On 16 Jan, 03:26, Quadibloc wrote:
On Jan 15, 12:34*pm, Ian Parker wrote:

A Mars trip without new technology is simply pie in the sky. Neither
Obama nor anyone else is remotely going to vote funds, recession or no
recession. This as I said is the cold hard truth.

You may well be absolutely right. But it is not certain that you are
right.

We seem at last to be discussing the really deep issues that lie at
the core of space. It is indeed not absolutely certain, few things
are. Certainly Mars is right at the bottom of Obama's priorities. Top,
of course, being banks and next the auto industry. I think the
questions we need to ask ourselves are these.

1) Would a manned expedition to Mars have real scientific value, or is
its justification in more humanistic terms?

2) Do we really benefit by taking on a "hard challenge" and meeting
that "hard challenge" in an expensive but pedestrian way.

3) Can we selectively advance key technologies and if so to what
extent?

"3" is in fact the most interesting. If to take a trivial example
Obama decided to invest in fiber optics certain consequences would
flow from that decision. It would give a boost to "swarm computing",
possibly even to AI. We can to a degree decide on the course of
tecnology.

You must expect, though, that "space advocates", particularly in the
U.S., will be in favor of going to Mars when it is possible, not when
it is easy. (Robert Zubrin's Mars Direct has already made going to
Mars - or at least coming back from Mars - a lot easier than it used
to be, lowering the cost of a mission to Mars and back practically to
that of a one-way mission.)

Waiting until it is easy means that the Chinese - or even Britain -
will end up getting there first. So it is advocated that the U.S.
should send someone to Mars while it is still the case that this is a
stupendous task *of which only the U.S. is capable*.

The Zubrin idea would indeed reduce the costs although not quite to
that of a one way mission. You still have to land your equipment for
converting Marian CO2 into methane. You STILL have the problem of
hydrogen. I think that Zubrin depends fundamentally on robotics.
Robots will have to make the first trips to Mars and set up equipment
for converting sunlight, ice and CO2 into methane and LOX. Actually
Zubrin would seem on the face of it to be a (partial at least)
vindication of my consistent position.

In fact what we need to get to Mars is the following. Get a heavy
spacecraft assembled at LEO. This would contain the neccessaries for
the production of methane. Use ion propulsion to get it in quadrature
with Mars. Land robots on Mars, and manufacture methane and LOX. You
now have a rocket which will get you to quadrature.

There are a number of alternatives here - Use Nerva engine to get you
to Quadrature-LMO-Quadrature. Only have the fuel to get you to LMO on
Mars. Would algae help to cut down on supplies?

As you can see there is a lot of work to be done on Mars BEFORE humans
come. This really is part and parcel of the hard trurths. In fact I do
not believe Zubrin to be feasible WIHOUT advances in robotics. His
chemistry is correct no problem with that.

But the heady Apollo days of Cold War showmanship are apparently past.
So they have a selling job on their hands.

There is indeed a selling job. Zubrin I think might be sold if it is
presented in the right terms. In my question "3" I asked about whether
technology ia advanced by challenges. Certainly Zubrin will tell us a
lot about the following.

1) Setting up a base on Mars with robotics.

2) Practical chemistry of solar power.

3) Algae?

If Zubrin can be set up so can a hydrogen economy here on Earth. In
fact I find it hard to put space and terrestrial technology in
separate compartments. They are not. Robots can set up our terrestrial
hydrogen economy. That is what is sold. Two fingers rampant to OPEC.

If you are asking, will humans go to Mars simple because it is there
to quote Mallory. Will $100 billion be voted for George Mallory I
think, particularly in the absece of a "Cold War" the answer has to be
"no".

I would hope that all this is done with all countries participating,
so to say China etc. even Britain will get to Mars first is really the
wrong way to look at it.


- Ian Parker