Marcus says:

Hmm, I have some mixed feelings about that speech…

At first I was a bit disappointed when he started to READ some text that was more or less completely out of sync with the slides. Another thing that bugged me, was how he constantly pointed out how bad of an idea it would be to repeat the Apollo program, but at the same time advocating to repeat “the pilgrims on the mayflower”. I could not really follow his line of thought on this one and somehow got the impression that his visit to the moon must have clouded his view in a kind of “been there, seen everything, it’s boring, let’s move on” way.

However, the second part of his speech (the part that was actually a FREE speech instead of reading some text) was a lot better and at least to some degree worth the waiting.

He does have a few very, very, VERY good points (commercialize LEO transport of cargo AND crew, orbital fuel depots, ditching SRBs in favor of liquid flyback-boosters, international cooperation on a much more “intense” level, using the moon only as a testbed and stepping stone, development of a next generation “spaceplane”.. etc), but in my opinion his timescales are a bit off at some points.

Example: I totally agree that the moon should only be a technical testbed for exploration of mars because a) it offers little in “explorational value” and b) if there is a market for lunar resources, than the private sector will start to develop the moon anyway sooner or later (sooner if our LEO capabilities are more mature than they are now). BUT I think that he is somehow missing the point, that in order for the moon to be a stepping stone we have to make a long duration (scientific) presence there in order to learn the things we need to know if we are going to mars. You can’t just get your craft to the moon, hop around a bit and say “oh yeah, that works, now lets go to mars for 2 years!” Besides that, I think we are technological and as a civilization still quite far away from the point where it makes sense to start permanent settlement of mars. I mean why would anybody want to go there to live there? Doesn’t matter if it is now, or in lets say 25 years. Yes, we COULD do it with current technologies, but WHY? Sure, there are plenty of resources on mars to leverage, but we are not yet at the point where the technology is mature enough to make those resources commercially viable (or the earth resources are depleted to a degree, where the cost of getting something from mars with current tech is actually irrelevant)

I do not try to make the point, that mars is too far off into the future, that we should not bother at all, but I really think more in a “one step after the other” fashion. I see a lot of stuff, that needs our attention before we go on the bold route to mars.

Just two examples:
1) Commercial Crew & Cargo solutions to LEO: Yes, they are being developed right now. But can we already consider them a proven and reliable thing that we can build upon? No.
2) orbital fuel depots: Can we do them with current technology? Yes, I’m pretty sure of that. Do we have a lot of experience with that kind of stuff and already know what works, and what doesn’t to call it a mature technology? No, not at all.

So my point is: yes, the goal should be mars, and not the moon, but there is a long and rocky road through LEO, the moon and possibly some NEOs ahead of us, before we can really focus our efforts on mars in a reasonable way.

Rushing to mars would have more resemblance to repeating Apollo, than the current constellation program will likely ever have.

And I’m sorry, but I now have lost my “red thread” that I was trying to follow through my thoughts :p

Mark says:

Steve g, I see what you’re saying, but the one thing I really don’t like about what you’re saying is that you seem to be using “now people don’t take such risks and leaps in the USA,” as a sort of an excuse as to why we can’t instead of wondering what the heck is wrong with us in the first place that we are now unwilling to take those sorts of risks.