Mars first! The moon is a mistake.

We need to go to Mars first. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be going to
the moon, it has limited uses; but it is an mistake to think that we
should go to the moon first or that the moon is a stepping stone to Mars.

Lets compare the two destinations:

1) Every two years, when the launch window is right, it takes LESS energy
per unit mass to go to Mars than to go to the moon. If you have a moon
rocket, you have a Mars rocket.

2) We are carbon based life forms dependent upon water. The moon has very
little water and lunar carbon is thinly spread over a million times in
the lunar material. Lunar carbon is thus unusable. Carbon would need to
be imported to the moon, along with water. On the other hand, Mars has
frozen oceans and its atmosphere is carbon rich. All the benefits of
carbon and water chemistry is available on Mars, but not on the moon. It
is stupid for carbon based life forms made mostly of bags of water to try
and colonize a rock with no carbon and very little water.

3) The moon is a dead rock. Mars has had an active core and volcanic
activity, making the formation of various ores, like copper ores,
possible.

4) Mars can be terraformed. It may take hundreds or even a thousand
years, but it can be done. Not so with the moon.

5) Mars has all the raw materials needed to support human life and a
manufacturing base. Such a manufacturing base can be used to make
rockets. It cost about as much energy to send a rocket from the surface
of Mars to the surface of our moon as it does to send a rocket from
earth's surface to LEO. Mars is the gateway to the inner solar system.

6) Mars will add to the science of biology. Either Mars has had life or
something close, and either way, it would be of great scientific value to
study life on Mars. Mars also has a CO2 atmosphere, and we can advance or
understanding of climate change. Given the cost to the US of cap and
trade being in the trillions, a 100 billion or so to go to Mars to do
this science is a bargain.

So, we see that the place we want to go is to Mars, not the moon, If you
are going to have a space program at all, Mars should be its goal and
central focus.

While some people will focus on one issue, like saying that it's takes
less energy to go from L1 to Mars, what is the point of this? They
overlook that there is no material at all at L1.

Hipupchuck writes:

What we need is space explorers who want to [...] die in space [...]

That part is easy.

Dave

On May 17, 8:27*pm, David Spain wrote:
Hipupchuck writes:
What we need is space explorers who want to [...] die in space [...]

That part is easy.

Dave

Correct, as those one-way tickets are relatively dirt cheap.

~ BG

On May 17, 12:55*pm, Marvin the Martian wrote:
We need to go to Mars first. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be going to
the moon, it has limited uses; but it is an mistake to think that we
should go to the moon first or that the moon is a stepping stone to Mars.

Lets compare the two destinations:

1) Every two years, when the launch window is right, it takes LESS energy
per unit mass to go to Mars than to go to the moon. If you have a moon
rocket, you have a Mars rocket.

2) We are carbon based life forms dependent upon water. The moon has very
little water and lunar carbon is thinly spread over a million times in
the lunar material. Lunar carbon is thus unusable. Carbon would need to
be imported to the moon, along with water. On the other hand, Mars has
frozen oceans and its atmosphere is carbon rich. All the benefits of
carbon and water chemistry is available on Mars, but not on the moon. It
is stupid for carbon based life forms made mostly of bags of water to try
and colonize a rock with no carbon and very little water.

3) The moon is a dead rock. Mars has had an active core and volcanic
activity, making the formation of various ores, like copper ores,
possible.

4) Mars can be terraformed. It may take hundreds or even a thousand
years, but it can be done. Not so with the moon.

5) Mars has all the raw materials needed to support human life and a
manufacturing base. Such a manufacturing base can be used to make
rockets. It cost about as much energy to send a rocket from the surface
of Mars to the surface of our moon as it does to send a rocket from
earth's surface to LEO. Mars is the gateway to the inner solar system.

6) Mars will add to the science of biology. Either Mars has had life or
something close, and either way, it would be of great scientific value to
study life on Mars. Mars also has a CO2 atmosphere, and we can advance or
understanding of climate change. Given the cost to the US of cap and
trade being in the trillions, a 100 billion or so to go to Mars to do
this science is a bargain.

So, we see that the place we want to go is to Mars, not the moon, If you
are going to have a space program at all, Mars should be its goal and
central focus.

While some people will focus on one issue, like saying that it's takes
less energy to go from L1 to Mars, what is the point of this? They
overlook that there is no material at all at L1.

You just don't get it.

Take a brief sabbatical, and only return after having given this topic
another shot of common sense and concern for those of us too poor to
keep our homes, plus having to care for and feed our family as is.
Obviously yourself and others like William Mook and perhaps even Dr.
Zubrin have never had such responsibility, or any speck of concern or
remorse as for others that do.

~ BG

On May 18, 3:50*pm, Hipupchuck wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On May 17, 12:55 pm, Marvin the Martian wrote:
We need to go to Mars first. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be going to
the moon, it has limited uses; but it is an mistake to think that we
should go to the moon first or that the moon is a stepping stone to Mars.

Lets compare the two destinations:

1) Every two years, when the launch window is right, it takes LESS energy
per unit mass to go to Mars than to go to the moon. If you have a moon
rocket, you have a Mars rocket.

2) We are carbon based life forms dependent upon water. The moon has very
little water and lunar carbon is thinly spread over a million times in
the lunar material. Lunar carbon is thus unusable. Carbon would need to
be imported to the moon, along with water. On the other hand, Mars has
frozen oceans and its atmosphere is carbon rich. All the benefits of
carbon and water chemistry is available on Mars, but not on the moon. It
is stupid for carbon based life forms made mostly of bags of water to try
and colonize a rock with no carbon and very little water.

3) The moon is a dead rock. Mars has had an active core and volcanic
activity, making the formation of various ores, like copper ores,
possible.

4) Mars can be terraformed. It may take hundreds or even a thousand
years, but it can be done. Not so with the moon.

5) Mars has all the raw materials needed to support human life and a
manufacturing base. Such a manufacturing base can be used to make
rockets. It cost about as much energy to send a rocket from the surface
of Mars to the surface of our moon as it does to send a rocket from
earth's surface to LEO. Mars is the gateway to the inner solar system.

6) Mars will add to the science of biology. Either Mars has had life or
something close, and either way, it would be of great scientific value to
study life on Mars. Mars also has a CO2 atmosphere, and we can advance or
understanding of climate change. Given the cost to the US of cap and
trade being in the trillions, a 100 billion or so to go to Mars to do
this science is a bargain.

So, we see that the place we want to go is to Mars, not the moon, If you
are going to have a space program at all, Mars should be its goal and
central focus.

While some people will focus on one issue, like saying that it's takes
less energy to go from L1 to Mars, what is the point of this? They
overlook that there is no material at all at L1.

You just don't get it.

Take a brief sabbatical, and only return after having given this topic
another shot of common sense and concern for those of us too poor to
keep our homes, plus having to care for and feed our family as is.
Obviously yourself and others like William Mook and perhaps even Dr.
Zubrin have never had such responsibility, or any speck of concern or
remorse as for others that do.

*~ BG

An all out drive for space exploration would give you a job. Ever think
of that?

And the hundreds of billions per year that all-out effort would be
require, comes from where?

Of course, our resident money wizard William Mook (aka harrymook) is
currently nowhere to be found. Even Mook's email doesn't seem to
work, and his recent YouTube video methods of communicating his always
publicly affordable ideas, is in of itself chat and context
restrictive, and thereby hard to follow unless you accept everything
exactly as is.

http://www.mokindustries.com/
William Mook / Mok Energy / harrymook (35 videos)
http://mokindustries.fuzing.com/
http://tr.youtube.com/harrymook
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=...ok&view=videos

~ BG

"Hipupchuck" wrote in message
...
Where do you think the get it now? Just print it.

You know, when Brad Guth makes more sense than you, you've lost the debate.

Little hint: if that's all that was required, there would be no such thing
as taxes.





--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

On May 18, 6:44*pm, Hipupchuck wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On May 18, 3:50 pm, Hipupchuck wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On May 17, 12:55 pm, Marvin the Martian wrote:
We need to go to Mars first. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be going to
the moon, it has limited uses; but it is an mistake to think that we
should go to the moon first or that the moon is a stepping stone to Mars.
Lets compare the two destinations:
1) Every two years, when the launch window is right, it takes LESS energy
per unit mass to go to Mars than to go to the moon. If you have a moon
rocket, you have a Mars rocket.
2) We are carbon based life forms dependent upon water. The moon has very
little water and lunar carbon is thinly spread over a million times in
the lunar material. Lunar carbon is thus unusable. Carbon would need to
be imported to the moon, along with water. On the other hand, Mars has
frozen oceans and its atmosphere is carbon rich. All the benefits of
carbon and water chemistry is available on Mars, but not on the moon.. It
is stupid for carbon based life forms made mostly of bags of water to try
and colonize a rock with no carbon and very little water.
3) The moon is a dead rock. Mars has had an active core and volcanic
activity, making the formation of various ores, like copper ores,
possible.
4) Mars can be terraformed. It may take hundreds or even a thousand
years, but it can be done. Not so with the moon.
5) Mars has all the raw materials needed to support human life and a
manufacturing base. Such a manufacturing base can be used to make
rockets. It cost about as much energy to send a rocket from the surface
of Mars to the surface of our moon as it does to send a rocket from
earth's surface to LEO. Mars is the gateway to the inner solar system.
6) Mars will add to the science of biology. Either Mars has had life or
something close, and either way, it would be of great scientific value to
study life on Mars. Mars also has a CO2 atmosphere, and we can advance or
understanding of climate change. Given the cost to the US of cap and
trade being in the trillions, a 100 billion or so to go to Mars to do
this science is a bargain.
So, we see that the place we want to go is to Mars, not the moon, If you
are going to have a space program at all, Mars should be its goal and
central focus.
While some people will focus on one issue, like saying that it's takes
less energy to go from L1 to Mars, what is the point of this? They
overlook that there is no material at all at L1.
You just don't get it.
Take a brief sabbatical, and only return after having given this topic
another shot of common sense and concern for those of us too poor to
keep our homes, plus having to care for and feed our family as is.
Obviously yourself and others like William Mook and perhaps even Dr.
Zubrin have never had such responsibility, or any speck of concern or
remorse as for others that do.
*~ BG
An all out drive for space exploration would give you a job. Ever think
of that?

And the hundreds of billions per year that all-out effort would be
require, comes from where?

Of course, our resident money wizard William Mook (aka harrymook) is
currently nowhere to be found. *Even Mook's email doesn't seem to
work, and his recent YouTube video methods of communicating his always
publicly affordable ideas, is in of itself chat and context
restrictive, and thereby hard to follow unless you accept everything
exactly as is.

*http://www.mokindustries.com/
*William Mook */ Mok Energy / harrymook (35 videos)
*http://mokindustries.fuzing.com/
*http://tr.youtube.com/harrymook
*http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=...ok&view=videos

*~ BG

Where do you think the get it now? Just print it.

That's certainly what the republicans were doing, and now we're
bankrupt for the next decade. William Mook also prints as much loot
as it takes, so you must be right to use one credit card to pay off
the other credit card. It's also called kiting and otherwise referred
to as an SEC approved Ponzi Madoff investment sting.
~ BG

On Mon, 18 May 2009 15:23:17 -0700, BradGuth wrote:

You just don't get it.

Take a brief sabbatical, and only return after having given this topic
another shot of common sense and concern for those of us too poor to
keep our homes, plus having to care for and feed our family as is.
Obviously yourself and others like William Mook and perhaps even Dr.
Zubrin have never had such responsibility, or any speck of concern or
remorse as for others that do.

If you and others are too poor for Mars, you should be too poor for the
moon, and you should argue for no space program at all, not "Selene" or
L1 or some other inferior destination when compared to Mars.

According to the IRS, the poorest 50% of the people pay almost no taxes.
So, no one is asking the poor to pay for a moon or Mars program anyway.
Thus, this argument fails.

Personal attacks and hate noted, but disregarded.

If we have 3 trillion dollars to bail out big banks, big insurance, GM,
and other billionaires who screwed up; if we have trillions to spend on
solar energy frauds, wind energy frauds, converting food into SUV fuel
and other such programs; if we have trillions to spend on making mortgage
payments for people who bought more home than they could afford just so
we can maintain the high price of homes that was reached during the
housing bubble instead of letting the market correct; then we can spare
the 55 billion for Mars direct over a ten year period.

On Mon, 18 May 2009 17:41:01 -0700, BradGuth wrote:

On May 18, 3:50Â*pm, Hipupchuck wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On May 17, 12:55 pm, Marvin the Martian wrote:
We need to go to Mars first. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be
going to the moon, it has limited uses; but it is an mistake to
think that we should go to the moon first or that the moon is a
stepping stone to Mars.

Lets compare the two destinations:

1) Every two years, when the launch window is right, it takes LESS
energy per unit mass to go to Mars than to go to the moon. If you
have a moon rocket, you have a Mars rocket.

2) We are carbon based life forms dependent upon water. The moon has
very little water and lunar carbon is thinly spread over a million
times in the lunar material. Lunar carbon is thus unusable. Carbon
would need to be imported to the moon, along with water. On the
other hand, Mars has frozen oceans and its atmosphere is carbon
rich. All the benefits of carbon and water chemistry is available on
Mars, but not on the moon. It is stupid for carbon based life forms
made mostly of bags of water to try and colonize a rock with no
carbon and very little water.

3) The moon is a dead rock. Mars has had an active core and volcanic
activity, making the formation of various ores, like copper ores,
possible.

4) Mars can be terraformed. It may take hundreds or even a thousand
years, but it can be done. Not so with the moon.

5) Mars has all the raw materials needed to support human life and a
manufacturing base. Such a manufacturing base can be used to make
rockets. It cost about as much energy to send a rocket from the
surface of Mars to the surface of our moon as it does to send a
rocket from earth's surface to LEO. Mars is the gateway to the inner
solar system.

6) Mars will add to the science of biology. Either Mars has had life
or something close, and either way, it would be of great scientific
value to study life on Mars. Mars also has a CO2 atmosphere, and we
can advance or understanding of climate change. Given the cost to
the US of cap and trade being in the trillions, a 100 billion or so
to go to Mars to do this science is a bargain.

So, we see that the place we want to go is to Mars, not the moon, If
you are going to have a space program at all, Mars should be its
goal and central focus.

While some people will focus on one issue, like saying that it's
takes less energy to go from L1 to Mars, what is the point of this?
They overlook that there is no material at all at L1.

You just don't get it.

Take a brief sabbatical, and only return after having given this
topic another shot of common sense and concern for those of us too
poor to keep our homes, plus having to care for and feed our family
as is. Obviously yourself and others like William Mook and perhaps
even Dr. Zubrin have never had such responsibility, or any speck of
concern or remorse as for others that do.

Â*~ BG

An all out drive for space exploration would give you a job. Ever think
of that?

And the hundreds of billions per year that all-out effort would be
require, comes from where?

Since even the 90 day plan was 300 billion, and no one is advocating the
90 day plan, this is hyperbole.

personal attacks against someone flamed out of the newsgroup noted and
considered sociopathic

On Mon, 18 May 2009 21:59:06 -0400, Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) wrote:

"Hipupchuck" wrote in message
...
Where do you think the get it now? Just print it.

You know, when Brad Guth makes more sense than you, you've lost the
debate.

Little hint: if that's all that was required, there would be no such
thing as taxes.

Actually, there is a big involved process where we print these IOUs
called T-bills and sell them to banks and foreign interest. The Japanese
are our biggest debt holders, followed by the Chinese.

Both the Japanese and the Chinese have expressed concern over the US
financing itself with borrowed money. They say they may not buy more T-
bills. China is even looking to go away from American currency as a
standard, due to our irresponsible monetary policy; they are worried that
T-bills may lose value.

If there are no other buyers for the T-bills, then the Federal Reserve
itself buys the US debt. That is almost the same as just "printing
money".

It isn't such a senseless thing to suggest that the government may just
print the money. It has happened before in other countries. It is likely
to happen here if other countries lose faith in our T-bills and start to
dump them on the market.