what will be the first flag planted on mars be?

[razark]

This sounds more and more like a reason to not send any flags than anything else.  Didn't we get over the whole krakening contest/bragging rights thing when the Cold War ended?

[Bill Phil]

13 minutes ago, tater said:

How many 10s of billions of USD a year does the OOSA have to spend? Any dedicated effort would be NASA with some other flags added that are not actually needed. If the US taxpayer is footing the bill, there's only 1 acceptable flag. Say the mission costs 40 billion. That's just the current cost. The US has spent nearly half a trillion on NACA/NASA since inception (in constant dollars). If the US is involved, for me to consider any other flag acceptable, someone else needs to chip in a quarter of a trillion bucks---and I think I'm a typical taxpayer in that regard. That's not gonna happen.

Huh? I was just pointing out that there is a space related UN Office, as well as the possibility that it could happen.

12 minutes ago, razark said:

This sounds more and more like a reason to not send any flags than anything else.  Didn't we get over the whole krakening contest/bragging rights thing when the Cold War ended?

Go to a video on YouTube. Count how many "first" posts there are. It's the same thing... Except for planets. Flags are just "first" posts.

[The Yellow Dart]

The Earthican Flag, or "Ol' Freebie"

[tater]

Just saying that it's politically untenable for the US to spend a ton of cash to plant a UN flag someplace... not gonna happen.

[Bill Phil]

10 minutes ago, tater said:

Just saying that it's politically untenable for the US to spend a ton of cash to plant a UN flag someplace... not gonna happen.

Well if it's done through the UN, its flag should be the first,bit one  representing all of the contributing nations. And then the contributors would plant their flags.

They would be doing it to plant their flag, too.

[DECQ]

On 23.12.2015 at 11:05 AM, The Yellow Dart said:

The Earthican Flag, or "Ol' Freebie"

This flag reflect the dreams of Americans manage this world ??? Just fascist ideology ... As word about the exclusivity of one nation over others, Hitler also believed the Germans exceptional...

[r4pt0r]

15 minutes ago, DECQ said:

This flag reflect the dreams of Americans manage this world ??? Just fascist ideology ... As word about the exclusivity of one nation over others, Hitler also believed the Germans exceptional...

Sorry but I have to unironically defend Hitler here. In many cases he was right, Germany led the world many sciences and technologies then. He also rejuvenated a crippled economy and turned Germany into a world power again. For a time, Germany was the best place in Europe to live( provided you were not one of his targeted demographics).

 

That aside I see nothing wrong with patriotism and wanting your country to be the best, strongest, first to do something, ect.

 

National pride is important, and helps maintain a countries culture and identity.

Edited December 23, 2015 by r4pt0r

[Nibb31]

1 hour ago, tater said:

How many 10s of billions of USD a year does the OOSA have to spend? Any dedicated effort would be NASA with some other flags added that are not actually needed. If the US taxpayer is footing the bill, there's only 1 acceptable flag. Say the mission costs 40 billion. That's just the current cost. The US has spent nearly half a trillion on NACA/NASA since inception (in constant dollars). If the US is involved, for me to consider any other flag acceptable, someone else needs to chip in a quarter of a trillion bucks---and I think I'm a typical taxpayer in that regard. That's not gonna happen.

Fortunately, that's not how international cooperation works. If it did work that way, there would be no international cooperation.

You're not going to ask Japan, Russia, China, or France to chip in and then kick them out when it comes to planting your flag. Why should they contribute to a mission where the USA will reap all the benefits? The whole point of cooperation is to demonstrate friendship and unity, not kicking the rest of Humanity in the gonads.

If you're not prepared to share the glory, then don't ask other countries to participate.

When ESA launches Ariane, they have flags of all ESA member states on it, regardless of how much each country contributed. You don't put a huge French flag and a tiny UK flag based on funding levels, because that wouldn't be acceptable to the UK and they would probably just pull out. 

The biggest part of the ISS was contributed by NASA, but that doesn't mean that NASA gets to put huge US flags everywhere.

There are plenty of flags from all the countries that have participated. When Orion flies EM-1 and EM-2, there will be ESA member flags all over the Service Module...

So if it is an international effort, the only diplomatically acceptable thing to do is put up some sort of plaque, insignia, or banner with the flags of all the countries that participated in the project.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Nibb31

[DECQ]

On 23.12.2015 at 0:27 PM, r4pt0r said:

Sorry but I have to unironically defend Hitler here. In many cases he was right, Germany led the world many sciences and technologies then. He also rejuvenated a crippled economy and turned Germany into a world power again. For a time, Germany was the best place in Europe to live( provided you were not one of his targeted demographics).

 

That aside I see nothing wrong with patriotism and wanting your country to be the best, strongest, first to do something, ect.

 

National pride is important, and helps maintain a countries culture and identity.

Of course, with an exceptional nation Hitler killed 20 million citizens of my country "is now different republics" and wanted to wipe my nation. I have two great-grandfather died in the war because of the "exceptional one nation over the other" In Russia there is no person who would not have touched this war, this is now when I hear the words of another nation exclusivity ,to become foul, but Americans do not understand , I'm not against the Americans and their pride in the great powers, "I have friends among them," but it's overkill.Be modest, your message on the first page.

 

"Hope its old glory. I want to live to see a new era of American exceptionalism."

 

Although you do not understand, your landing in Normandy during sunset War virtually solves nothing, although we respect the Allied soldiers who gave their lives for the victory.

[r4pt0r]

I'm not defending the war, just saying Hitler was right in saying Germany was exceptional, especially mid 30's they led in many categories.

[WinkAllKerb'']

why not a big nuclear mushroom ... just as reminder why we are there and not here ... (heavy sarcasm & irony mode on/off)

 

this or a pic of the milky way, or a pic from hubble or whatever , next to a pic of a random monocellular entity ...

(almost remind me an old meme that granted me a ban, anyway anyway ,'''), or something like that:

to keep things to their respective scale. (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe )

Edited December 23, 2015 by WinkAllKerb''

[adsii1970]

On 12/22/2015 at 5:19 AM, worir4 said:

I hope that a flag will be planted that will simply say 'Humans were here' on top of an image of the Earth.

I hope by then we have moved beyond having pride in a coloured peace of cloth,

Then you misunderstand the purposes of flags. Flags, whether they be nations, corporations, or movements, represent the best intentions and desires of a group of people. The colored piece of cloth is, in all practical purposes, a totem, and becomes the embodiment of the desired social traits, heritage, and personality of the nation. It is an object that serves to identify a group of like people that share a common heritage, common societal traits, and common identity. It is, for all practical purposes, a version of totem poles used by Nordic peoples of Scandinavia and American Indians of the American/Canadian Pacific Northwest.

8 hours ago, Aser said:

I get where you're coming from, but I hope you are wrong. The reason being: I feel like that level of cooperation is quite a ways into the future, and I really hope it doesn't take humanity that long to reach Mars.

Unless another nation starts a large spending program within the next 1-5 years, I'm hopeful that Ole Glory will be the first human planted flag on mars.

If someone else were to get there first, I would support them 100%. Whoever does it first will have my full backing and enthusiasm.

I disagree. There are already companies that are looking to exploit the raw resources of asteroids - why? Because asteroids contain large quantities of iron ore, platinum, gold rare earth metals, and such that have an important industrial value. I remember Popular Science magazines in the 1970s predicted asteroid mining but stressed it would be done by national space agencies who would sell the raw materials to "eager" corporations who would buy them at a profit to be used to fund further space exploration.

Let's be honest, the government is not a creator of wealth but a destroyer and consumer of it. Mars colonization, in my opinion and based on the history of the exploration and settlement of the New World occurred because of an uneasy alliance between government entities and early business interests. Spain and Portugal used a system of purchasing a commission in which between 15 and 30 percent of revenues were given in exchange for the "right" to develop colonies. England/Great Britain, Holland, and France also used a similar concept with the exception that most governmental control - local colonial governance - was retained by the Crown. If Mars settlement is going to happen, it will probably follow a similar path. And yes, I can also see some nations desiring to use a Martian settlement as a penal colony as Great Britain used Australia and Georgia in the 18th and early 19th Centuries.

4 hours ago, tater said:

Just saying that it's politically untenable for the US to spend a ton of cash to plant a UN flag someplace... not gonna happen.

Nor should it. It would be akin to McDonald's creating the perfect hamburger and selling it in a Burger King wrapper...

4 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

Well if it's done through the UN, its flag should be the first,bit one  representing all of the contributing nations. And then the contributors would plant their flags.

They would be doing it to plant their flag, too.

Mankind will colonize space IN SPITE of the United Nations. This august body has failed in its purpose and is nothing more than a global money pit. Of every dollar it raises for fighting hunger and poverty in the Third World, statistical data shows that only 0.38 actually makes it to the intended recipients.

3 hours ago, r4pt0r said:

Sorry but I have to unironically defend Hitler here. In many cases he was right, Germany led the world many sciences and technologies then. He also rejuvenated a crippled economy and turned Germany into a world power again. For a time, Germany was the best place in Europe to live( provided you were not one of his targeted demographics).

That aside I see nothing wrong with patriotism and wanting your country to be the best, strongest, first to do something, ect.

National pride is important, and helps maintain a countries culture and identity.

German national pride of the 1930s was not the problem and national pride has never been the problem but the scapegoat that certain political ideologies claim led to the totalitarianism under Hitler. The problem is when you get a charismatic leader that develops a cult of personality, as Hitler did, devotion and following of the leader by the masses to the political figure ends up with the leader replacing the state. Germany and her people "became" Hitler not because of love of country, but because the love of country was replaced by worship of Hitler. We see the same thing happened in Italy and in Imperial Japan. It happened in Russia under Lenin and Stalin, and to some extent, within the United States under FDR and to some extent, under our current president.

The "cult of the leader" not only replaces the love of nation in many cases, but will allow the leader to take great liberties with their defined powers in which there is little push back from the citizenry. The leader becomes unfettered from tradition, transcends the normal national leadership model, and gradually becomes the focus of the affections of the population rather than the love of the nation and patriotism.

[r4pt0r]

12 minutes ago, adsii1970 said:

German national pride of the 1930s was not the problem and national pride has never been the problem but the scapegoat that certain political ideologies claim led to the totalitarianism under Hitler. The problem is when you get a charismatic leader that develops a cult of personality, as Hitler did, devotion and following of the leader by the masses to the political figure ends up with the leader replacing the state. Germany and her people "became" Hitler not because of love of country, but because the love of country was replaced by worship of Hitler. We see the same thing happened in Italy and in Imperial Japan. It happened in Russia under Lenin and Stalin, and to some extent, within the United States under FDR and to some extent, under our current president.

The "cult of the leader" not only replaces the love of nation in many cases, but will allow the leader to take great liberties with their defined powers in which there is little push back from the citizenry. The leader becomes unfettered from tradition, transcends the normal national leadership model, and gradually becomes the focus of the affections of the population rather than the love of the nation and patriotism.

Yes, excellent points. A tyrant, though popular and loved, would still be a tyrant. This has been true throughout all history. Your second paragraph explains it quite nicely, and for the sake of this interesting thread I will not comment führer further

As for the context of this thread, Planting the flag on mars would bring glory and honor to that persons home country, make that person a national hero there(and probably world-wide honestly), and there is nothing wrong with doing such great deeds to bring that glory to ones own country(Olympics anyone?).

I have to go listen to some Living Colour now, thank you very much  

 

Edited December 23, 2015 by r4pt0r

[Nibb31]

29 minutes ago, adsii1970 said:

Then you misunderstand the purposes of flags. Flags, whether they be nations, corporations, or movements, represent the best intentions and desires of a group of people. The colored piece of cloth is, in all practical purposes, a totem, and becomes the embodiment of the desired social traits, heritage, and personality of the nation. It is an object that serves to identify a group of like people that share a common heritage, common societal traits, and common identity. It is, for all practical purposes, a version of totem poles used by Nordic peoples of Scandinavia and American Indians of the American/Canadian Pacific Northwest.

...which pretty much illustrates the idea that flags are a remnant of our old tribal customs.

If anything, it symbolises the idea of "Us vs Them", trying to propagate the idea that "we" as a group are better or more worthy than other humans from some other group for the sole reason that we belong to this group. Separating humans into arbitrarian groups based on artificial concepts such as flags and borders or religion, has always been a tool for those in power to enforce that power over populations.

Quote

Let's be honest, the government is not a creator of wealth but a destroyer and consumer of it. Mars colonization, in my opinion and based on the history of the exploration and settlement of the New World occurred because of an uneasy alliance between government entities and early business interests. Spain and Portugal used a system of purchasing a commission in which between 15 and 30 percent of revenues were given in exchange for the "right" to develop colonies. England/Great Britain, Holland, and France also used a similar concept with the exception that most governmental control - local colonial governance - was retained by the Crown. If Mars settlement is going to happen, it will probably follow a similar path. And yes, I can also see some nations desiring to use a Martian settlement as a penal colony as Great Britain used Australia and Georgia in the 18th and early 19th Centuries.

 

Quote

Nor should it. It would be akin to McDonald's creating the perfect hamburger and selling it in a Burger King wrapper...

But... but... BK is so much tastier that McD's !

Quote

Mankind will colonize space IN SPITE of the United Nations. This august body has failed in its purpose and is nothing more than a global money pit. Of every dollar it raises for fighting hunger and poverty in the Third World, statistical data shows that only 0.38 actually makes it to the intended recipients.

It at least allows a tribune and a framework for diplomatic relations. It's not perfect, but I really don't think the World would be a better place without it.

Quote

German national pride of the 1930s was not the problem and national pride has never been the problem but the scapegoat that certain political ideologies claim led to the totalitarianism under Hitler.

"<X> are superior to <Y> because they are <X>! Rah, rah, long live <X>!" (replace <X> and <Y> with the über and unter nationalies/religions/political parties of your choice) is baseless propaganda, nothing more. 

Nationalism and patriotism were the main causes of WWI and were also used as a propaganda tool for WWII. in its soil was stronger in Europe than in America, which is why many Europeans are reluctant to wave flags and thump their chests about how great their country is. It's not necessarily because they don't feel pride, but nowadays, in many European countries, patriotism and nationalism are often associated with right-wing extremism. The trauma caused by two world wars and the suspicion that we have regarding blind patriotism is something that many of our American friends don't necessarily understand about European culture.

I don't see how the cult of a leader is any better or worse than love of the nation or any other subjective ideology. All of them allow atrocities when they are taken to extremes and all of them are detestable when they are an excuse to claim that those who don't share the same beliefs are lesser human beings.

<Disclaimer for the mods: This is not intended as a political rant, just as a cultural clarification. Please don't lock the thread>.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Nibb31

[tater]

ISS has no place to plant a flag. Mars will be a different story. On top of that, cooperation is less important than nationalism in such a project, honestly, because it is likely nationalism that would drive it (or it won't happen at all). Apollo was 100% nationalism. Any science gained was icing, the goal was beating the Soviets. It's arguable that a primary goal of ISS was keeping ex-Soviet rocket scientists occupied with peaceful activities instead of selling their services to would-be regional/global powers. Putting other flags on things is fine, like the Orion service module (should one ever appear).

If NASA were to get a budget bump to do Mars, the taxpayers would riot if the press conference showed some hippie flag being what our astronauts would plant on Mars. That's just reality.

[Nibb31]

ISS has plenty of flags all over it. But none of the partners goes "in your face" about taking all the credit because they contributed more than the others.

If it's an international effort, then the only diplomatically acceptable thing to do is to plant a banner representing all the countries that participated, similar to the ISS logo that I posted above. Otherwise, it would be interpreted as demeaning their participation. Do you think that a US astronaut stepping out of his European-built lander with a Russian space suit and a Chinese life-support system should plant a US flag with the Japanese and a Canadian astronauts standing behind him, and none of the participating countries should feel insulted?

If nationalism is the only drive for going to Mars, then their is no point if asking other countries to participate, therefore the question of which flag you plant is moot.

If you're not willing the share the glory, then don't ask others to share the effort.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Nibb31

[Apexazimuth]

I'm a fan of SpaceX but I have to strongly disagree with the idea that they will be planting their flag on any planetary body first.

SpaceX makes awesome rockets, but that's it.  There's a HUGE effort that must go into planning, training, preparation, and design of a mission that lands humans anywhere but earth. This is an effort that SpaceX hasn't even begun, but something NASA already has experince doing. Making a good vehicle is just half the battle. 

Unless SpaceX comes up with a few Billion USD in loose change, I think they'll continue making awesome rockets and leave the the epic mission planning of the first Manned Mars landing to the national space agencies of the world. Seems most likely that it will be NASA but I'd love to be surprised by JAXA, Roscosmos, CNSA, ISRO, or even a newcomer like UAE. Anything other than armed conflict that lights a fire under USA's ass and starts another space race is a good thing. 

[fredinno]

3 hours ago, adsii1970 said:

Then you misunderstand the purposes of flags. Flags, whether they be nations, corporations, or movements, represent the best intentions and desires of a group of people. The colored piece of cloth is, in all practical purposes, a totem, and becomes the embodiment of the desired social traits, heritage, and personality of the nation. It is an object that serves to identify a group of like people that share a common heritage, common societal traits, and common identity. It is, for all practical purposes, a version of totem poles used by Nordic peoples of Scandinavia and American Indians of the American/Canadian Pacific Northwest.

I disagree. There are already companies that are looking to exploit the raw resources of asteroids - why? Because asteroids contain large quantities of iron ore, platinum, gold rare earth metals, and such that have an important industrial value. I remember Popular Science magazines in the 1970s predicted asteroid mining but stressed it would be done by national space agencies who would sell the raw materials to "eager" corporations who would buy them at a profit to be used to fund further space exploration.

Let's be honest, the government is not a creator of wealth but a destroyer and consumer of it. Mars colonization, in my opinion and based on the history of the exploration and settlement of the New World occurred because of an uneasy alliance between government entities and early business interests. Spain and Portugal used a system of purchasing a commission in which between 15 and 30 percent of revenues were given in exchange for the "right" to develop colonies. England/Great Britain, Holland, and France also used a similar concept with the exception that most governmental control - local colonial governance - was retained by the Crown. If Mars settlement is going to happen, it will probably follow a similar path. And yes, I can also see some nations desiring to use a Martian settlement as a penal colony as Great Britain used Australia and Georgia in the 18th and early 19th Centuries.

Nor should it. It would be akin to McDonald's creating the perfect hamburger and selling it in a Burger King wrapper...

Mankind will colonize space IN SPITE of the United Nations. This august body has failed in its purpose and is nothing more than a global money pit. Of every dollar it raises for fighting hunger and poverty in the Third World, statistical data shows that only 0.38 actually makes it to the intended recipients.

German national pride of the 1930s was not the problem and national pride has never been the problem but the scapegoat that certain political ideologies claim led to the totalitarianism under Hitler. The problem is when you get a charismatic leader that develops a cult of personality, as Hitler did, devotion and following of the leader by the masses to the political figure ends up with the leader replacing the state. Germany and her people "became" Hitler not because of love of country, but because the love of country was replaced by worship of Hitler. We see the same thing happened in Italy and in Imperial Japan. It happened in Russia under Lenin and Stalin, and to some extent, within the United States under FDR and to some extent, under our current president.

The "cult of the leader" not only replaces the love of nation in many cases, but will allow the leader to take great liberties with their defined powers in which there is little push back from the citizenry. The leader becomes unfettered from tradition, transcends the normal national leadership model, and gradually becomes the focus of the affections of the population rather than the love of the nation and patriotism.

Guys, if you keep talking about Hitler, this thread will be locked.

[tater]

57 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

ISS has plenty of flags all over it. But none of the partners goes "in your face" about taking all the credit because they contributed more than the others.

If it's an international effort, then the only diplomatically acceptable thing to do is to plant a banner representing all the countries that participated, similar to the ISS logo that I posted above. Otherwise, it would be interpreted as demeaning their participation. Do you think that a US astronaut stepping out of his European-built lander with a Russian space suit and a Chinese life-support system should plant a US flag with the Japanese and a Canadian astronauts standing behind him, and none of the participating countries should feel insulted?

If nationalism is the only drive for going to Mars, then their is no point if asking other countries to participate, therefore the question of which flag you plant is moot.

If you're not willing the share the glory, then don't ask others to share the effort.

Nationalism is the likely drive to actually get increased funding to do it was my point, and that precludes other flags. It's all about the money, and the money is all from taxpayers.

Right now, the current NASA budget exceeds all other space programs on earth combined. NASA asking other countries to participate is not spreading the cost for projects in any meaningful way, it's charity (to the countries asked). The US didn't need to buy a robot arm from Canada, we were being nice and wanted to include them (very "canadian" of us, no?  ). Orion (I'm not a fan) could just as well have the US do the SM. Honestly, if we (the US taxpayers) were to spend many billions on Mars, I'd prefer that all the US tax dollars go to US contractors (like Apollo, it'd be a huge pork factory). I'm unsure why I'd want a manned lander built by people who've never built a manned lander before  .

I'm perfectly fine with an international mission architecture myself, but most taxpayers would be unhappy to find that the US ponied up substantially more than everyone else combined, and yet didn't get any credit for that, or that the first person out the door was from a country that contributed 1% of the effort. I don't see a NASA Mars mission with a Chinese life support system, and if the astronauts lucky enough to get invited for the sake of inclusion don't want to be insulted, their own countries could simply do the mission alone---that they were unwilling to spend the money is not my fault. There is no reason why an international Mars mission should not have the EU paying in just as much as the US does, for example, the total populations are not dissimilar. This sort of thing would require a 10 fold increase in the ESA budget I think. Is that tenable within EU politics? 

Edited December 23, 2015 by tater

[adsii1970]

2 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

If anything, it symbolises the idea of "Us vs Them", trying to propagate the idea that "we" as a group are better or more worthy than other humans from some other group for the sole reason that we belong to this group. Separating humans into arbitrarian groups based on artificial concepts such as flags and borders or religion, has always been a tool for those in power to enforce that power over populations.

It at least allows a tribune and a framework for diplomatic relations. It's not perfect, but I really don't think the World would be a better place without it.

"<X> are superior to <Y> because they are <X>! Rah, rah, long live <X>!" (replace <X> and <Y> with the über and unter nationalies/religions/political parties of your choice) is baseless propaganda, nothing more. 

Nationalism and patriotism were the main causes of WWI and were also used as a propaganda tool for WWII. in its soil was stronger in Europe than in America, which is why many Europeans are reluctant to wave flags and thump their chests about how great their country is. It's not necessarily because they don't feel pride, but nowadays, in many European countries, patriotism and nationalism are often associated with right-wing extremism. The trauma caused by two world wars and the suspicion that we have regarding blind patriotism is something that many of our American friends don't necessarily understand about European culture.

I don't see how the cult of a leader is any better or worse than love of the nation or any other subjective ideology. All of them allow atrocities when they are taken to extremes and all of them are detestable when they are an excuse to claim that those who don't share the same beliefs are lesser human beings.

<Disclaimer for the mods: This is not intended as a political rant, just as a cultural clarification. Please don't lock the thread>.

There will always be such divisions because it is a part of human nature. Instead of trying to change what human nature is by brute force, law, and regulation, as many modernist and post-nationalists do, it is necessary to understand what nationalism actually is, how to use its pliable nature (as it is never firmly affixed nor firm in its fullest and natural form), and how do direct its industry for the good of society rather than calling it a relic of our past. If we do rid the world of "nationality" as I understand that many of you here believe it can be done, then what next? Rid ourselves of professional sports or competition sports since they also create an "us verses them" mentality? What about the "specter" of religion? Should we banish all religions and declare humanist doctrines to replace them since religion also creates an "us verses them" mentality? As individuals, humankind will always seek out other individuals of a like mind and passion to join in union, fellowship, or whatever you prefer to call a tribal group.

The United Nations has failed in its original purpose. For every "success" claimed by the U.N., I can name off an equal and possibly greater number of failures. Many of the upper levels of management in the United Nations is paid well above what their fellow countrymen make. Do not give me the line about them having more responsibility or more knowledge, or more risk than anyone else. It is a scam that seeks to dominate global political affairs. It will be the cause, as it has been in the recent past, of more wars than what it has served to avoid. Rwanda, Uganda, Ethiopia, Tibet, Lebanon, Croatia, Serbia, the Christian slaughter by ISIS have all seen the U.N. remarkably quiet without any real desire or goal to become involved. Now mention the Kyoto Accords, the Paris Accords, governance of the Internet, all of which will heavily tax the Western and industrialized nations of the world, and the U.N. immediately takes up ownership of the cause and prepares the coffers for the new taxes and fines.

What drove World War I was the royal families of Prussia and Great Britain (the House of Windsor was originally the House of Hanover, a family with German lineage since King George I - long before WWI) were in constant competition for claims over the Benelux region. Both royal families sought to make various claims, then built up large militaries. While they did use nationalism to whip their societies into supporting the war, nationalism is simply one tool among many. What came next - the criminalization of opposition, the censorship of "harmful" speech, the excessive regulation of the media to promote the host nation (which are contrary to pure nationalism where one thinks of their nation as the best and do their best to not cause harm to it), and then the series of secret treaties made with nearly every other European nation (under the guise of the enemy of my enemy is my ally) is what led to war.  By the time of the assassination of Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand, all of Europe was divided between the House of Hanover or the House of Hohenstaufen. Again, this division was about two branches of Germanic nobility and had very little to do with nationalism.

The cult of the leader is more dangerous and is NOT nationalism. The cult of the leader allows the subject to overlook the leader's flaws where nationalism demands that leaders that fail the nation or fail the national standard be held accountable. The cult of the leader also causes fear within the opposition as they are deemed to be what's wrong with the nation, what's stopping progress, or any other thing the leader can sling at his/her opposition. Within U.S. history, nationalism led to the impeachment of Andrew Johnson. The American public rejected much of his political platform and theory; this empowered the Republican party to seek to oust him from the presidency. The cult of personality has been witnessed to some extend in four presidents: Grant, Wilson, FDR, and Obama. All four demonized their opposition, all four signed legislation that hampered free speech, and all four pressed beyond the bounds of their prescribed duties as president.

[saabstory88]

1 hour ago, Apexazimuth said:

I'm a fan of SpaceX but I have to strongly disagree with the idea that they will be planting their flag on any planetary body first.

SpaceX makes awesome rockets, but that's it.  There's a HUGE effort that must go into planning, training, preparation, and design of a mission that lands humans anywhere but earth. This is an effort that SpaceX hasn't even begun, but something NASA already has experince doing. Making a good vehicle is just half the battle. 

Unless SpaceX comes up with a few Billion USD in loose change, I think they'll continue making awesome rockets and leave the the epic mission planning of the first Manned Mars landing to the national space agencies of the world. Seems most likely that it will be NASA but I'd love to be surprised by JAXA, Roscosmos, CNSA, ISRO, or even a newcomer like UAE. Anything other than armed conflict that lights a fire under USA's ass and starts another space race is a good thing. 

If you think that SpaceX's mission is to just be a trucking service, you mis-understand both why the company was started, and how they operate. The currently operate the most profitable (by percentage, per launch) launch service you can get. Even with overhead, and zero reusability, they are cranking out boosters for $16 million a piece, and charging $60+ Million (usually more, per requirements) per launch. Do they take this profit and try to go public? No. They double down on staying privately held, and this is no mistake.

 

Listen to the words which come out of their investors mouths: “by the way, none of this money is coming back until we are on Mars. “ - Investor Richard Garriot.

 

Mars isn't a side project, it's the main focus. The Falcon vehicles exists to make money, not to enrich the owners, but to put in the bank for the massive expenditures which lie ahead. If you think Musk won't sink every last cent of his $12-13 Billion into making it work, you are mistaken, because it would not be the first time. This is not said as a Fan-Boy, I'm rooting for everyone, but you have to look at the players involved. 

 

• NASA: They have done this sort of thing before, but with much different circumstances. In this new environment, an agency which can't even commit to a project like the Exploration Upper Stage, of which every major component was developed 20 years ago, is not going to be actually building hardware in a timeframe where they can reasonably expect to be first. Whole new vehicles are going to be needed for a Mars mission, which have no previous analogue. Unless there is an unforeseen shift in the major political structure in the US, from pleasing constituents to actually accomplishing something, you are not going to see NASA there first. Nothing you will see on the SLS is new, not that this is a bad thing, but if you follow this program closely, you can see that the amount of inflexibility now present, would have doomed something like Apollo. Think about this as well, some good estimates of NASA's minimum number of SLS launches per mission is greater than 10, at a congressionally throttled flight rate of no more than 3 per year, which in reality will probably be closer to two. 
• ESA: They probably have a better chance of accomplishing this than NASA, due to the distributed, cooperative nature of the program. At least from the outside, they appear to have a much more productive space program for the money. They have been innovating in a lot of areas recently, especially in the realms of reusability and entry vehicles. And as a bonus, one countries shifting political landscape doesn't mean an end to a large overall goal, although procurement adjustments may have to be made. I'll give better odds to the organization which is actually trying to do things like establish a lunar research station. Their plans are flexible enough to allow for US, Russian, Private involvement, or any combination there of. They also have the advantage of their flexible range of launch service providers, both internal, and external, without congressional mandates to use certain hardware.
• ROSCOSMOS: The only way a Russian flag is going to be planted on Mars, is next to a European flag. They don't have the cashflow, and are much happier to piggyback on ESA lead projects. Take a look at their 2020 lunar exploration craft, it was only really given the go ahead after an ESA partnership. Russia benefits from ESA partnership by getting funding, and ESA benefits by their experience building all manner of practical space hardware, which they can adapt, and actually deliver. It might take a small shift in leadership within ESA, but a joint Russian/ESA mission to the red planet actually makes sense, even if their timeline is not significantly different than NASA's.
• SpaceX: A company who's founding reason was to transport things and people to the surface of Mars, with a founder who has proven he will sink every last dollar of his fortune, even when the odds look grim. Even if they are not the first to succeed in landing a human, and returning them to Earth, they will almost certainly be the ones who try first, and with vigor. Musk has no illusions he isn't going to have to sink Billions of his own money to trying to achieve this goal. He has gone from begging old Russian generals for refurbished missiles, to building the worlds most advanced space launch system from scratch in 15 years. To put this in perspective, Youtube is twice as old as the Falcon 9. In his first interview after they landed the worlds first useful flyback booster, for a paying customer, he reiterated that this puts them closer to Mars, and that is the primary purpose of SpaceX. 

Sorry to get so into the weeds. I'm not saying SpaceX will be the first to plant the flag (which will be American, see "USA! USA!" chants post RTLS), but they will be the first to try in earnest, and that is, without a doubt, the reason why the company exists. 

 

Edit: If you want more proof, follow their hiring page, because you will see jobs pop up there from time to time which indicate something much bigger than just developing commercial launch vehicles...

Edited December 23, 2015 by saabstory88
More info

[Nibb31]

I'm really itching to answer the above post, but I really can't without breaking the forum rules about politics and religion. So I'll reluctantly leave it there.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Nibb31

[Apexazimuth]

31 minutes ago, saabstory88 said:

If you think that SpaceX's mission is to just be a trucking service, you mis-understand both why the company was started, and how they operate. The currently operate the most profitable (by percentage, per launch) launch service you can get. Even with overhead, and zero reusability, they are cranking out boosters for $16 million a piece, and charging $60+ Million (usually more, per requirements) per launch. Do they take this profit and try to go public? No. They double down on staying privately held, and this is no mistake.

 

Listen to the words which come out of their investors mouths: “by the way, none of this money is coming back until we are on Mars. “ - Investor Richard Garriot.

 

Mars isn't a side project, it's the main focus. The Falcon vehicles exists to make money, not to enrich the owners, but to put in the bank for the massive expenditures which lie ahead. If you think Musk won't sink every last cent of his $12-13 Billion into making it work, you are mistaken, because it would not be the first time. This is not said as a Fan-Boy, I'm rooting for everyone, but you have to look at the players involved. 

 

• NASA: They have done this sort of thing before, but with much different circumstances. In this new environment, an agency which can't even commit to a project like the Exploration Upper Stage, of which every major component was developed 20 years ago, is not going to be actually building hardware in a timeframe where they can reasonably expect to be first. Whole new vehicles are going to be needed for a Mars mission, which have no previous analogue. Unless there is an unforeseen shift in the major political structure in the US, from pleasing constituents to actually accomplishing something, you are not going to see NASA there first. Nothing you will see on the SLS is new, not that this is a bad thing, but if you follow this program closely, you can see that the amount of inflexibility now present, would have doomed something like Apollo. Think about this as well, some good estimates of NASA's minimum number of SLS launches per mission is greater than 10, at a congressionally throttled flight rate of no more than 3 per year, which in reality will probably be closer to two. 
• ESA: They probably have a better chance of accomplishing this than NASA, due to the distributed, cooperative nature of the program. At least from the outside, they appear to have a much more productive space program for the money. They have been innovating in a lot of areas recently, especially in the realms of reusability and entry vehicles. And as a bonus, one countries shifting political landscape doesn't mean an end to a large overall goal, although procurement adjustments may have to be made. I'll give better odds to the organization which is actually trying to do things like establish a lunar research station. Their plans are flexible enough to allow for US, Russian, Private involvement, or any combination there of. They also have the advantage of their flexible range of launch service providers, both internal, and external, without congressional mandates to use certain hardware.
• ROSCOSMOS: The only way a Russian flag is going to be planted on Mars, is next to a European flag. They don't have the cashflow, and are much happier to piggyback on ESA lead projects. Take a look at their 2020 lunar exploration craft, it was only really given the go ahead after an ESA partnership. Russia benefits from ESA partnership by getting funding, and ESA benefits by their experience building all manner of practical space hardware, which they can adapt, and actually deliver. It might take a small shift in leadership within ESA, but a joint Russian/ESA mission to the red planet actually makes sense, even if their timeline is not significantly different than NASA's.
• SpaceX: A company who's founding reason was to transport things and people to the surface of Mars, with a founder who has proven he will sink every last dollar of his fortune, even when the odds look grim. Even if they are not the first to succeed in landing a human, and returning them to Earth, they will almost certainly be the ones who try first, and with vigor. Musk has no illusions he isn't going to have to sink Billions of his own money to trying to achieve this goal. He has gone from begging old Russian generals for refurbished missiles, to building the worlds most advanced space launch system from scratch in 15 years. To put this in perspective, Youtube is twice as old as the Falcon 9. In his first interview after they landed the worlds first useful flyback booster, for a paying customer, he reiterated that this puts them closer to Mars, and that is the primary purpose of SpaceX. 

Sorry to get so into the weeds. I'm not saying SpaceX will be the first to plant the flag (which will be American, see "USA! USA!" chants post RTLS), but they will be the first to try in earnest, and that is, without a doubt, the reason why the company exists. 

 

Edit: If you want more proof, follow their hiring page, because you will see jobs pop up there from time to time which indicate something much bigger than just developing commercial launch vehicles...

I have no doubt that if SpaceX continues being successful, they'll be doing expeditions to Mars and possibly beyond, I just don't think they'll do it first.

That said, I still have a good hunch that the first manned mission to Mars will involve SpaceX hardware, be it the Dragon capsule, the Falcon Heavy, or even just SpaceX's rocket engines.  The CH4/LOX based Raptor looks really promising both in performance and cost.  I can't wait to see that one in action.

On a different topic, I think there needs to be some policy change and/or political shift regarding nuclear power in space.  In order to make long term colonization of Mars economically feasible, we need to stop relying on conventional chemical rockets.  Plasma rockets (VASIMR, Nuclear Electric Rockets) show the most promise in terms of performance and efficiency, but in order to realize them for an interplanetary ferry ship, we need to be able to produce nuclear power in space.

On the other hand, if 3D printing technology, and ISRU techniques improve such that space travel, and colonization hardware can be produced on mars and/or in space, we may be able to continue using chemical rockets as long as we can find a way to collect and manufacture propellants somewhere other than Earth's surface. 

[saabstory88]

20 minutes ago, Apexazimuth said:

I have no doubt that if SpaceX continues being successful, they'll be doing expeditions to Mars and possibly beyond, I just don't think they'll do it first.

That said, I still have a good hunch that the first manned mission to Mars will involve SpaceX hardware, be it the Dragon capsule, the Falcon Heavy, or even just SpaceX's rocket engines.  The CH4/LOX based Raptor looks really promising both in performance and cost.  I can't wait to see that one in action.

On a different topic, I think there needs to be some policy change and/or political shift regarding nuclear power in space.  In order to make long term colonization of Mars economically feasible, we need to stop relying on conventional chemical rockets.  Plasma rockets (VASIMR, Nuclear Electric Rockets) show the most promise in terms of performance and efficiency, but in order to realize them for an interplanetary ferry ship, we need to be able to produce nuclear power in space.

On the other hand, if 3D printing technology, and ISRU techniques improve such that space travel, and colonization hardware can be produced on mars and/or in space, we may be able to continue using chemical rockets as long as we can find a way to collect and manufacture propellants somewhere other than Earth's surface. 

NASA isn't looking at a surface mission until 2035-2039. Despite the hype surrounding it, the Falcon Heavy really isn't designed to throw infrastructure around the solar system. It's maximum payload system weight rating is likely in the range of 25,000kg, despite the quoted performance figures. Yes, the booster can throw 58,000kg fully expendable, but I's be willing to bet money that we will never see a Falcon Heavy throw anything over the largest NRO payloads. 12,500kg dual sat GTO missions? All the time, but no super heavy NASA payloads. This is also just a hunch, but I'm pretty sure that if the Falcon Heavy is still flying in 2035, it's because Musk drops dead within the next few years. 

This would also be the only scenario in which SpaceX "Sells its engines". The DOD already floated using Merlins, or some related derivative (Merlin 2) to replace foreign sourced EELV engines during the Crimea crisis. SpaceX was not interested, despite development offers approaching the price tag of their whole CRS contract. Whether or not that is a good business decision, it's not the one that the current CEO will make. The Raptor is only going to see flight on SpaceX vehicles, and only ones which are bound for the red planet.

If a Mars mission was eminent from NASA within the next 5, maybe 10 years, then I would agree with you completely, but when dealing with a 20-25 year timeline, the equation is different. 

[Findthepin1]

Flag of Mars

or Earth

Edited December 23, 2015 by Findthepin1