Discussion about this post

User's avatar
SmithFS's avatar

Excellent article and right on target!!

Nixon cancelled the Moon program which was supposed to continue with establishment of a permanent base on the Moon and a manned mission to Mars. Instead he embraced the Banker creeps demands for endless war. Much more costly, but ZERO benefit to humanity. Wars of conquest. And he shutdown the highly successful Molten Salt Reactor program an Oak Ridge lab, fired the Nuclear genius Alvin Weinberg, and ordered all documents destroyed. Fortunately scientists hid the documents in a Church basement which 40yrs later were uncovered by Kirk Sorenson.

Followed by Clinton shutting down the highly successful Integral Fast Reactor project with Pyroprocessing of Spent Nuclear Fuel. And imposed a gag order on the scientists working on it.

And then damaged NASA with porkbarrel spending projects, $150B on the ISS which has done very little in science advancement. $196B for the Space Shuttle program that also did very little. Offered a very expensive ride to LEO which had to be complemented by Russian Soyuz launches, which did the same job but much less expensive. And the ITER $65B Boondoggle, which has just been delayed for another 10yrs. Fusion was progressing nicely until that scam drained most of the funds & talent.

For that much expenditure, we could have permanently manned scientific research stations on the Moon & Mars right now, and likely would have already found extant life on Mars, which almost certainly exists:

We know almost 100% certain that there are living organisms on Mars, right now. The Viking landers themselves virtually proved it, and the excuses NASA came up with to deny that have been debunked. And there is multiple tracks of compelling evidence that confirm that. But NASA, ever since the Viking landers has essentially banned any further direct testing for life on Mars. And even makes sure it doesn't send rovers where there may be extant life. SOMETHING STINKS AT NASA.

Jan Spacek - 25th Annual International Mars Society Convention:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn7wTKIvYAM

How to Search for Life on Mars. First, stop refusing to look. Robert Zubrin, Steven Benner, Jan Špaček:

https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/how-to-search-for-life-on-mars

Steven Benner - The Case for Extant Life on Mars - 25th Annual International Mars Society Convention:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMgIOVXQ_sI

10 Indicators that Mars Might Harbor Life:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqf9JloNrts

Will the SpaceX Starship crew find life on Mars? An exclusive interview with Dr. Gilbert Levin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWMdrNpF_nY

Dr. Gilbert Levin, the only surviving Principal Investigator of the 1976 NASA Viking Lander biology team, presents his startling and overwhelming proof for life on Mars.

And now NASA is pushing an absolutely nutty boondoggle sample return mission from Mars. Pure insanity:

Rethink the Mars Program. It’s time to consider alternatives to sample return, Robert Zubrin:

https://spacenews.com/rethink-the-mars-program/

Robert Zubrin is right about the NASA Mars Sample Return Mission! Here's why! The Angry Astronaut:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXK1V67VCec

"....A recent review of the plan of its flagship Mars Sample Return (MSR) mission pegged its cost at $10 billion, a price tag that threatens to preclude funding any other exploration missions to the Red Planet for the next decade and a half. ...

"...For the same $10 billion now projected to be spent on the MSR mission over the next 15 years, we could send 20 missions averaging $500 million each in cost. These could include landers, rovers, orbiters, drillers, highly capable helicopters, and possibly balloons or other more novel exploration vehicles as well. Instead of being limited to one exploration site, these could be targeted to 20 sites and carry a vast array of new instruments provided by hundreds of teams of investigators from around the world.

"...Furthermore, the 0.32 estimate for the probability of MSR mission success only includes technical risk. It ignores programmatic risk, which in the case of the ESA orbiter is extremely high...In short, the MSR program of record is extremely high risk. It could very well not produce any science at all... In contrast, the success of the varied program is virtually guaranteed. With 20 independent missions, each with a success probability of 0.8, the odds are that at least 16 of the 20 will succeed – most probably more, since later missions can take advantage of lessons learned on earlier flights. .."

This is the same NASA that claimed it would cost $100B to develop a new heavy lift rocket in the 1990s and take at least 15yrs. And that's a fully disposable rocket. So Musk develops a heavy lift rocket in 4yrs for $5B that lifts over double as much and get this, is also fully reusable.

His SpaceX Falcon 9 now has launch costs now of $1500/kg vs Big Aerospace @ $11,500 to $64,500/kg to LEO. And the Starship pushing those costs down to $100/kg. Meanwhile our illustrious Congress funnels over $24B to the SLS, which so far has got one rocket off the ground at a cost to taxpayers of $4B per launch. Which is about what the Starship program will cost for reusable rockets in 1/4 the development time. Combined with the Orion capsule has cost over $50B and 17yrs with still only one load carried by the Orion (now broke down at the ISS). SpaceX Dragon has carried 11 manned and 9 cargo missions to the ISS already at a cost of $1.7B and 6yrs development time.

Expand full comment
Emma M.'s avatar

You make probably the best and simplest argument for why we need space exploration that I've read – well done! There aren't many authors whose articles I end up feeling a need to save after reading, and refer to time and time again later.

On the subject of both space and Malthusianism, I recently read an interesting argument against the latter from an astrophysicist and aerospace engineer, Dr. Travis S. Taylor. In the context of the infamous Fermi's paradox, which he calls Fermi's blunder, he explained that this "paradox" is actually based more than anything on none other than Malthus' growth model. He says the Malthusian growth model is mathematically flawed and fails to describe what actually happens in nature; populations do not necessarily grow exponentially to the limits of their environment, but rather exponential growth eventually levels out, and this can and has been observed in many species.

Apparently there are better equations that are more likely to describe the reality of life in the universe, such as the Lotka–Volterra equations, which are used to calculate predator–prey dynamics in biological systems. What he thinks is more likely is that different species find their own niches like in the environment of our own planet, which might allow more co-existence than one might expect, the same way many species in Earth's ecosystems are not in competition with each other, but co-exist without necessarily noticing each other in the same ecosystem. Other relationships exist in nature as well, e.g mutually beneficial ones. He argues there is therefore no paradox in failing to astronomically detect other life; Fermi was simply in err with Malthusianism.

So, on top of all the other problems with them, Malthusians apparently can't even claim to be "realists," since what they believe in and want to base policy off of is actually an 18th century math error! Bad math strikes again.

Expand full comment
53 more comments...

No posts