6 ms·

What really bugs me about Mars how much of a political opportunity it is for a president to reverse the economic and scientific atrophy that plauges the US. One

by zalzane 13y ago

What really bugs me about Mars how much of a political opportunity it is for a president to reverse the economic and scientific atrophy that plauges the US. One of the big factors in economic recovery is morale - if people don't have faith in their country, government, or monetary system; how can you expect them to be productive members of society? If you were to ask any person what they thought US's most notable achievement was - it's not unlikely they'll mention the moon landing. The moon landing was such a milestone, such a landmark achievement - it sent nationalism through the roof. That kind of pride and fervor would be extremely over the next few years, not only in economic recovery, but in growth and expansion of tech related fields. All it would take is one very good speech I think, to inspire the nation and light the fire under US's latent tech reserves. Something kinda like Reagan's speeches - which felt like pep talks more than presidential speeches, linking the economic, political, and cultural muscle of America's yesterday to the moon landing. There's a lot of people out there who feel like America's golden days have passed, so I don't think it would be horribly difficult to link those prosperous times with the moon landing. At the end they could sign off with something like what Aldrin mentioned in his article; “I believe this nation should commit itself, within two decades, to commencing American permanence on the planet Mars.” The only difference between Kennedy's speech and the Mars speech would be that Kennedy's was used to win the cold war, and the mars speech would be used to fix internal economic strife.

textminer 13y ago
I fully agree. But only because an American colony on Mars would be aesthetically preferable to a SpaceX corporate colony on Mars, where colonists'd predictably work fifteen year sentences as indentured servant miners to pay off their voyage. Also, an extension of our country on another planet would probably be the first move toward humans getting past statism entirely. But that's just a guess/hope.
- kiba 13y ago
  I fully agree. But only because an American colony on Mars would be aesthetically preferable to a SpaceX corporate colony on Mars, where colonists'd predictably work fifteen year sentences as indentured servant miners to pay off their voyage. I prefer that we look at those colonies as societies of their own, not an extension of some country into outer space. Otherwise, the inevitable will happen, and we will have an ugly civil war 200 years into the future. It's better that we look at this as an altruistic enterprise that will eventually yield a shitload of benefit to mankind 200 years down the road.
  - encoderer 13y ago
    Right but if a society cannot possibly survive on its own, then what? If the settlement is tied by umbilical to a company or country or treaty org here, it's hard to act like it's an independent entity, because it's not one. I think we're certainly capable by now to create a charter that hands the colony over to itself at some point, 10, 20, 50 years in the future.
- Dewie 13y ago
  Who in their right mind would pay incredible amounts of money (or labour) to go to Mars? The only reason to go to Mars is for the sense of adventure (mining could get boring fast, unless you count the potential danger of it) and getting a place in the history books as one of the pioneers. Earth is a paradise compared to Mars.
  - textminer 13y ago
    I don't think it'd be the folks living in a paradise. It'd be the folks fleeing persecution or economic horror. Why'd folks leave Europe for the New World, or any other migration? (And I mean the early ones-- not the gold rush-thinkin' ones.)
    - ubernostrum 13y ago
      Walter Miller's "Crucifixus Etiam" is a rather good story about this; essentially terraforming Mars as the new frontier for migrant labor, with all the harshness that comes from those types of frontiers (including the fact that it is, largely, a one-way trip for the laborers, since their lungs atrophy due to the special breathing equipment they're attached to).
- TruthElixirX 13y ago
  >Also, an extension of our country on another planet would probably be the first move toward humans getting past statism entirely. But that's just a guess/hope. So... have a state settle on Mars instead of a company of people mutually coming together will help us get past statism as a species? Brilliant. Truly brilliant.
  - textminer 13y ago
    Only because it'd spectacularly fail.
- btilly 13y ago
  According to Elon Musk, the cost of the ticket to Mars will be $500k, and the cost of the return ticket will be free (after all he's bringing the spaceship back, doesn't cost much to add a body to it). If he holds to something like this (inflation adjusted), then the availability of a free return will keep your nightmare from happening. Furthermore the free return makes sense from a PR point of view. It is easier to get people to take a risk like that if they believe that they can get back from it. (Though I'm sure at some point there will be interesting litigation around someone who sold their house, didn't bother to pay out the mortgage, then took the money to buy a ticket to Mars, then disappeared to another world...)
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- zalzane 13y ago
  Joe schmoe doesn't really care. What this speech would target is people who were borderline between a STEM field and something like law or finance. There's a lot of brain muscle that's on the fence on whether they should choose STEM or choose a field that will make a lot more dosh. If STEM could be evangelized through a Mars program, I'm certain that there would be a lot more minds heading off into STEM. Not to mention, national pride has plenty of interesting side effects; people are more willing to invest in guv bonds, less unrest, everyone doesn't jump down the president's throat when he makes a mispronunciation, etc.
kiba 13y ago
What really bugs me about Mars how much of a political opportunity it is for a president to reverse the economic and scientific atrophy that plauges the US. The president that will get credit for landing a man on Mars is the president 20 years later, not the president that initiates the program in the first place. If you were to ask any person what they thought US's most notable achievement was - it's not unlikely they'll mention the moon landing. The moon landing was such a milestone, such a landmark achievement - it sent nationalism through the roof. That kind of pride and fervor would be extremely over the next few years, not only in economic recovery, but in growth and expansion of tech related fields. Other than at the height of the lunar landing program, most Americans think it's a waste. The only difference between Kennedy's speech and the Mars speech would be that Kennedy's was used to win the cold war, and the mars speech would be used to fix internal economic strife. I don't think the space program alone is going to fix our underlying maladies, but it will help.
- textminer 13y ago
  Are you sure on the first part? My read of the historical narrative is that folks attribute the success of Apollo to JFK, not Nixon, and not Johnson. However wrong or right. (It should be pointed out that I was born in the mid-80s, and am frequently distracted by cat memes. But I have briefly worked for NASA.)
  - mtowle 13y ago
    I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but I am saying if you're wrong, it's because history tends to treat assassinated persons overly well (provided they were in good standing in the first place).
    - georgemcbay 13y ago
      He's absolutely right and while the assassination certainly "helped" cement his legacy, the reason we give Kennedy most of the political credit is because he got the ball rolling on the national political stage and he was a great speaker. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwFvJog2dMw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwFvJog2dMw Watching this video makes me extremely sad because that's 1962. Here we are 51 (fifty fucking one!) years later and I can't begin to imagine a modern US president making a speech like this. "Not because they are easy, but because they are hard!"
melling 13y ago
It's not going to be the least bit inspiring to send people to Mars and plant a flag, or ride around in a rover. Find a reason to go there and stay. If we could at least colonize it that would be some motivation. If you want to drive the cost to get to Mars down, game it in some way. The X-Prizes seem to be an effective way to get lots of people working on various problems. http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/ http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/ This technique has worked for centuries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitude_prize http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitude_prize http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orteig_Prize http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orteig_Prize
- loqi 13y ago
  > It's not going to be the least bit inspiring to send people to Mars and plant a flag, or ride around in a rover. Uhh... it would definitely be at least a bit inspiring.
  - melling 13y ago
    Nope. In fact, it would probably be demoralizing because the public's appetite for spending money on the space program would probably be exhausted. We've already ventured off the planent. Now we need to figure out a way to permanently leave the planet. What's the most effective way? Expensive manned missions to Mars is not the place to start.
mtowle 13y ago
>The only difference between Kennedy's speech and the Mars speech would be that Kennedy's was used to win the cold war, and the mars speech would be used to fix internal economic strife. With all due respect, I am continually surprised by STEM folk who make this Mars argument. Kennedy-Moon Landing was one data point. That's not to say "we need more data" or something stupid like that, rather realize that in predicting data point #2 will be just as successful in every way, shape, and form as was data point #1, you are extrapolating a general trend from the single most unique event in human history. It's impossible to get just as excited about Mars as everyone was about the Moon. (Yes, yes, a second green planet would be cool; the concept of terraforming is news to no one.) By the time anyone sets foot on Mars, it will have been longer between the Moon and Mars than it was between the Wright Brothers and the Moon. That's your context for how impressed the public is capable of being.
Volpe 13y ago
Is nationalism a good thing though? By thinking your own country/people is great, aren't you creating a dichotomy where you think less of another country/people. (i.e. racism...) Maybe I'm over thinking it.

by zalzane 13y ago

textminer 13y ago

I fully agree. But only because an American colony on Mars would be aesthetically preferable to a SpaceX corporate colony on Mars, where colonists'd predictably work fifteen year sentences as indentured servant miners to pay off their voyage. Also, an extension of our country on another planet would probably be the first move toward humans getting past statism entirely. But that's just a guess/hope.

kiba 13y ago
I fully agree. But only because an American colony on Mars would be aesthetically preferable to a SpaceX corporate colony on Mars, where colonists'd predictably work fifteen year sentences as indentured servant miners to pay off their voyage. I prefer that we look at those colonies as societies of their own, not an extension of some country into outer space. Otherwise, the inevitable will happen, and we will have an ugly civil war 200 years into the future. It's better that we look at this as an altruistic enterprise that will eventually yield a shitload of benefit to mankind 200 years down the road.
- encoderer 13y ago
  Right but if a society cannot possibly survive on its own, then what? If the settlement is tied by umbilical to a company or country or treaty org here, it's hard to act like it's an independent entity, because it's not one. I think we're certainly capable by now to create a charter that hands the colony over to itself at some point, 10, 20, 50 years in the future.
Dewie 13y ago
Who in their right mind would pay incredible amounts of money (or labour) to go to Mars? The only reason to go to Mars is for the sense of adventure (mining could get boring fast, unless you count the potential danger of it) and getting a place in the history books as one of the pioneers. Earth is a paradise compared to Mars.
- textminer 13y ago
  I don't think it'd be the folks living in a paradise. It'd be the folks fleeing persecution or economic horror. Why'd folks leave Europe for the New World, or any other migration? (And I mean the early ones-- not the gold rush-thinkin' ones.)
  - ubernostrum 13y ago
    Walter Miller's "Crucifixus Etiam" is a rather good story about this; essentially terraforming Mars as the new frontier for migrant labor, with all the harshness that comes from those types of frontiers (including the fact that it is, largely, a one-way trip for the laborers, since their lungs atrophy due to the special breathing equipment they're attached to).
TruthElixirX 13y ago
>Also, an extension of our country on another planet would probably be the first move toward humans getting past statism entirely. But that's just a guess/hope. So... have a state settle on Mars instead of a company of people mutually coming together will help us get past statism as a species? Brilliant. Truly brilliant.
- textminer 13y ago
  Only because it'd spectacularly fail.
btilly 13y ago
According to Elon Musk, the cost of the ticket to Mars will be $500k, and the cost of the return ticket will be free (after all he's bringing the spaceship back, doesn't cost much to add a body to it). If he holds to something like this (inflation adjusted), then the availability of a free return will keep your nightmare from happening. Furthermore the free return makes sense from a PR point of view. It is easier to get people to take a risk like that if they believe that they can get back from it. (Though I'm sure at some point there will be interesting litigation around someone who sold their house, didn't bother to pay out the mortgage, then took the money to buy a ticket to Mars, then disappeared to another world...)

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

zalzane 13y ago
Joe schmoe doesn't really care. What this speech would target is people who were borderline between a STEM field and something like law or finance. There's a lot of brain muscle that's on the fence on whether they should choose STEM or choose a field that will make a lot more dosh. If STEM could be evangelized through a Mars program, I'm certain that there would be a lot more minds heading off into STEM. Not to mention, national pride has plenty of interesting side effects; people are more willing to invest in guv bonds, less unrest, everyone doesn't jump down the president's throat when he makes a mispronunciation, etc.

kiba 13y ago

What really bugs me about Mars how much of a political opportunity it is for a president to reverse the economic and scientific atrophy that plauges the US. The president that will get credit for landing a man on Mars is the president 20 years later, not the president that initiates the program in the first place. If you were to ask any person what they thought US's most notable achievement was - it's not unlikely they'll mention the moon landing. The moon landing was such a milestone, such a landmark achievement - it sent nationalism through the roof. That kind of pride and fervor would be extremely over the next few years, not only in economic recovery, but in growth and expansion of tech related fields. Other than at the height of the lunar landing program, most Americans think it's a waste. The only difference between Kennedy's speech and the Mars speech would be that Kennedy's was used to win the cold war, and the mars speech would be used to fix internal economic strife. I don't think the space program alone is going to fix our underlying maladies, but it will help.

textminer 13y ago
Are you sure on the first part? My read of the historical narrative is that folks attribute the success of Apollo to JFK, not Nixon, and not Johnson. However wrong or right. (It should be pointed out that I was born in the mid-80s, and am frequently distracted by cat memes. But I have briefly worked for NASA.)
- mtowle 13y ago
  I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but I am saying if you're wrong, it's because history tends to treat assassinated persons overly well (provided they were in good standing in the first place).
  - georgemcbay 13y ago
    He's absolutely right and while the assassination certainly "helped" cement his legacy, the reason we give Kennedy most of the political credit is because he got the ball rolling on the national political stage and he was a great speaker. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwFvJog2dMw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwFvJog2dMw Watching this video makes me extremely sad because that's 1962. Here we are 51 (fifty fucking one!) years later and I can't begin to imagine a modern US president making a speech like this. "Not because they are easy, but because they are hard!"

melling 13y ago

It's not going to be the least bit inspiring to send people to Mars and plant a flag, or ride around in a rover. Find a reason to go there and stay. If we could at least colonize it that would be some motivation. If you want to drive the cost to get to Mars down, game it in some way. The X-Prizes seem to be an effective way to get lots of people working on various problems. http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/ http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/ This technique has worked for centuries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitude_prize http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitude_prize http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orteig_Prize http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orteig_Prize

loqi 13y ago
> It's not going to be the least bit inspiring to send people to Mars and plant a flag, or ride around in a rover. Uhh... it would definitely be at least a bit inspiring.
- melling 13y ago
  Nope. In fact, it would probably be demoralizing because the public's appetite for spending money on the space program would probably be exhausted. We've already ventured off the planent. Now we need to figure out a way to permanently leave the planet. What's the most effective way? Expensive manned missions to Mars is not the place to start.

mtowle 13y ago

>The only difference between Kennedy's speech and the Mars speech would be that Kennedy's was used to win the cold war, and the mars speech would be used to fix internal economic strife. With all due respect, I am continually surprised by STEM folk who make this Mars argument. Kennedy-Moon Landing was one data point. That's not to say "we need more data" or something stupid like that, rather realize that in predicting data point #2 will be just as successful in every way, shape, and form as was data point #1, you are extrapolating a general trend from the single most unique event in human history. It's impossible to get just as excited about Mars as everyone was about the Moon. (Yes, yes, a second green planet would be cool; the concept of terraforming is news to no one.) By the time anyone sets foot on Mars, it will have been longer between the Moon and Mars than it was between the Wright Brothers and the Moon. That's your context for how impressed the public is capable of being.

Volpe 13y ago

Is nationalism a good thing though? By thinking your own country/people is great, aren't you creating a dichotomy where you think less of another country/people. (i.e. racism...) Maybe I'm over thinking it.