will).

    And what is amazing about your statement is that really nothing of Ares has flown. AS I point out in another missive the only thing that has flown is a vehicle with a booster that looks nothing like the actual Ares booster and a bunch of inert metal. Almost none of the heavy lifting of Ares 1 has been accomplished…and that for OVER 9 BILLION dollars.

    There is almost nothing in NASA’s past to indicate that even if the “proper funding” your words were put into play that there would not be additional schedule and funding slippage.

    Indeed the Committee (despite your ignoring it) said in governmentese that Ares was the wrong choice…here it is

    “The Committee in fact concludes that many
    of the assumptions on which the Ares I crew decision was
    based have changed. ”

    It is at best misinformation on your part and perhaps worse to conclude that all the committee said was “it needed proper funding”. This is typical of the GOP right, and of the last administration…but you should do better.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ December 7th, 2009 at 1:41 am

    A vibrant public space program and a growing commercial space industry are not mutually exclusive. They compliment and support one another, as COTS seems to be proving. If space advocates were to spend as much time pushing for more of that sort of thing and less on jihads against Ares 1, they would be taken a lot more seriously…

    more babble.

    you are correct a vibrant public space program and a growing commercial space industry are not mutually exclusive unless the “public space program” is designed to exclude commercial space.

    And Bush’s return to the Moon by design has zero commercial space.

    Hence they are exclusive.

    The ONLY reason that there is a COTS program staggering along, is that the “vibrant public space program” is in fact not so vibrant. In fact it is a poster child for torper and timidity.

    It is inconceivable to me BUT apparently quite rational to you that the “vibrant” public space program has spent 9 billion dollars and has nothing to show for it.

    Compare NASA’s 9 billion on Ares with the 1/2 billion Musk has spent to get to Falcon 9. Say Musk eventually spends 1 billion to get to Falcon 9 and Dragon.

    Why would any sane person who is concerned with fiscal responsibility label Ares1 as a program that should at all continue? If Musk takes 1 billion and Ares/Constellation takes oh another 15 billion (total 24 and I think that is light) to get to the same place.

    Do you call that vibrant?

    finally your word “jihad”. I realize after 9/11 you and the rest of the right wing went into fundamental overload about using extreme terms to describe not so extreme things. “Evil Doers”, “storm clouds” smoking guns smoking mushrooms, etc but for creators sake cannot you at the very least resist the temptation in a space forum to try and not use overheated words.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ December 7th, 2009 at 1:41 am

    As for the Chinese, first one wishes you would get over your obsession with Iraqi WMDs. You seem to insert that in every thing you say. “How do you like you eggs, Mr. Oler? “Scrambled like the thinking that led to the Iraqi WMDs that don’t exist.”

    Second, it seems to me that the Chinese are doing exactly what they need to do to get ready for a man on the Moon; manned flights of increasing complexity to learn how to fly in space and unmanned lunar exploration. If they are not planning to go to the Moon, why do both of those things?..

    Mark.

    when people like you use “logic” (and that is kind) in space analysis such as the nutty analysis (and exaggerations) that were the hallmark of the last administration in its misstating the reasons we should invade Iraq, drawing the parallels is a natural.

    I was alive in the runup to the Iraq war, and I read and listened to you and people like you buy hook line and sinker all the near lies (or lies) and exaggerations of events that got everyone whipped up into invading Iraq. I also watched as people in the last administration savaged, even questioning the patriotism of people who stood up and said “no that is not accurate” when things like the lies of Atta’s meeting with Iraqi intellegence or the tubes that were for rockets and made out to be for nuclear work or even when people questioned all the BS that Rummy and others were drawing about the WMD or “smoking guns”.

    I watched and listened to you and people like you buy hook line and sinker all the babble taht the last administration put out about Iraq. And you for instance have never had the courage to stand up and say “I was had” or even “the folks in the last administration were wrong”.

    instead you just move on to more faulty analysis. Like the Chinese.

    There are a LOT of things that the PRC could be trying to do in human spaceflight and to focus on “they are going to send a crewed mission to the Moon” is the least of them. The most likely explanation of what they are doing in both human and uncrewed flight is trying to exercise their industrial complex to improve their overall aerospace industry along with doing some things for national pride internal domestic consumption.

    Worse for your analysis they are doing it on almost a snails pace. There is almost no evidence of a rapid buildup in human (or uncrewed) space capabilities. Their launch effort is no where near that of say Gemini ….

    And even if what you were to say was accurate…who cares? Who cares if Saddam at one point had WMD…? To make the extreme actions taken by the last administration palatable the last administration had to invent what Saddam would do with his non existent WMD’s. It was not enough to say “Saddam has WMD” the American people would have said “who cares?”

    Instead they (the last administration) invented links with Atta, links with OBL (those were laughable), “smoking guns/smoking mushrooms”, at one point they had Saddam devloping drones to be launched from tankers!

    As you have taken a non existant Chinese push to the Moon and from that said things like “we would have to show our passports” if they got their first.

    So what if the PRC went to the Moon. There is zero indication that they could do anymore with it then we did…or could today.

    No sorry, you are never going to get a pass from me when you overhype things…just as people should not give the last administration a pass for things it said which “turned out not to be true”…and they probably knew that they were not true when they said them

    People who believed them should have more shame.
    Robert G. Oler

  • Over the tens years that I have been involved with The Mars Society, it started with the exciting exuberance of many people working together for a common goal. I initially saw Dr. Zubrin as the spark behind this enthusiasm, which at first that may well have been the case.

    But as the years worn on and my involvement grew, it became obvious that Zubrin’s involvement actually was a detriment to the organization. It is only through the hard work of folks like Chris, Susan, Lucinda and many many others that it hung on as long as it has.

    I for one, (and not the only one), have decided to follow Chris’ lead and put my energy into a viable space advocacy group. This is far too important to allow distractions like Zubrin to muddy the waters. The window of opportunity for off planet expansion will not remain open for ever, especially if it is ignored.

    Gus Frederick, Silverton, OR
    (Form TMS Steering Committee)

  • As the Augustine Commission pointed out, the only thing wrong with Constellation was that it hasn’t got proper funding.

    The Augustine Commission pointed out nothing of the kind, again, as you’d know if you’d actually read the report. And “Look But Don’t Touch” remains a Mark Whittington fantasy, like his imaginary “Internet Rocketeers Club.” Such a thing cannot be found in the Augustine report.

  • Martin Finn

    Zubrin has used Larouche-style tactics and has threatened to sue people via his shyster lawyer for even the most trivial of things including disagreeing with him in public and his comical misadventures in the arctic. He has stacked the ever shrinking board of directors of TMS (only 3 people now plus Zubrin) such that he has total control over everything the organization does. His ex-wife was even on the board at one time. No one listens to or cares what TMS thinks any more because of Zubrin. This is incredibly sad owing to the amazing people who belong to (or once belonged to) TMS.

  • “One of the big problems I have with “Look but Don’t Touch” is… The Moon on the other hand represents the closest and best venue for learning how to actually live in space long term.”

    You do realize that the Flexible Path options include at least five human missions, including extended duration missions, to the lunar surface before proceeding to Mars, right? If you really believe that the Moon is critical to the future of human space flight, then you shouldn’t have any problems with the Flexible Path options.

    Your ignorance of the actual content of the final report of the Augustine Committee completely undercuts your argument. You’re shadow boxing with false facts that exist only in your head.

    “The water discovery simply confirms that fact.”

    No, it doesn’t. The water at the LCROSS impact site was present in such miniscule amounts (only 1 kilogram of water for every 13,000 or so kilograms of excavated regolith) that it’s not a useful resource. It argues for more robotic, especially surface, exploration to determine if the areas of the lunar surface with the highest concentrations of water from orbit could provide useful amounts of water without requiring that an enormous mining, processing, and heating infrastructure be transported, erected, and maintained on the Moon. But it would be incredibly stupid to bet the future of the human space flight program now on a resource that currently has no hope of competing with consumables launched from Earth.

    “One is simply not going to do that at a point in empty space”

    So the ISS astronauts are not learning how to “live in space long term [sic]”?

    Do you have any contact with reality when it comes to the civil space program?

    “As for asteroids, by the way, visiting them would be useful if one were doing so to learn how to divert them. Planetary defense is one reason.”

    You do realize that the final report of the Augustine Committee states that “helping protect the planet” is the key public rationale for a human asteroid mission, right?

    Do you bother to read anything before you comment on it?

    “Getting a rock full of resources into a safe, high orbit around Earth where they can be mined is another.”

    You do realize that “sample handling” and “in situ resource utilization” are two key activities to be demonstrated by a human asteroid mission in the final report of the Augustine Committee, right?

    Again, do you bother to read anything before you comment on it?

    “In any case, the over heated slams against Zubrin, who certainly is ornery at times, proves my point about ego maniacs in space advocacy.”

    In your first post, you claimed that Dr. Zubrin has an “expansive ego”. Now the “ego maniacs [sic]” are in the space advocacy community generally.

    Why do you see egomaniacal personalities in everyone except yourself?

    Are you off your meds?

    Lawdy…

  • NASA Fan wrote @ December 7th, 2009 at 5:40 am

    1.Wasn’t SpaceHab a COTS provider of ISS logistics in much the same vein as COTS ISS resuply we are discussing above?

    Pretty much, yeah.

    2.Does anyone know if their business model worked?

    It was doing okay until NASA broke their SpaceHab module in the Columbia disaster. They were counting on NASA to pay up for the lost equipment, but when they accepted a $17Mn check from the insurance company to get started on the next one NASA balked at paying out the balance of the $80Mn book value of the equipment (this is all in the historical financials at the SEC’s EDGAR website). The company never really recovered from that, but has transformed itself into Astrotech (ASTC) / Astrogenetix (www.astrogenetix.com). The stock is up for the year, but in these nonsensical financial markets that’s not really saying much.

    3. What lessons might their be for Space X et al from the SpaceHab endeavor?

    My suggestion would be “Don’t count on NASA. Develop an industry independent of NASA (like telecomm did), so that when they decide to be difficult (usually for political reasons) it won’t matter that much.” Difficult to do when the concept of human space flight has been so closely wedded to NASA, but not impossible.

    For full disclosure purposes: I own 100 shares of ASTC. I have had financial dealings through work with them in the past (nothing transpired) and have been privy to insider information that is no longer relevant. Which is why I only purchased 100 shares out of 16.55Mn outstanding. I do look forward to SpaceX’s IPO, as I certainly want to get a piece of that action.

  • red

    Mark: “As the Augustine Commission pointed out, the only thing wrong with Constellation was that it hasn’t got proper funding. Given that, as various members of Congress have pointed out, why do we need an alternative when the answer appears to be providing the current program with the funding it needs.”

    Providing the current program with the funding it needs involves an absurd amount of money. Here’s what the Committee says Constellation needs for Ares I/Orion in 2016 and lunar return in the early 2020s:

    “About $45 billion over the guidance of the President’s FY 2010 budget through 2020″

    “About $17 billion more than what is provided in the “less-constrained budget.”” – the “less-constrained” budget being the very optimistic boost for NASA human spaceflight of $3B/year

    “The expenditures reach over $16 billion per year at their peak in FY 2019, $3 billion above the “less-constrained budget” and $7 billion over the FY 2010 budget for that year.”

    With all of that funding, what do you get? According to the Augustine Comittee, even with all that money, you still don’t get ISS extension or a revived technology program. That would push the numbers to $59B over the budget for 2010-2020, $31B more than the optimistic Augustine $3B/year increase, and a peak HSF expenditure of $19B (!) in 2019, and still the technology program would be modest.

    What does the Committee think of these options?

    “the Committee does not consider them to be programmatically competitive with the Integrated Options discussed below” in the report

    What does the Committee think of Constellation on the current budget?

    “this program … offers little or no apparent value.”

    What does the Committee think of Constellation with a $3B/year increase, allowing it to be compared fairly with most of the other options they present? If ISS is kept and a technology program is included, the Ares-based hardware slips so far to the right that the Committee just dropped ISS and technology development for this Constellation POR option.

    When it compares a well-funded Constellation with a variant that drops Ares I in favor of commercial crew transport, and replaces Ares V with an “Ares V Lite”, the closest other Augustine option to the program of record, even that Constellation-ish option is better than Constellation in 6 of 12 categories the Committee analyzed, and equal to it in the rest.

    “the Committee finds that even with the Ares V family of launchers, and the Moon as the destination, there are ways potentially to extract more value from the program than to follow the Baseline.”

    The options that are farther from Constellation tend to do even better, per the Committee’s analysis.

  • red

    Mark: “One of the big problems I have with “Look but Don’t Touch” is that its purpose is to pretend to do exploration that (a) is cheap”

    The Augustine Committee compared the various options using the same budgets (current for 2 to fit their charter, and $3B/year for the rest). Some options like EELV flexible path are rated better for life cycle cost, but that’s only 1 of 12 criteria.

    Also, what is the phrase “pretend to do exploration” about? Both Moon First and Flexible Path options do exploration. Is that phrase like “look but don’t touch”?

    Mark: “and (b) was not proposed by the hated George W. Bush.”

    Actually the Flexible Path options have a lot more to do with Bush’s Vision for Space Exploration proposal than the Constellation Program of Record. VSE and Flexible Path both include strong technology development programs, strong efforts to bring science and economic value, lunar surface missions with an eye towards eventual Mars surface missions, ISRU, strong synergy between HSF and robotics, commercial crew launch, and more. Constellation has none of this. Flexible Path doesn’t start with lunar surface missions for astronauts, but Figure 6.6.2-2 of the Augustine report shows that phasing the lunar surface missions to be later results in a “smoother” budget profile. That’s a big advantage. Making the Moon’s surface the first destination requires lots of development before any benefits of actual astronaut missions are gained.

    Of course there are other options that are even closer to the VSE than Flexible Path, but Constellation isn’t one of them.

    Mark: “In the rawest form it is flags and footsteps without the footsteps and likely without the flags. It is not sustainable because it leaves builds little if anything of permanent value.”

    Why would you assume Flexible Path would be reduced to this raw form? I agree that Flexible Path should not happen in this kind of raw form, and I think the Augustine report should have emphasized things like infrastructure and repeated visits (perhaps gradually handing earlier destinations over to commercial space) in appropriate cases more than it did in its Flexible Path descriptions, even at the expense of getting to new destinations later. However, the report does imply a certain amount of “permanent value” gains in the Flexible Path. Any of the science data gathered will be of permanent value. The use of commercial space for crew transport and part of the lunar landing hardware should have permanent value. The same goes for the technology development. The fuel depot at a Lagrange point would have long-term value. The capability to service observatories could have permanent value — I have a hard time picturing a satellite/observatory servicing ability being used just once.

    I could continue, but the point is that Flexible Path is, as its name suggests, flexible. It could be done in a frantic dash towards Mars, or it could be done with long-term value in mind. The same is true for the Moon-First options. The bottom line is that the order of the destinations isn’t as important as how we go about getting there.

  • Doug

    Flex path…look don’t touch = slow boring death of manned space program. Real space activist would be out there fighting for more funding for robust boots on the ground program not just turning the other check. What a bunch of pathetic weasels…fight man for what you want or believe in do not settle for anything less. I give Zubrin credit to
    hang in there and fight for it. To bad we don’t have more like him minus the ego of course. Get some balls and fight for it shoot the moon ULA showed the way A-panel just gave up. Boots on the moon we want our justified funding…fund it and get err done now not in the 22nd century! Stand up, shout and fight for what you believe in NEVER GIVE UP OR SETTLE FOR LESS. Space advocacy lacks focus, ingenuity, political leverage and balls. Flex-path BS generation merely stands in the shadow of the greatest generation ever that put men on the moon.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Doug – if you pound your chest enough, and demand enough, no doubt everything you think NASA needs will come down from the clouds

    That, or you’ll put a hole in your chest

  • Neil H.

    Mark said:
    >By the way, in a kind of back handed defense of Bob Zubrin, he is not a psychotic or insane. Zubrin has developed useful strategies for exploring and colonizing Mars that can also be used for other destinations.

    The two sorts of things aren’t mutually exclusive, you know. For example, nobody can deny that Isaac Newton was a genius, but he was also a crazy egomaniac who was responsible for generating some vast schisms in the scientific community of his day.

  • Martin Finn

    Zubrin has clear mental issues – he is paranoid, he is a compulsive liar, and he sours the waters of everything he touches. His presence is detrimental to the avowed goals of TMS. His penchant for Larouche-style politics compounds this problem.

  • MrEarl

    Don’t sugar coat it Martin, just tell us how you feel about Zubrin straight-up. :-)

  • The Mars First people having been shooting themselves in the foot for a few decades now because they fail to see that the fastest way to get to Mars is to finally establish permanently manned facilities on the surface of the Moon. Once this is done then the next logical step would be establishing permanently manned facilities on the surface of Mars.

    If we had established a permanent base on the Moon back in the 1970s or 1980s, we’d probably already have permanent out post on the surface of Mars during the first decade of this century. But if we once again fail to support a lunar base program, then the Mars vs. the Moon debate will go on for many decades more without any human presence on either world.

    The Moon is the fastest way to Mars because it will finally end the Mars vs the Moon debate and will finally allow us to go on to Mars and the moons of Mars after a permanent lunar base is established.

  • Anime Master

    If you would just use a still suite you would only loose a thimble full of water a day. There is more water on the moon then there was on dune and look at how many people lived there. :P GO LUNA

  • Robert G. Oler

    Marcel F. Williams

    what I find funny about both the Mars first people and the “return to the Moon’ folks is that they dont grasp the real political situation.

    There is little enthusiasm for either goal, past their respective (and small) space groupie camps…because they cannot in any fashion explain why Mars or the Moon is any different the ISS…ie we spend a lot of money and at the end of it we have people on the (place) and yet other then “we have to take the next logical step” there is no real reason to do anything else.

    There is no next logical step…there have to be a reason for steps…

    Robert G. Oler

  • If President Obama has his way, if Congress is misguided enough to approve his Proposed 2011 Federal Budget, then you basically have a repeat of the Space Shuttle/ ISS decisions; where we are totally trapped on LEO forever!!! We CANNOT let this happen! We of the space advocacy community have got to contact our Congressional Representatives & Senators, and appeal on them to STOP the axing of Project Constellation. This is THE PROGRAM THAT WILL GET US OUT OF LEO! Without it, just what the hell are they planning to do?! You all have already heard about the extending of the ISS clear until 2020—which was a presidential deadline for U.S. astronauts to have finally broken orbit for deep space. These short-sighted, deluded people, who are content with the status quo, and boring business as usual will thenafter have our astronauts confined to going to and from a couple hundred miles up, to float around in a tin can, with no destination inevitably; —and for the following decade all the way to 2030. Groundhog Day, over & over again! If the ISS (and low earth orbit exploits) has to end so that we can embark on new groundbreaking lunar & other journeys, then so be it! Let’s not let the Obama administration destroy a still-in-the-womb grand future in deep space! Support the continuance of Project Constellation!! We must lobby on this matter before it’s too late.

  • Personally, I like Robert Zubrin. Personally, I like Chris Carberry. I always got the feeling that their two different personalities were required to offset each other and make the tug of war that is needed for any “start-up” organization to live.

    That said, I personally never had the overwhelming desire to put myself too close to Dr. Zubrin because it is obvious he is very very passionate and that type of “private company CEO” can be stressful beyond a limit… Relatedly, getting too professionally close to Mr. Carberry always gave me the feeling of not having enough required absolute face-time passion for tactical short-term down & dirty projects.

    One thing I will never ever stop believing is that Robert Zubrin is one of the absolute Greatest speakers for the Space Movement; yes, he is focused on Mars but boy does he know how to stir an audience. And he does know his stuff.

    Recently I taped him at the Downey California Human Spaceflight Forum (along with Greason, Hopkins and Aldrin) and my admiration for his speaking abilities were solidified. Plus I did note a slightly less Mars-ONLY slant to his message; he was very on topic for Spaceflight itself, and Mars was put in as a point but not as an obsessive hammer & nail.

    If this site allows urls, then you can see the video if you want at smithvoice.com/downey-human-space-forum-video

    I wish both the Mars Society and Explore Mars all the best. I have become jaded and honestly see very little coming out of non-profits but these men try and these men put action behind their dedication to Space, and that is admirable.

    2 pennies.
    Robert Smith
    Burbank, CA
    smithvoice.com

Leave a Reply to Robert G. Oler 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>