Pete Lynn wrote:
I think I have finally figured out what it is I do not like about
going
to mars - the flight rate. Its a CATS type problem.

In the time it takes for one mission to mars, you could probably go
through a couple of generations of earth/moon infrastructural
development. With the order of magnitude cost reductions this
probably
infers. I expect this developmental advantage would dominate.

You know, Pete, I think you just hit the nail on the head. People
almost always refer to the distance difference 'if something goes
wrong, earth is only 3 days away.' That doesn't convince anybody but
the ninnies--and the ninnies aren't going to the moon either anyway!

I've never heard a coherent, commonsense programmatic reason for going
to the moon first until now. Usually the argument is spread out among
so many possiblities that the Zubriacs (that's like a Deaniac for
Zubrin) can shoot them down with just as zany counterpoints. Some
examples I've seen:
1. moon firsters(moonies): We can refeul on the moon and then head to
Mars!
mars firsters(zubriacs): that makes zero sense from a delta v and
infrastructure perspective!
judge: zubriacs 1, moonies 0.
2. Moonies: We can test all our mars technology on the moon first!
Zubriacs: Only if you plan on spending your Mars stay on Phobos! Mars
has some air, a 24 hr day and water ice too!
judge: zubriacs 2, moonies 0
3. Moonies: If we break down we can launch back to earth in just 3
days!
Zubriacs: You're a big ninny! Try on one of your mother's skirts while
you're at it why dontcha lassie!
judge: zubriacs 2, moonies 1.
4. Moonies: We've been there before!
Zubriacs: Yeah, but we've been there already!
judge: tie. zubriacs 2, moonies 1.

That leaves the zubriacs still a bit ahead. This is the first argument
I've seen that ends the game. it's a full house.

Tom