Manned Mission To Mars

Macro level technological progress has been stagnating for a few decades now. This causes mood dampening among large swaths of the population as people see a sharp contrast between small and large tech developments. The global human herd needs a psychological and social uplift in the form of putting one of the homo sapiens onto a planetary neighbor, Mars.




Such an achievement will speak well of development in cultural and political prioritization. Hundreds of millions of world's children also need an additional, inspirational, and visible developmental journey (besides small gadget fetishism and architecture) to nudge them towards the fields of engineering and science. Otherwise, we'll lose another talented generation to temptation of crime and gambling (financial sector), murder (exotic next-gen weapons sector), and professional lying/snake oil sales (marketing).

The mission summary

We currently have good satellites circling Mars to find the perfect landing spot. It should be within a flat geological depression to provide protection against the winds (and corresponding abrasion from blowing sand). The area of course would be at the optimal climate point and hopefully have diversity of minerals to augment the sent equipment. The landing spot must first see an arrival of a number of robotic supply landing modules (each sent twice-thrice to prevent mission delay from loss of one). This means that when the human team actually lands, they will be within short walking/driving distance of 10-20 supply/building material sheds. Economies of scale (and corresponding resource cost reduction) should be definitely utilized when manufacturing the landing craft. Some materials within the sheds can perhaps also be constructed with a degree of dual use functioning in mind (so if 2 food farm craft blow up on entry, the transport equipment could serve as farming equipment at the cost of reducing scientific scouting missions).

Explosives, cutting tools should be provided to create an additional protective crater which would serve as a sort of a large "basement" for the hardened small biodome vegetable garden to feed the explorers. A fission reactor would be essential as an energy backbone of the operation and of course be supplemented by solar. The fission reactor module should have track attachments so it can be moved where desired. The same tracks can be utilized to bring the other landed modules closer to the home base. The earth and rock from the basement crater are to be utilized as bricks to build a protective wall around the biodome/research lab.

The manned mission should involve at least 2-3 manned vehicles to continue the mission in case 1 is tragically lost and to expand the settlement in the best case scenario of each robotic module arriving safely. The settlement itself utilizes the maximum amount of nano-infused cutting edge hardened materials to reduce wind and environmental damage. This would provide the base the longevity to serve as a ready to use nucleus for additional future missions and expansions. The mission design would provide tools to prepare and make use of potentially unusual quantities of accumulating sand in the area (to further fortify the base). Mission strategists will conceptualize ways to turn any major crisis into an opportunity for augmentation. We can't forget about robotic helpers toiling on the surface and reducing the caloric/oxygen burn of their human companions.

The mission itself will end up looking not just like a beefed up version of the lunar mission but a major leap (no pun intended) forward, quantitatively and qualitatively. A uniquely 21st century global enterprise.

Addressing stupid objections:

I would like to start with a quote about the benefits of the space program:

"It has been conservatively estimated by U.S. space experts that for every dollar the U.S. spends on Research and Development in the US Space Program, it receives $7 back in the form of corporate and personal income taxes from increased jobs and economic growth."

I have seen estimates that put the number even higher. This means that even within the current parasitic monetarist price system, engaging in space exploration holds tangible financial, technological, social, and scientific rewards (as well as less tangible psychological and spiritual ones).

"But what about all the infrastructural development we need to do on earth!!?? Waahhhh!! Lets take care of this first!!"

Shut up. Obviously we need to develop energy, water, food, transport, and shelter infrastructure but at the same time the space program provides a solid way and reason to push the boundaries of known engineering. Here is another quote from a previous article about how the public may respond to anything that benefits them in the long term:

""But.. but.. Colonizing the Western hemisphere is too expensive!! Colonizing Siberia is too expensive!! Erie canal is too expensive!! Suez and Panama canals are too expensive! Transcontinental and TransSiberian railroads are too expensive! Hoover dam is too expensive!! Man on the moon is too expensive! We want to live in cheap mud huts! Public education for all is too.. blah blah blah"

Such luddite human traitors always get silenced when their children are enjoying a brand new civilization (that grew out of seeds that turned out to be relatively cheap in the long term).""

Indeed. We have 7 billion monkeys on this planet and we can expand our efforts in parallel like never before. Think about how much infrastructure was built in 20th century compared to the 19th. That's right. The 21st century can do the same to the 20th. We can colonize the moon and Mars, terraform large swaths of the Earth to support life and agriculture, and integrate all of this with fast transport and energy feeds.

The spine of the Eurasian center of planetary political force for the foreseeable future (Berlin-Moscow-Beijing axis) has an excellent opportunity coming up to scoop up thousands of Anglo scientists. Decline of the Wall Street-City of London-Washington DC power triangle poses a danger. Many next generation weapons and space scientists will soon find themselves out on the street and losing valuable skills and experience. Eurasia should scoop them up and make use of their talents to expand humanity's reach towards the stars.


"The cost!!! What's the cost in fiat currency!!!??? This will ruin us all!!"

Once again, shut up. The amount of fiat money borrowed and printed to engage in years long occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq could have built a space lunar settlement, a helium 3 mining complex, AND sent half a dozen missions to Mars. The cost of initial cruise missile blasts against Libya was enough for a solid scientific exploration satellite cluster. People complaining about the cost of space exploration tend to be either physiologically emotional types without any knack/admiration for engineering and science OR rabid free market zealots without any knack for what human progress actually means.

Technology, technology, and more macro level technology. Space exploration is the technological tip of the spear when it comes to macro level tech development (macro level tech development has been stagnating ever since inflationary fiat capitalism ran out of steam in the late 1960s).

Who will be the Christopher Columbus of the 21st century? Which international cluster of societies will produce one? Let's find out.

Future of American Space Exploration

Macro level technological improvement as a whole has stagnated, not just NASA. America's decline from the peak of industrial capitalism in 1970s only partially explains current state of the space program. 



The 40th anniversary of the moon landing brings to attention the general macro level technological stagnation that occurred in the West since the 1970s. Lack of further human expansion in deep space corresponds neatly to the lack of new mega projects in United States as well as other economically powerful nations. American government didn't just give up on building lunar bases and ISS type docking platforms in the 70s and 80s when technology more than allowed for it. It also gave up on attempts at provision of mass affordable housing (through utilization of best conceptual design research and recommendations), further exploration of increasingly cheap and speedy transcontinental travel, new mega canal/highway/rail/tunnel/bridge systems as well as concentrated effort to make use of the earth's oceans for national and global betterment. The national GDP since the 1950s ( when United States emulated the autobahn with the Interstate highway Act of 1956) has risen exponentially whereas the will to engage in grand projects increasingly stagnated.

Media outlets like to say that continued space expansion became too expensive and superfluous since Soviet Union's abandonment of its lunar program. How would they explain abandonment of major efforts to make supersonic travel safe and widely used or to link up NATO space with high speed rail networks? Of course there are ready explanations from structural economic perspectives. Soviets passed their industrial economic peak in the 60s while the American civilizational peak (with similar subsequent decline) was in the early 1970s. That explanation would also explain the physical inability to construct impressively at home towards the end of the 20th century. Medium Western powers such as England, Germany, and France all saw stagnation in the 1970s after the heady days of postwar consumer driven booms.

This tangible explanation does not explain the loss of creative will among world's governments. The ancient desire towards national greatness (that China so readily demonstrates these days) has left the West along with ambitions of lunar settlements. Western oligarchs and adventurous playboys did not adequately follow their nationalist predecessors in quests for glory. It was enough for them to do money speculation in a personal playground that is the globalizing world.

Sure, they emulated the previous tycoons in terms of support of militarism and financially parasitic existence (from 1870s to 1950s) but not as much in terms of daring stunts. The decades since the 1970s did not really see the equivalents of Howard Hughes ( basis for Scorsese's The Aviator), Thomas Edison, or Andrew Carnegie. Only militarism and mass financial manipulation on a global scale remained after some cosmetic modification.

We didn't see Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, or George Soros trying to develop affordable flying transport, trying to get support to turn world's deserts into new farmland, or similar efforts towards awe inspiring historical milestones. Such construction was delegated to the needs of corporate shareholders and governments under ceaseless ideologically free market pressure. The trend continued even after the maximum income tax on the rich went from 70-80% in the 1950s-1960s to 35% today. American government had less resources to spend by not taxing the rich sufficiently and the rich themselves became less willing to engage in tangible glory seeking construction and development.

To be fair, United States has a lot of restrictions on private development and exploration of space. The government was also not proactive in encouraging private competitions towards technological milestones through awarding prizes. Only half a century after first manned flights did we start hearing about things like the Ansari X Prize (and even then from private pockets) to stimulate development of cheap private vehicles capable of reaching the orbit. The tax payer funded awards mostly went towards less inspiring new weapon systems. The sheer material benefits that space exploration spin off technology gives to humanity are undeniable. Thus, lack of sufficiently concentrated state effort to develop new ways for humans to get around and live (or actively encourage private development) is an irresponsible betrayal of national interest.

It will take major competition from non-western nations and public national humiliations to get political elites to exert themselves again. The days of economic tycoons are not over and as long as capitalism remains there will be cowboy trailblazers in various parts of the world. We've seen the recent rapid construction of artificial resort islands in Dubai, the scores of skyscrapers in Asia that overshadow the Sears Towers, and some Russian oligarchs actively thinking of space tourism to compliment their industrial empires. Besides billing American astronauts over 50 million dollars per ticket to space when the shuttle is retired, the Russian Space Agency is actively thinking of salvaging its parts of the International Space Station to make a new space platform as well as actively collaborating with Europe and China. The technologically advanced South Korea has recently completed their first spaceport. Beijing for it's part, besides having the national excitement and pride in its space program, also has followed George Bush in terms of stating desire to mine the lunar surface for valuable Helium 3 (which is much more plentiful on the moon than earth). Perhaps a profit motive (or an illusion of one) is just what is needed. The looming prospect of not having access to space for years without Russian support doesn't seem to be nudging United States any.

Things are coming together in such a way that a new leap into space is imminent even amidst a severe international crisis in market capitalism. The tangible material benefits are endless. For example there is potential for hundreds of megabytes per second satellite based broadband, new building materials and transportation methods, and popular psychological uplift that humanity is moving ahead instead of stagnating. Western societies need competitive shock treatment and severe humiliations first in order for movement in the right direction to start happening. Then maybe we can start also seeing actual mass improvements on the ground as well as in space. All it takes is to tax the top earners as they were after World War 1 and WW 2, transfer material funds from the military to NASA, and prod the public into contributing meaningfully with substantial incentives.