We Can Send a Man to Mars, But...

Recently, Congress passed a law that would require, within a few years, 100% of U.S. bound cargo containers to be scanned at their points of origin.  President Bush, while signing the law, has also criticized the requirement, questioning its "technical feasibility."

It’s interesting, in the face of this reluctance, to consider another largely "infeasible" project that’s being considered by the federal government.  For, while the Bush administration is all too willing to stall on the matter of securing America’s ports, it was all too anxious, a mere four years ago, to make the almost incomprehensibly difficult idea of sending a manned mission to Mars a national goal.

Security in America’s shipping lines today remains largely based around human intelligence.  As reported by a SupplyChainDigest article, it is mostly up to human beings, looking for "suspicious cargo," to declare a container a risk and pull it aside.  Under this system, less than 6% of containers are deemed a risk, and it’s likely that the chances of dangerous cargo getting through are high.

To address this problem, Congress, as pointed out in a recent front page diary by Kargo X, passed legislation that would set a five year deadline for establishing a system that would scan all cargo containers at their points of origin in other countries.  In recognition of the fact that the technology to do this efficiently isn’t entirely in existence yet, the Department of Homeland Security would have the authority to extend the deadline by another two years.

Despite the fact that President Bush willingly signed this legislation into law, he, and other conservatives, have met the idea with strong resistance.  According to the White House, the requirement is "neither executable nor feasible."  Indeed, according to an AP article that was quoted in Kargo X’s diary:

The White House and shippers maintain that the technology for scanning 11 million containers each year doesn't exist, and say the requirement could disrupt trade. Current procedures including manifest inspections at foreign ports and radiation monitoring in U.S. ports are working well, they contend.

While it is true that the technology for scanning all cargo containers doesn’t yet exist in its entirety, it is also true that, in the past, the United States has been capable of setting difficult goals for itself, and developing the technology to achieve them.  This stems from something called "leadership."  Indeed, a worthwhile, but technologically difficult goal, can often serve as a catalyst for uniting the country, for binding the populace together under the guise of a common purpose.

That idea is not one that should be foreign to the Bush administration.  In 2003, they were (albeit for the most political of reasons – to help Bush’s re-election) looking for just such a goal, and set their sights on a manned mission to Mars.  While administration focus on such a mission has been somewhat lacking, it is, as far as I know, still a professed goal of NASA, and, therefore, something that the administration must feel is, given enough time, a "technologically feasible" accomplishment.

The truth of the matter is that, in terms of feasibility, a mission to Mars is much more complicated than scanning every U.S. bound cargo container.  A few specific challenges for a manned Mars mission, as pointed out by a Donald Rapp article in The Space Review, would include:

~Few chances to abort, which would significantly drive up the requirements and costs of ship systems.

~The time involved in the trip: It would take roughly 2.5 years to get to Mars and back, which would mean that any "feasible" mission would require extensive, and likely expensive, life testing.

~The level of propellants needed. According to Rapp:

The huge masses of propellants needed for the legs of a space mission are significant limitations to feasibility of the mission. It takes about 20 metric tons (mT) on the Earth launch pad to put 1 mT of payload to Low Earth Orbit (LEO). For most space missions, even the 1 mT of "payload to LEO" is made up of mostly propellants to send a smaller payload to a distant destination. For example, in order to send a 1 mT payload (that includes an Earth entry system) to the Mars surface and return to Earth, it may require about 180 mT in LEO, and consequently 3600 mT on the Earth launch pad.

Chemical propellants would be most likely, but it’s still uncertain what kind would be used.  A nuclear thermal rocket would be an alternative, but, due to uncertain costs, and huge financial, infrastructure, safety, and political requirements, an NTR would likely require a "gigantic effort" over one to two decades, costing billions of dollars.

~Consumables: A Mars mission with 200 day transits to Mars and back, plus 560 days on the surface of Mars, would need 200-1400 mT of consumables.  Without significant advancements in technology, this requirement would mean a dozen launches just for supplies.

Those difficulties would be in addition to problems we’d have to deal with involving radiation exposure, gravity (an expensive artificial gravity/zero gravity countermeasure program would be needed to prevent the crew from being unacceptably weak by the time they arrive at Mars), how to use the "natural resources" of Mars to cut down on initial payload, power generation (using solar power for the entire mission is likely not a viable option), and many, many others.  

In short, before the United States can send anyone to Mars, there is a long – and extremely expensive – laundry list of technical problems that we must first meet.  Yet, whatever their lack of focus, the administration has not abandoned Mars as a "viable goal" for the United States.  Unlike with cargo scanning, they have not cited "technical feasibility" as a reason for a manned mission to Mars not to be a goal of the United States of America.

What makes the administration’s current stance even more aggravating is that, while the exact technology we need to scan every cargo container may not currently exist, there is, already in existence, technology that might serve as a good base for future development.  According to the SupplyChainDigest article, it’s already being used in Hong Kong, where 100% of cargo containers were being scanned as early as 2005, when the article was written:

For the past year, the Hong Kong Terminal Operators Association, which includes both public and private entities, has used high tech screening machines made by Science Application International of San Diego to inspect every container.

"Trucks haul each container passing though the port through two of the giant scanners," the WSJ wrote. "One checks for nuclear radiation, while the other uses gamma rays to seek out any dense, suspicious object made of steel or lead inside the container that could shield a bomb from the nuclear detector."

Not only are the images from the scan displayed on large flat panel screens for security personnel to examine, the images are recorded along with the container ID and other information. That data can then be passed along to other ports or security officials for any suspicious cargo, or to help identify the bad guys if a security problem does occur later.

While one can certainly question the exact merits of the Bush Mars program, I do think that sending human beings to Mars is, ultimately, a worthwhile goal for the United States.  An even more worthwhile goal, however, especially in an age where we are supposedly fighting a "war on terrorism," is making sure that the U.S. is as secure as possible from WMDs being shipped into the country.

Such a program would take time, and money.  But, it’s already being done elsewhere, and, with enough focused effort, it is feasible for the United States to develop a system that works for us.

In the decades following the U.S. moon landing, a common cliché among those who wished to complain about perceived lack of technological (or other) progress in society was that we can "send a man to the moon," while not being able to accomplish another, seemingly less complicated task.  If the Bush administration – and the Republican Party – wishes to continue stonewalling on cargo scanning, then perhaps, during the 2008 elections, the Democrats need to take that compliant, and modernize it for the Bush era:

"If you can support sending a man to Mars, you ought to be able to support screening every cargo container that comes into the country."

Both are laudable goals.  But, the latter is much more critical, and much more important to the safety and well being of the American public.

•  Tip Jar

  A question of utmost importance for anyone supporting a manned Mars mission:

  Once we make it to Mars, how do we stop our researches from opening a portal to Hell?

  by WayneNight on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 04:12:53 PM PDT

  •  There is already a portal to hell.

    Milwaukee don't want no one muscling in on its turf.

    by Cheez Whiz on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 06:12:37 PM PDT

    •  They already have plenty...

      ...of competition from Jersey, though.

      by WayneNight on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 07:08:33 PM PDT

      •  damn straight

        .

        by Cheez Whiz on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 08:18:07 AM PDT

•  I support sending Cheney (nt)

  by subtropolis on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 04:39:40 PM PDT

•  The hell of it is,

  we could be well on our way to BOTH if we had not pissed away the half trillion and growing dollars in Iraq.  AND have a good first stab at universal health coverage.  Warmest regards, Doc.

  by Translator on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 06:45:45 PM PDT

  •  Well, actually, I think a...

    ...Mars mission isn't something that will be likely for a VERY long time.

    Granted, there are a lot of people who know more about the idea than I do.  And, I suppose it's possible that we might make it there sometime within the next few decades, but, I really don't expect it.  At earliest, I think a manned mission will have to wait until the 2080s or 2090s.  It's very likely that it might not happen until the 22nd century.

    I think Mars is a nice extremely long term goal, but, personally, I think we ought to focus on establishing a permanant presence on the moon first.  It's closer, so the "logistics" wouldn't be quite as bad as we work on solving the technical issues presented by a long term presence on a body other than Earth.  Not to mention the fact that the moon simply feels like "unfinished business," given how we went there, and then just "gave up" on it.

    Just some thoughts on the matter from someone who's probably not qualified to talk about it...

    by WayneNight on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 07:05:20 PM PDT

    •  If you want to talk about spaceflight

      in much more detail, might I suggest you visit the Space Revolution diaries and SRWN (if you haven't visited them before).

      The fact is, I think we can and must and will be doing large scale colonization by 2050, but it will largely be a companies and individuals doing it, with government playing the limited role (relatively speaking) needed in to develop outer space governance.  

      At least one person (Elon Musk) has committed a large chunk of their personal fortune to colonizing mars, and in the near future (and I suspect thats true of some of the other space pioneers, like Jeff Bezos, and Robert Bigelow, as well).

      by FerrisValyn on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 09:01:18 PM PDT

      •  We'll see

        I'll be perfectly happy if we end up with manned missions to Mars in the next few decades.  I am, however, not willing to hold out much hope in the idea, as we've been overly optimistic about space exploration in the past.  

        Back in the 1960s, we thought we'd have lunar colonies, and "sleeper ships" exploring the outer reaches of the solar system by the 1990s.  Turns out that space exploration is a little more complicated than that.  We have a hard time keeping the space stations and space shuttles we have now in working order.

        I'm also both skeptical and worried about the role of private industry in space.  

        Skeptical, because, outside of tourism, I see few current opportunities from "making a profit" on space exploration - and, no matter how many "charitable" actors we may have who just want to further the knowledge of mankind, most private actors, if they put up the kind of money involved in space travel, are going to want to be getting something back in return.  

        Even if there is profit in space, "pure exploration," seeking knowledge for the sake of knowledge, the kind of stuff that NASA is supposed to be involved with, will probably never be profitable enough for corporate entitites to be interested in it.  Therefore, even if private entities do find their way into space, I think it's likely that government based exploratory services will still have an active role to play.

        On the other hand, I'm worried because, if large scale space "exploration" does happen on a private level, if sources of profits are to be found deep within our solar system, and perhaps beyond I'm afraid that it will be largely uncontrolled, and perhaps turn more into space "exploitation" rather than space exploration.  Political institutions tend to lag behind technological and economic reality.  It's 2007, and we have problems stemming from western corporations exploiting the conditions in under developed countries.  Would humanity, as politically fragmented as it is, really be able to "regulate" the commerical development of space?

        We'll see what happens in the long run.

        by WayneNight on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 09:27:15 PM PDT

        •  Explotation isn't necassarily a bad thing

          if its done in a responsible way.  Space can and should provide more than just knowledge.  Money, and capitalism, isn't going away anytime soon, and we'd do well to not try and imagine that it is.  That doesn't mean that people should act irresponsively - just as there are responsible companies here on earth, and we encourage responsible policy off-planet as well.

          Actually, WayneNight, I would really suggest you check out a diary I hope to do this week, because it will explain why this time the revolution is real.  But I can give you a short version now.  First, I do think the technology did need to mature, but, more importantly, we needed to see the development of the financial models that would allow for a good return on investment of putting money in space.  Also, space has suffered from high entry costs to develop the hardware.  In other words, its a process issue, not a technological issue.  

          But we are seeing the development of these models.  And the key reason I can legitmately say we are seeing these models get developed is because most of the companies are not doing paper studies and power point presentations, but are doing actual hardware development, hardware construction, and most importnatly, hardware flight.  Again, I suggest you check out both my Space Revolution diaries, and my Space Revolution Weekly News, to see all that is going on - things like the flight of the 2 private space stations - Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, the various flights of Armadillo Aerospace's Pixel and LASR system, the flights of SpaceX's Falcon 1 and Falcon 9, and of course, Richard Branson and Burt Rutan's SpaceshipTwo and SpaceShipThree.  But there is a ton of hardware development and construction and actual hardware flight going on (like Orbital Outfitters spacesuits, and Paragon's life support equipment, and TGV's engine).  Thats key.

          As for what other business oppertunities are out there, in the short term, there are more than enough.  Of course everyone knows about tourism.  What most people don't realize is that although the current ticket price for sub-orbital flights is approx $200,000 right now, there is plenty of reason to suspect that this price will drop in the very near future.  In fact, at least one company, Armadillo Aerospace, thinks they can sell tickets as low as $10,000, which is a huge price drop.  At those prices, the tourism market would be quite huge.

          Another major market is what can be termed sub-orbital science.  Currently, there are major Universities and research institutions that use sounding rockets, to get into space, but not orbital.  However, sounding rockets are increadibly expensive, and multiple companies are working on vehicles that will be a much cheaper (but just as reliable) option.  This will allow these institutions the ablitiy to fly more missions.  

          Expanding beyond that, though, is what can be termed the education science market.  Think about this for a moment - how much money gets spent annually on science fair projects, like chemistry sets, and microscopes, and so on, for K-12 students?  Quite a bit.  Well, imagine if they could do a science fair report on a science fair project that involves flight on a rocket, that includes a significant time in weightlessness.  I am sure you imagine that there would be significant excitment in this, but that it would be quite expensive.  Well, some of the same companies that are working on providing cheap sounding rockets are planning on making this cheap enough for school kids - Masten Space Systems will be providing this in fairly short order.  Expanding beyond that, there is even a limited amount of zero-g manufacturing that can be done with sub-orbital vehicles.  Sub-orbital science has the potential to be an increadibly lucrative market.

          Of course, if what you really crave is excitment, may I suggest Space sports?  For example, there is the Rocket Racing League
          
          Real life pod racing here we come.  They've already built the first racer (the video is between a year and 2 years old), and have 4 teams.  
          Or how about skydiving - How about skydiving from 35 miles, or even from space itself, 100 km?  There are others, but you get the idea.  

          There are other possibilities that I haven't covered, like sub-orbital space burial, and some I don't really want to cover (ie military applications, although those need to be talked about at some point).

          I won't say that the revenue streams for sub-orbital tourism are unlimited, but there are quite a few.  And when you expand it into orbital flight, well, the number of streams grow expotentially.

          On one level, I do think/hope that the government will play a role in exploritory services.  However, I also think it likely that while some of that will be done by Nasa, its just as likely that things like Universities and other institutions will play a major role as well (wanna do your doctrial thesis actually ON the moon? no problem).  But part of the point is that for part of those expeditions, they can and should use private services were it is avaliable and makes economic sense - Case in point - Nasa should get out of the space launch business, and only work on deep space space ships (ie interplanatary and lunar ships).  Another option - utlize Zero-G, since it would be much more cost effective to use them as a training facility.  Or even better, Virgin Galactic when it presents itself (again, assuming that the costs are less, or at least equal).

          Finally, returning to where this post started - the issue of explotation in space - The big issue is that I don't beleive we can deal with the problems we face, espcially the enviromental problems, without embracing off-planet resoures.  Resources in the form of power, of minerals, of space, of perspective - if we want to avoid major devestation of the planet, through things like resource hording and global warming, we have to embrace off-planet resources.  To do this, we'll need more than just 1 governmental agency, or even multiple governmental agencies - we'll need all of humanity.  We'll need scientists, engineers, doctors, lawyers, businessmen, artists, muscians, actors real estate agents, retiries, children - we need everyone involved, and frankly, we are at are strongest when business is working with government to expand oppertunities (something which is not happening at Nasa).  Finally, to the issue of regulating and legislating the commerical development of space - well, thats why I am here - trying to make people aware about both the potential of off-planet resources, and the perils of bad leglisation.  There are people within the commerical space development that we should be making talking to and making alliances with, because they share our beliefs in helping people, but also see off-planet oppurtinities.  There are some that I wouldn't touch, either because of business practices, or political beliefs, but that not true of all of them, or frankly, even a majority of them, I suspect.  Finally, one last thought - as to whether we'd be able to regulate space?  Well, there are laws and treaties on the books that directly deal with space, already.  So, if we work at this, we can keep the lag time to a minimum (and maybe even eliminate it all together).

          by FerrisValyn on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 11:29:29 PM PDT

•  I disagree with your arguement about mars

  because we are increadibly clsoe to a revolution in manned spaceflight.  But I do agree with you about the need for good port security, including cargo containers.  But neither of those are really the point.

  The main point is that the Bush administration doesn't understand spending priorities, and can't be trusted to manage their pocket change, forget the federal budget.  A lot has been made about "Bush's Mars Plan", except that, the current plan doesn't involve going to Mars, nor is there adequet money allocated for doing serious space travel (and the money that is allocated is funding a piss ass plan, that wastes time, money, resources).  

  The same thing is true of scanning cargo containers - this adminsitration doesn't understand funding, or governmental programs, or the government in general (or else they are committed to destroying the federal government - which, frankly, I wouldn't rule out).

  by FerrisValyn on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 08:55:32 PM PDT

  •  Well, even if we are close to a revolution...

    ...in manned space flight, we're not there yet.  And, conceivably, developing the technology for efficient manned space flight between Earth and Mars would still, as of right now, take considerable comittments of time, money, and effort, by both governmental and private actors.

    Certainly, developing a system to scan every cargo container that enters the country can't be more complex. Yet, the administration isn't willing to embrace that as a goal, even as they do hold Mars as a goal (even if they only pay lip service to it).

    You do have a perfectly valid point about budgeting priorities, both in regard to cargo containers and Mars.  Part of fixing the problem, though, lies with finding a compelling way to frame it. And I think the "If you can support a mission to Mars," might work well for kicking the air out of someone who opposes scanning all cargo containers.

    by WayneNight on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 09:42:19 PM PDT

    •  Two things

      most of the rest is dealt with in the post above.  

      First, I don't count lip service as actually embracing a goal.  It reminds me a bit like this one seen from Law & Order, where a company president promises unlimited cooperation, and then (basically says) "but only if you get a subpena"  Pretty speeches don't pay the bills.

      As for your idea of it being a good frame - well, here is where I see a problem.  First, as I said, lip service doesn't mean squat if you aren't willing to back up your words with actions (one of the reasons to not like Arlen Spector).   Second, and I think quite possibly more important, there isn't a whole lot of support for a Mars mission.  And framing the issue like this has a tendancy to put people off of supporting Mars missions (and manned spaceflight in general).  So it doesn't really help the cause of inspecing containers, and it hurts the cause of manned spaceflight.  

      I do understand why your trying to find a compeling way of framing it, but I think what we've already found is pretty compeling.  The real issue is the idiot in the white house, who doesn't really care about a great deal of important things.  

      by FerrisValyn on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 11:43:41 PM PDT