The Planetary Society Is Against Human Space Flight
Oh the Places We Won’t Go: Humans Will Settle Mars, and Nowhere Else, Lou Friedman
“Humans will become a multi-planet species by making it to Mars, but no farther. That is, they will never travel beyond Mars. Some find this to be negativean absolute statement of limits and thus of giving up. My job here is to prove the opposite: humans exploring the universe with nanotechnology robotics, bio-molecular engineering, and artificial intelligence is something that is exciting and positive, and is based on an optimistic view of the future. … Getting beyond Mars (with humans) is impossible – not just physically for the foreseeable future but also culturally forever.”
Keith’s note: Yet another defeatist, robots-instead-of-humans op ed – this time by a founder of the Planetary Society. Indeed, he’s afraid to even try. One quick look at the organization’s “Humans Orbiting Mars” plan shows that they have to kill the ISS and avoid sending humans back to the Moon so that they can *almost” land on Mars. If this organization has its way humans will never leave low Earth orbit again.
Friedman et al may be too afraid to try and go beyond Mars – back to the Moon – or elsewhere across the solar system – but there are many, many more people who relish the chance to do so.
– Planetary Society Does Not Want Humans on Mars, earlier post
– The Planetary Society Does Not Want “The Martian” To Happen, earlier post
– At Planetary Society: Its Do As I Say – Not As I Do, earlier post
– Planetary Society’s Mars Mission Takes Longer To Do Less, earlier post
– Planetary Society is Both For and Against Human Spaceflight, earlier post
Keith’s update: Lou Friedman posted a comment (comments section below). He chides me for not reflecting what his book says. DUH, Lou I never read the book. I never said that I had. I responded to your words as posted on the Scientific American website. If there is an “out of context” issue, Lou, then post your entire book online – otherwise, you wrote what you wrote. Don’t expect people to be mind readers about what you meant to say – or said somewhere else. Based on your words you are quite clearly a defeatist when it comes to the human exploration of the solar system – a stance that the Planetary Society echoes. Funny how you seek to distance yourself from Planetary Society yet your Twitter handle is @TpsLdf. Just a coincidence, I suppose.
This is absolutely silly. If the author’s assertions were true, I would have expected humans to stop taking vacations to “inhospitable” locations on earth by now. Watching the IMax movie should be just as good as taking an actual Antarctic cruise or climbing Mt. Everest according to the author’s reasoning. But clearly that is false. There really is no substitute for being there in person.
Having lived at Everest Base Camp for a month, I totally agree!
I miss those reports, Keith! The Greenland Mars research, too. And nowadays they could be 1080p!
The meek shall inherit the Earth. The bold will go to the stars.
I’m not sure why any reason to live beyond Mars, sunlight is pretty dim in them thar outlands.
-I’m not sure why any reason to live beyond Mars, sunlight is pretty dim in them thar outlands.-
So Mercury and Venus is not beyond Mars?
Obviously not further from the sun.
In terms of hohmann transfers, going from Mercury to outer planets is faster than going from Earth [or Mars].
Also from Mercury or Venus one has more launch windows to the outer worlds, including Mars.
I believe the more significant aspect of having settlements on Mars is to grow food, and this food can be exported beyond Mars.
Mars gravity allows SSTO spacecraft- unlike Earth, or if we had a Mars gravity well, getting into space would be almost a non problem.
Generally what is valuable or significant about Mars is that it is unlike Earth in many respects, which seems to something lost on people trying to convince themselves the Mars is like Earth.
Anyhow, Mercury is nearest planet to Earth, in terms of hohmann transfer travel times, and Mercury is the nearest planet to Mars in terms of hohmann transfers. And in terms of shortest hohmann transfers times, Venus and Mercury are the nearest.
Also when leaving Mercury one has a lot opportunities to do gravity assist with Venus and/or Earth if on way to Mars or beyond.
So if you wanted to go beyond Mars, after Mars exploration and later human settlements, one would then explore the poles of Mercury.
Without the Mars mania, one might even explore Mercury before exploring Mars. Or hohmann transfer from Earth to Mercury is 3 1/2 months, vs Mars being 8 months.
Though one doesn’t have to do a simple hohmann from Earth to Mars, and we sent spacecraft from Earth to Mars in 6 to 7 months. And hohmann with patched conic does not likewise significantly lower the trip time from Earth to Mercury.
Now the trip time of hohmann from Mercury to to Mars which is about 6 months, can likewise get reduction in travel time with hohmann and patched conic, so allowing the 6 months to be reduced to about 4 months.
Anyways Mercury has about same gravity well as Mars, so likewise, SSTO can quite easy in regards to Mercury.
But Mercury probably not very good for growing crops.
In terms of Mars another aspect which important is “Mars NEOs” or asteroids which cross Mars orbit or are near Mars orbit. Mars has twice the impact rate as Earth, therefore roughly Mars probably has twice as many near asteroids
as earth has. And probably far more dead comets than Earth’s NEO population has.
And in terms of outer small worlds, the asteroids of main belt and perhaps more significant than main belt would Jupiter’s Trojans, could be quite useful.
The problem with people who could imagine that Mars could the end of the line, is they actually think Mars is waste of time in terms of human settlements- but they fear that’s unpopular opinion [could get them fired].
Pretty cool discussion.
That’s my problem with it too. You’re sacrificing a lot of cheap energy and useful sunlight just so you can have a great view of a gas giant and its moons. Jupiter’s so far out that it’s questionable whether you could even use its sunlight to drive photosynthesis without mirrors concentrating it, and the mirrors would be huge. It’s even worse with Saturn and the ice giants.
Well you could use nuclear power. And Titan has a lot of Methane.
At Jupiter distance one gets 52 watts per square meter,
or 1248 watts per square meter per 24 hours.
Considering that Germany gets about an average of 2000 watts per day, I would argue that in orbit at Jupiter
distance solar energy is far more viable than Germany- which btw is called the solar capital of the world.
How could 1248 watts per square meter per 24 hour be better or more viable than solar energy in Germany which gets a higher average amount of solar flux per day?
It’s because it’s a constant source of sunlight, whereas in germany one gets most of the 2000 watts during 6 hours on average per day, and much less in winter, when one could want the energy, more.
So Germans need a constant source of electrical energy, and more important Germany industry needs a dependable source of electrical power.
Or electrical power is cheap compared to the loss one gets not having it, when you need it.
So winter or cloudy day, or simply the 18 hours other than the 6 hours, one would need electrical power.
Or to conserve electrical energy or use electrical energy wisely, one should the entire 24 hours for your electrical energy needs.
Or said differently if it was required to use only 6 hours day for electrical needs, means one has to have 4 times the electrical capacity as one would need if spread the power demand over 24 hours.
So in that sense only the 2000 watts equal 500 watts if
delivered over a 24 hour period- you can manage your energy needs, whereas were try to try use the 6 hours for 24 hours, you need to store the energy- which is expensive in terms added infrastructure, and expensive because there is the conversion losses of storing the energy.
Another factor is it’s fairly cheap to magnify sunlight, and if magnify to say 500 watts per meter, the solar panels are cooler than compared to 1000 watts and thereby more efficient.
So if magnify sunlight by 10, it’s more than 10 times better than Germany.
Thats why you have spacecraft nuclear power.
Mars is just a first step (or, a second, after having been on the moon.) Humans will be on Titan, some asteroids and maybe even on Europa and Enceladus! And then – we’ll leave this solar system …
Right now, don’t know if or when the US will get back to Low Earth Orbit.
Actually, I mostly agree with the author. I have spent years building what are at heart robots to fly deep space, and just getting _them_ to survive in that environment is damned hard. Everest is frankly a cakewalk in comparison. As my evolutionary biologist wife points out, humans are just too deeply tied to the exact vagaries of the Earth’s ecosystem to survive outside those parameters. You really have to start positing technology like Star Trek (post-TOS, anyway), where energy is abundant and the technology is magically infinitely reliable. Yes, humans might make forays to work or explore on small scales into the outer solar system, just as we do with deep sea exploration here on Earth. But self-sustaining colonies of 100s of thousands or more people will make little sense from an economic/energy standpoint.
Given the current pace of things, in a couple centuries it will almost certainly be easier to re-engineer the people to match the environment, or create new machine life that would actually consider space home. I have no problem with that. I’m not sure why exactly people get so hung up on it having to be specifically homo sapiens that leave the Earth. We (the readers), as homo sapiens, really don’t have any direct skin in this anyway since it won’t be in our lifetime.
It ultimately depends on how good the robots are and how much it costs future humanity to get into space. If it’s not as big of a deal for them and the robotics are good, they could try out living in space simply because they want to try it – and then colonies would emerge if said folks have enough numbers to actually create a self-sustaining population.
Whether that actually happens of course is an open guess. You brought up the undersea cities idea, which went nowhere in real life. Maybe it will seem the same way with space colonies in a few decades.
A novel by Ben Bova posits future VR as a way for earthbound denizens to experience Mars- or anyplace else, one imagines. (It’s Mars, Inc.) The novel also entertainingly shows several billionaires financing the first Mars landing. And given the disparate wealth in the world this isn’t so far-fetched.
Dear Keith,
I wish you had taken time to read the book instead of grabbing a quote here and there. Others who have read the book have concluded exactly the opposite of what you did — viz that my book is optimistic with a vision of unlimited human exploration: millenniums settling and evolving on Mars, and extending our presence in more advanced ways beyond Mars.Your description of it as “defeatist” or against human exploration is old-fashioned and unduly simplistic based on ideas about human space travel from 50 years ago.
Another correction to make is that whatever I write is not on behalf of The Planetary Society and does not represent their views.
Louis Friedman
I am responding to YOUR words as posted in this article. Did Scientific American make a mistake in what they posted? I do not have a copy of your book – so how could I be referring to it? Indeed, I never mentioned your book in the first place – just your words as posted at this URL http://www.scientificameric…
Based on the words on the screen that you wrote you are indeed a defeatist – a dedicated defeatist at that. As for the Planetary Society – Lou – you wrap yourself in that organization’s heritage whenever it suits you as a founder thereof.
I am happy with the Sci Am interview. Most people who read or watched it, stuck with whole thing and not just one sentence — and therefore understood it. Thanks for the kind comment about TPS heritage — I am proud of that. Of course heritage isn’t the same as policy.
Did you read even the words of yours that Scientific American has online? “Humans will become a multi-planet species by making it to Mars, but no farther. That is, they will never travel beyond Mars.” You say the same thing in the video – you explicitly say that humans will not go beyond Mars. Again, how defeatist of you.
I read the entire article before I saw your post, Keith, and must say that you are spot-on. I’m not clear on exactly why Dr. Friedman is dancing around the point.
“If there is an “out of context” issue, Lou, then post your entire book online – otherwise, you wrote what you wrote.”
I went and read it Mr. Friedman. I did not see anything to suggest you encourage human visits to any planet. If I am in error, let me know.
“Only by realizing our technological limits can we hope to realize a greater, more daring vision, of spreading our exploration and influence outward into the universe and onward into an unlimited future.”
I do not believe human settlement of the solar system, be it the asteroid belt, Titan or Ganymede is “Old-fashioned”. This sort of talk is supposed to lean the masses toward his buddies in planetary science and away from “the competition”. Carl Sagan would be rolling over in his grave with such talk.
There’s an awful lot of money out there. Maybe not now, but sooner than we might think.
Implying that in 100 years anyone won’t be able to synthesize their preferred grains of smart matter in their garage, wrap up in that material and go anywhere. Your totalitarian view of the future runs counter to the freedom that billions will enjoy in a post-scarcity economy — part of that being a freedom of movement unlike anything humanity has had before.
I agree Joshua! Finally, someone who can think outside of our earthly box.
With the looming prospect of a possible “Singularity” and computers that can make other computers with higher intelligence possibly without limit, the future is absolutely unfathomable at this stage. The human mind as it stands right now can not even imagine what a 10th, 20th, or 100th generation A.I. will think or be able to do. As Hawking & many others propose, we need to incorporate the coming A.I into our biology or we may very well be displaced as the dominant species on this planet & then we will probably not be going anywhere. Or maybe we will finally travel to the stars as pets of our robotic A.I. masters…
Life evolves, and if intelligence evolves beyond biological bodies we will only be superseded in the way that our biological children have always superseded us. Even if some of them are AIs we can still take pride in them as we would our biological descendants.
We still have a ways to go before artificial systems surpass biological ones; the human brain has 62 billion neurons and over a trillion synapses. That said, it is hard to see anything that will actually prevent the singularity. Will they be “human”? It’s just a matter of semantics.
Just to be clear about what Lou Friedman is saying in this article with words attributed to him – and how his affiliation with the Planetary Society is prominently mentioned.
Keith – You are a skilled writer. You know identification of me as Planetary Society co-founder does not mean “affiliation,” no more than does “former JPL Manager of Mars Program” identify me as JPL or NASA or Mars program. You have points to make, and should not have to use sloppy word-games to support them.
You are the one who is being sloppy Lou. You say that humans “will never travel beyond Mars” and then try to pretend that you did not say it. As for TPS, Lou, you ARE TPS.
Dr. Friedman’s points regarding his former JPL positions are easy to understand. We see for example Wayne Hale writing broadly and it’s understood he’s not writing for NASA.
But Louis Friedman and Carl Sagan are/were TPS. Period. Like it or not, the admirable Dr. Friedman can’t change this natural association; TPS lives in the glow of Dr. Friedman and Dr. Sagan and Dr. Murray; TPS has little independent clout outside the orbit of these fine leaders.
Dr. Friedman is an American treasure with an independent and hard-won reputation as a scientist and a scientific leader, one challenged by no one. For better or worse, though, and in these times, he is the face of TPS, and while I understand the need to separate his personal views from those of TPS for the good of the Society surely he recognizes the near impossibility of the task.
It’s like asking Mr. Obama for his private views.
I’m pretty skeptical of that claim Friedman’s making on a “centuries from now” basis. If we colonize space at all in recognizably human form over that time frame, it’s probably going to be into space habitats that have gotten incrementally better and bigger evolving out of the first space stations to attempt simulated rotational gravity. Unlike a Mars habitat, you can move a space habitat anywhere once you attach a power source and a low-thrust electric propulsion system to it (although I suspect most of them would stay in cislunar space so they could be in low-latency contact with Earth).
Also, still this anger about doing an orbital mission to Mars? I think it’s a good mission, even if they really should ditch some of the equipment so they can have better relay satellites and rovers on the surface. I can actually see that mission potentially happening within 10 years of the end of ISS, unlike a Mars landing mission.
Kim Stanley Robinson has been making this case, too; there’s a current essay over in BoingBoing. Something, though, just doesn’t ring true. It’s difficult to predict the future. If we could, we’d know that heavier than air flight isn’t possible and just stop trying to fly.
Late in the 19th famous scientists asserted that the big science questions had been solved. In the 1980s, some thought computers would never populate every desktop.
KSR and Dr. Friedman should know better.
I’m willing to give KSR the benefit of the doubt. “2312” is a pretty interesting novel with many, many ways to populate the solar system. Even the BoingBoing article points to asteroid settlement.
He has certain opinions about interstellar travel, and (no spoilers) treats it as more or less a death sentence in that novel. But he also has people *trying*.
Point taken. And I suppose you’ve read “2312”. He does indeed offer thoughtful and novel ways to live and move around the solar system.
His new novel-in-process, though, is back on earth, dealing with global warming.
Some feel driven to do something worthwhile in their lives. The definition of worthwhile being highly individual, of course.
I’ve been working on a reference book for more than five years, giving up weekends and nights, traveling the planet to publish a book in a field already filled with books. Why? Good damn question 🙂 Just driven to do it. And I suppose the climbers feel the same way.
Spaceflight is risky too, so if people are willing to risk climbing Everest (for arguably little benefit), surely the risk/benefit of manned spaceflight is worth it.
Thank you all for this discussion — that is the point of the book: provoke discussion and thinking about the future of human spacefight (which of course I very much support).
Hi Louis, I get what you are saying about robots, VR, etc and sadly for most of humanity, that will be their interface to human space exploration, in the same way that grainy black and white TV was the interface for Apollo 11.
But to simply say that humans will ‘never’ travel beyond Mars is where you and I would fundamentally disagree. I’m aware that the Planetary Society promotes robotic exploration of space, but in my view robots and humans should be able to work together, side by side, as a team. Robots can blaze the trail, and humans can follow. Humans can do far more than robots in many ways, but robots can do things humans can’t and go places where its not safe for humans to operate. That’s perfect for a team approach – not an approach that denies humans a chance to stand on other worlds. That is what will happen with Mars, and I think it will happen beyond Mars.
Take a stepping stone approach. What happens if we set up base facilities on Mars by the late 2030s that expand over time. Why not also set up spacecraft manufacturing (3D printers, nanotechnology, ISRU – all the approaches that will be available then) so that we can manufacture spacecraft on site and then launch them from Mars to Ceres. There is no reason that if we can locally manufacture spacecraft at Mars and launch them outwards that they could not carry crew. The Ceres ship lands – sets up a manufacturing facility (once again constructed by robots, nanotechnology and 3D printers using local resources), which then builds another spacecraft, as well as anything else needed for a permanent human outpost on Ceres. Once at Ceres, a human team could then build a spacecraft that could take them to Ganymede or Callisto – and the process begins again.
From an engineering or scientific perspective, is this impossible to do? If its not, then your thesis that humans will never go beyond Mars falls apart, because we can get humans to Ceres from Mars. Nor do we need to stop at Ceres.
To me a stepping stone approach is a logical one that allows human missions beyond Mars, but a quicker approach is if we invest into R&D into spacecraft technology that eliminates the need to rely on chemical rockets and gravity assist. I’m not talking warp drive but I am talking something which is a lot faster than traditional methods. Six months from Earth to Jupiter space, for example. In any case we are going to eventually need something more effective than rockets and gravity assist if we really want to settle Mars.
You say its impossible for humans to go beyond Mars – I say ‘lets work out how to make it happen’. I’m sure the Wright Brothers thought the same thing in 1903 in regards to heavier than air flight. Here we are a 112 years later…
I think its also important from a philosophical perspective to challenge your argument that human expansion across the Solar System beyond Mars is impossible. As you know, humans are explorers at heart, and I don’t think people will be ultimately satisfied remaining on one or two worlds indefinitely. One hundred years from now, people will still be asking ‘where do we go from here’ – we being humans, not machines. Not everyone gets to go, but as space technology improves, more will want to go, and our ability to support a greater off-planet population will increase, so more will go. By 2115 I’d certainly want to see hundreds or even thousands of people spread across the Solar System – not just stuck on Mars and on the Earth.
To me, the vision that I share is nicely summed up with the ‘Wanderers’ movie narrated by Carl Sagan (which I’m sure you’ve seen). That vision of humanity spreading throughout our solar system over the next one hundred years is far more exciting than sending robots – even very smart ones. The thought that one day, humans may be on a base on Titan, or exploring mountain ranges on Pluto, is what excites me about space travel. Being told that no one gets to go beyond Mars destroys the excitement and the inspiration.
My guess is we will need big changes in our economic and political system in order to go to Mars or colonize interplanetary space in a big way. Going beyond the inner solar system, or to the next star will take a very long time.
This might force the change one way or another.
https://ig.ft.com/sites/bus…
Not sure I agree with this. At some point the wealth available in minerals will be made available– how this happens is anybody’s guess. But it will, and there will be a rush that Johnny Horton will sing about.
If he could sing, that is. Being dead. But still.
I don’t see how our current system will work when automation, robots provide lower cost of production and with fewer and fewer people working, where will the demand come from? I guess this has implications for human spaceflight also when robots can effectively replace astronauts for hazardous activities, mining for instance. Martin Ford’s book below discusses the issue of automation and was chosen the top business book of 2015. It’s great if you can get lots of raw materials from space, but if there is no demand they wont be worth anything. I know its pretty dystopian, something will need to change to deal with it, hopefully in good way.
But … but … what about the gas station on Ceres? is that going to be fully automatic and robotically built? Humans go where are there resources… always have always will.. not optimistic, just the way the species has evolved over time.
It all depends on cost and value. If we can lower the cost of human spaceflight to a particular destination (LEO, Moon, Mars) enough that at least a few wealthy individuals can afford to pay their own way then the taxpayers can probably afford to send scientists and explorers as well. For the Moon, and certainly for Mars, this will require new technology. I am not sure it is worth >$1B tax dollars per person to put humans on Mars.
Regardless what your opinion about human space flight is, you have to accept there are hard physical limits in the universe beyond which humans can never “explore” in person, and that limit is infinitesimal compared to the size of the observable universe. What about the unobservable universe? What about the atomic universe which can’t even be observed directly and its existence can only be inferred in experiments through logic? Extrapolating past experience to predict the future is like driving a car by looking only at the rear view mirror. Similarly, our good run in sending humans to LEO and to the moon so far doesn’t mean we can keep going further and further into the deep space. I don’t know exactly where the boundary is, but it shouldn’t be very far.
I commented on the same issue in a story above – won’t repeat the whole thing I wrote. But I strongly and fundamentally disagree with everything Louis Friedman is saying in this piece. His vision of the human future in space is completely the opposite of mine. In short, my vision is for humanity to physically expand across our solar system over the next 100 years and to have set foot on, and ideally have a permanent human presence on, most of the Outer Planet major moons as well as major Kuiper Belt objects by 2115. At the same time, humans are investing into R&D to develop new propulsion and spacecraft technologies that will not only enable us to do travel across our solar system much more rapidly, safely and efficiently, but also enable us to begin taking our first steps to nearby solar systems, perhaps by 2215. That’s my vision of humanity as a true space-faring civilization. Mars is most definitely NOT the limit.
I agree we will explore the solar system but I don’t think we can do it with current technology. Beyond Mars we need nuclear energy and we have not even launched a reactor since the 60’s. Artificial intelligence is advancing rapidly and we should embrace it; AI may well exceed human performance within our lifetimes, and will allow us to explore far beyond the regions biological humans can travel.
A good summary of why I quit the Planetary Society years ago.