Robert Ehrlich wrote in message news:odA_a.95077$cF.29127@rwcrnsc53...

eyelessgame wrote:
[something you've already read if you're following this thread]

If one wants to understand another planet--the worst choice would be a
fixed base. Forgetting about the economics, feasibility. etc. a base
wuld allow one to explore mars to ones heart's content in a radius if 10
km from the base. Pretty boring after those years in transit.

Well, yes, a base isn't something to do till you've landed several
explorations first. But a base is important for staying on Mars
long-term -- you need a decent amount of shielding to live under if
you're going to stay for very long, and the easiest way to get
shielding over you is to dig. And we won't be going to Mars just for
exploration. Anyplace humans can go, humans will eventually want to
settle.

As for "10 km", keep in mind that humans are tool-using mammals. If
you're going to bring enough material to Mars to set up a base, bring
a truck -- a 1-ton two-person pressurized-cab methane-burning truck.
(Every expedition should bring a truck, including the first one.) You
should be able to rove 500 km at least.

Operating a truck is cheap. You can make all the fuel you want with
electricity, a small chemistry lab and pump, water, and carbon dioxide
-- electrolyze the water, store the oxygen, heat the hydrogen and the
CO2 together in the presence of palladium, making methane (and water),
repeat till your methane and oxygen tanks are full.

(You get the electricity either from a tiny nuclear plant -- like the
one we're using on Cassini -- or with large solar panels and patience.
Or, if we get lucky, from geothermal.)

Is it time to mention _The Case For Mars_ at this point?
http://tinyurl.com/k0s3 (takes you to Amazon)

eyelessgame