Is Obama serious about Mars?

US President Obama has announced his space programme of a manned trip to Mars. Writer Gwynne Dyer is sceptical. We examine the arguments.

Headline: Obama's Martian odyssey more a charade?
Source: The Straits Times, 22/4/10
Writer: Gwynne Dyer

Quote1
In the real world, the United States is giving up on space, although it is trying hard to conceal its retreat.

Comment1
As in most essays, the conclusion is placed right up front. What is the argument for this conclusion?

Quote2
Last week, three Americans with a very special status -- they have all commanded missions to the Moon -- made their dismay public. In an open letter, Mr Neil Armstrong, the first human being to walk on the Moon, Mr Jim Lovell, commander of Apollo 13, and Mr Eugene Cernan, commander of Apollo 17, condemned President Barack Obama's plans for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Nasa) as the beginning of a "long downhill slide to mediocrity" for the US.

Comment2
These three persons are offered as authorities. They are astronauts, occupying a special niche in the US space programme. That does not give them an overview of the programme. This is a case of Argumentum ad Verecundiam -- appeal to false authority.

Quote3
The letter was timed to coincide with Mr Obama's visit to Cape Canaveral to defend his new policy, which abandons the goal of returning to the Moon by 2020, or indeed ever.

Comment3
If the new policy explicitly "abandons the goal of returning to the Moon by 2020", then the case is made that the US has given up on the Moon -- but not necessarily also the rest of space.

Quote4
Mr Obama insists that this sacrifice will allow the US to pursue a more ambitious goal, but his plan to send Americans to Mars by the late 2030s has the distinct political advantage of not needing really heavy investment while he is still in office -- even if he wins a second term. ...

Comment4
It is implied that the "political advantage" is the aim of the new policy. No proof is offered that this is so. It remains logically open for the "political advantage" to be just a byproduct of the new policy, and not its sinister aim.

Quote5
Those are indeed ambitious goals, and they would require heavy-lift rockets that do not yet exist. But the "vigorous new technology development" programme that might lead to those rockets will get only US$600m annually (the price of four F22 fighters) for the next five years, and actual work on building such rockets would probably not begin until 2015. ...

Comment5
At last we have an argument for the conclusion "give up on space" (GUOS). Here it is, formally presented:

P1: If (US$600m a year & work starts 2015), then (GUOS)
P2: (US$600m a year & work starts 2015)
C1: Hence, (GUOS)

This argument form is the valid Modus Ponens (If P then Q/P//hence Q). We take P2 as an empirically true fact. However, P1 is not intuitively true -- starting work in 2015 suggests a resumption of space exploration, not "giving up on space".

Quote6
[Meanwhile, the US] will essentially be a hitch-hiker on other countries' space programmes. Mr Obama suggests that this embarrassment will be avoided because private enterprise will come up with cheap and efficient "space taxis". ...

Comment6
The notion of "space taxis" changes the argument presented in Comment5:

P3: If (US$600m a year & work starts 2015 & space taxis), then (not-GUOS)
P4: (US$600m a year & work starts 2015 & space taxis)
C2: Hence, (not-GUOS)

This is a valid Modus Ponens. If P3 and P4 are true, then the conclusion must follow.

Quote7
No doubt they will get various vehicles up there. But if they can build something by 2020 that can lift as much as the ancient Shuttles into a comparable orbit, let along something bigger that can go higher, I will eat my hat. Space technology eats up capital almost as fast as weapons technology, and these entrepreneurs have no more than tens of billions at most.

Comment7
The "eat my hat" remark is a rhetorical device that rides on the valid Modus Tollens (If P then Q/not-Q//hence, not-P) argument form:

P5: If (lift Shuttles), then (eat hat)
P6: Not-(eat hat) [because impossible]
C3: Hence, not-(lift Shuttles)

Now for the real argument:

P7: If (lift Shuttles), then (cost more than tens of billions)
P8: Not-(cost more than tens of billions) [entrepreneurs don't have such wealth]
C4: Hence, not-(lift Shuttles)

Remember that (lift Shuttles) refers to the capacity of the "space taxis". So:

not-(lift Shuttles) = not-(space taxis)

This denies the truth of P4 in Comment6. The conclusion (not-GUOS) then cannot follow. GUOS remains possible.

Quote8
Does Mr Obama know this? Very probably, yes.

Comment8
The word "this" refers to "space taxis are not possible". This returns us to the argument in Comment5, which I reproduce here:

P1: If (US$600m a year & work starts 2015), then (GUOS)
P2: (US$600m a year & work starts 2015)
C1: Hence, (GUOS)

This argument goes only so far as to conclude GUOS. But there is a further claim (see Quote1) of "trying hard to conceal its retreat". No argument has yet been put forward to support this further claim.

Quote9
One suspects that he [Mr Obama] would actually be cutting Nasa's budget, not very slightly raising it, if its centre of gravity (and employment) were not in the swing state of Florida, where he cannot afford to lose any votes.

Comment9
Here is a hinted (it is not explicitly stated) argument for "trying hard to conceal its retreat". Here is a reasonable construction:

P9: If (tell truth), then (lose Florida votes)
P10: If (lose Florida votes), then (lose US elections) [because Florida is a swing state]
P11: Not-(lose US elections)
C5: Hence, not-(tell truth)

This is a Hypothetical Syllogism (If P then Q / If Q then R / Hence, If P then R) combined with a Modus Tollens. It is a valid argument form. The three premisses can be taken to be true. The argument is sound. We have a case for "trying hard to conceal its retreat".

Quote10
What is going on here is a charade.

Comment10
So we arrive at the final conclusion. The Martian odyssey programme is a charade.

That there is no real odyssey is argued for in Comment5, and repeated in Comment8. That there is a false front being put up is argued for in Comment9. The Martian odyssey programme is a charade.

END