China and Robert Zubrin

I believe it was Donna Shirley who said, "He dreams away the technical
issues."

Do you believe that in situ fuel production is possible on Mars?

Do we need a nuclear rocket to send humans there?

What is the largest object we could send there without developing new
technology?

Henry Spencer wrote:
Martha H Adams wrote:
Would someone please outline for me, as a serious piece of information
that I might use seriously, what problems people are having with
Zubrin? I have read some of his work and I felt positive about what I
saw there. If I'm unrealistic, I'd like to know about it.

The problems mostly come under two headings.

First, he tends to fall in love with his ideas to the point that he
ignores, or casually dismisses, alternatives and practical snags. Always
check with somebody else about the detailed engineering. Donna Shirley
(who headed the engineering team for the Sojourner rover) on Zubrin: "He
dreams away the technical issues."

He is amenable to being corrected on that, though.
You need to engage constructively though.

My paper on Mars rovers from the first Mars Society conference
was exactly such a correction; I ran into some stuff in the
book The Case for Mars which seemed wrong, bothered Bob about it,
and finally wrote the paper to lay out the case in more detail
and more formally. I then went on to a bunch of other points
I had been fiddling with, but that's how it started.

Second, a large fraction of the time, Zubrin gives the impression that
Mars is the only interesting or important place in the Solar System, and a
lot of people just don't agree with that. Indeed, some think that an
intense focus on getting to Mars is a disastrous strategic mistake, all
too likely to lead to a repetition of the post-Apollo collapse.

Bob's counter to that is that done right, the Mars missions should
have more internal impetus for ongoing exploration than Apollo did.
And one of his original arguments is that Mars is the interesting
place in the solar system that is most accessable to and amenable
to human exploration and eventual colonization, and that a cautious
program to settle 'space' in general thus misses the low-hanging
fruit of a Mars program. Mars is also a sexy mission target in
a way that asteroid missions, deep space colonies, and the Moon
return concepts aren't.

I see both sides; you could easily end up with a Flags and Footprints
Mars Direct, or spend forever fiddling with exploring the rest of
the solar system cautiously and never get focus on sending people
to Mars to do that planet right. A lot of this is philisophical.
We know there are some bad things which could happen, but we don't
know what the best way is. All the approaches have possible bad
outcomes.


-george william herbert

(Martha H Adams) wrote in message ...
Would someone please outline for me, as a serious piece of information
that I might use seriously, what problems people are having with
Zubrin? I have read some of his work and I felt positive about what I
saw there. If I'm unrealistic, I'd like to know about it. Pointers
to publically accessible published material would be helpful.


Well, Martha, Zubrin has enemies, some he created himself, others
don't like his focus on Mars and will discredit him in anyway they
can. This is usenet and if you believe half of what is written here
you will believe anything.

When Scott worked for Zubrin they got into a major heated argument.
It seems Scott felt we should leaving the Yugoslavians to the killing
off of each other... That is to say Scott seemed to think those who
died deserved genocide at the hands of their fellow countrymen.
Zubrin felt we should send troops in. In the end we did sent troops
in. But, not till some horrible genocide happened. Scooter here
brought a gun to work and mentioned this to folks there...this was
when he was working for Zubrin and during this heated battle over
genocide... I think he either figured it was time to quit or was asked
to leave... Was this Zubrin creating an enemy or a nut case working
for a reasonable person? I've heard both. Scott still has good
friends at Pioneer so I don't know which is right or if maybe it isn't
some shade of gray.

I've worked remotely (email, etc) with Robert and I have had hard
times and easy times with him. He has a napoleonistic streak a mile
wide and has a hot temper and yes he dreams a few problems away...not
all...and there are those around him who bring him back to
wakefulness. Hate makes people say many hurtful and nutty things.

And an aside: on the concept of a single mission to Mars being Flags
and Footprints...I would say 1.5 to 2 years on the surface of another
planet is not F&F! It may leave no useful infrastructure, but it
seems not to matter here whether current infrastructure is retained.
So I see this all as a red herring for those who would advocate some
other mission (i.e. return to Luna, L-1, NEO or what have you)...

--Chris Vancil

And an aside: on the concept of a single mission to Mars being Flags
and Footprints...I would say 1.5 to 2 years on the surface of another
planet is not F&F! It may leave no useful infrastructure, but it
seems not to matter here whether current infrastructure is retained.
So I see this all as a red herring for those who would advocate some
other mission (i.e. return to Luna, L-1, NEO or what have you)...

--Chris Vancil

I think a Moon mission, not necessarily a Moon Base per se would make an
excellent preliminary for the manned exploration of Mars. A mission to Mars can
only be launched every two years, while the launch window to the Moon is open
constantly. Its been a while since the last Apollo mission, and we need to
redevelop the tools required to get to the Moon so they can be used on trips to
Mars.

There is another factor involved. The Moon has been done before, Mars has not,
they naysayers will tend to overestimate the difficulty of getting to Mars
because they really don't think we should be spending money on it. The
naysayers might object to a moon mission, but the can't say it will cost 200
billion dollars or come up with some other technical reasons why we should not
go because it has already been done before. The hardware necessary to
establishing a manned presence on the Moon also goes a long way towards
achieving the capabiltiy of sending men to Mars.

When Scott worked for Zubrin they got into a major heated argument.
It seems Scott felt we should leaving the Yugoslavians to the killing
off of each other... That is to say Scott seemed to think those who
died deserved genocide at the hands of their fellow countrymen.
Zubrin felt we should send troops in.

Of course Von Braun wouldn't have given a damn, he designed a manned ICBM with
a suicide pilot onboard to guide a dirty bomb toward New York City during World
War II. My respect for that scientist has gone way down since I live in the New
York area and I detest suicide bomber fanatics. That Von Braun should stoop so
low as to use a religious manic in his weapons designs... I'm sure Von Braun
wouldn't have volunteered to pilot his own missile to his own destruction.

Tom

CL Vancil wrote:
(Martha H Adams) wrote in message ...

Would someone please outline for me, as a serious piece of information
that I might use seriously, what problems people are having with
Zubrin? I have read some of his work and I felt positive about what I
saw there. If I'm unrealistic, I'd like to know about it. Pointers
to publically accessible published material would be helpful.



Well, Martha, Zubrin has enemies, some he created himself, others
don't like his focus on Mars and will discredit him in anyway they
can. This is usenet and if you believe half of what is written here
you will believe anything.

When Scott worked for Zubrin they got into a major heated argument.
It seems Scott felt we should leaving the Yugoslavians to the killing
off of each other... That is to say Scott seemed to think those who
died deserved genocide at the hands of their fellow countrymen.
Zubrin felt we should send troops in. In the end we did sent troops
in. But, not till some horrible genocide happened. Scooter here
brought a gun to work and mentioned this to folks there...this was
when he was working for Zubrin and during this heated battle over
genocide... I think he either figured it was time to quit or was asked
to leave... Was this Zubrin creating an enemy or a nut case working
for a reasonable person?

Scott? Are you talking about Scott Lowther?

--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

CL Vancil wrote:

And an aside: on the concept of a single mission to Mars being Flags
and Footprints...I would say 1.5 to 2 years on the surface of another
planet is not F&F! It may leave no useful infrastructure, but it
seems not to matter here whether current infrastructure is retained.
So I see this all as a red herring for those who would advocate some
other mission (i.e. return to Luna, L-1, NEO or what have you)...

--Chris Vancil

I also hope and believe 1.5 to 2 years on another planet is not fantasy
and fiction. The chief arguments for 1.5 to 2 years on mars are
proximity and available in-situ resources.

If you are spending 1.5 to 2 years on Mars plus a 7 month trip out and a
7 month return trip that is three years off earth. Which I think is
possible. If asteroids have usable in situ resources, 3 years on a near
earth asteroid is also a possibility.



--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

George William Herbert wrote:
Henry Spencer wrote:

First, he tends to fall in love with his ideas to the point that he
ignores, or casually dismisses, alternatives and practical snags. Always
check with somebody else about the detailed engineering. Donna Shirley
(who headed the engineering team for the Sojourner rover) on Zubrin: "He
dreams away the technical issues."

. . . I ran into some stuff in the
book The Case for Mars which seemed wrong, bothered Bob about it,
and finally wrote the paper to lay out the case in more detail
and more formally. I then went on to a bunch of other points
I had been fiddling with, but that's how it started.

George, could you go into more specifics? Shirley's statement "He dreams
away the technical issues" is very vague. And your "I ran into some
stuff . . . which seemed wrong" also leaves me wondering.

I seem to recall some sci.space.policy regulars deriding the notion of
tethering the hab to a spent booster and spinning them like a bolo to
provide artificial gravity. Is this one of the technical problems Zubrin
dreams away? What's wrong with the bolo?

And any other specific technical problems Zubrin doesn't address would
be of interest to me. Like Martha, I see positive things in Zubrin's
work and would like to know if I've been misled.

In particular I very much like Zubrin's philosophy of using in-situ
resources to reduce mission requirements. I think this philosophy may
also be applicable to other missions than Martian.


--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

In article , Hop David wrote:

George, could you go into more specifics? Shirley's statement "He dreams
away the technical issues" is very vague. And your "I ran into some
stuff . . . which seemed wrong" also leaves me wondering.

I seem to recall some sci.space.policy regulars deriding the notion of
tethering the hab to a spent booster and spinning them like a bolo to
provide artificial gravity. Is this one of the technical problems Zubrin
dreams away? What's wrong with the bolo?

Nothing's wrong with it, really; a first-year mechanics undergrad can
tell you pretty much what you need to make it work. But this means you
have to develop an effective system to separate the booster and the hab,
work out how to connect them in a structurally sound manner, design this
in such a way that the mission isn't compromised if it glitches, find a
strong, light, survivable material to make the cable from, ensure that
there isn't going to be weird precession effects, test the system, find
a way to ensure foolproof separation at the other end, come up with a
way to despin the hab and make sure the separation doesn't adversely
impact the entry profile (which, at a guess, it would seem to seriously
confuse), design the mission profile so recontact won't happen, analyse
the booster design so any effects from residual propellant outgassing
can be countered, make sure it won't explode after a few months (it's
been known...), build & qualify redundant cable-separation devices, work
out contingencies for how you recover from a cable break half an AU from
anywhere interesting... and a myriad of technical issues I can't even
think of at the moment.

None of these are insoluble; some could be done today, some are
contingent on the details of the hab and the booster, but all involve
time, money, effort and complexity. Every smart idea has a hundred
ramifications, and these *will* bulk up your project.

Zubrin mentions a lot of technical problems, and gives reasonable
solutions for most of them - I've seen a comment [1] that /Case For
Mars/ doesn't particularly solve problems, but manages to make them seem
soluble - but there are a *lot* of details that will come and hit you.
Zubrin does, at times, just steam ahead, brushing potential problems off
- look at the four pages or so CFM devotes to probably the largest
single problem, building a Saturn V-class booster. Yeah, it can be done;
his cost estimates may even be accurate. But that's an *immense*
project, probably the most tricky of the whole program, and to get the
impression it can be done as quickly or as easily as he implies is
wrong.

And any other specific technical problems Zubrin doesn't address would
be of interest to me. Like Martha, I see positive things in Zubrin's
work and would like to know if I've been misled.

I like CFM. I think he's got a good idea, and I do think it bears more
resemblance to how an eventual Mars program will go than von Braun's
ideas. But it's probably worth remembering that it's an outline; it
really doesn't address much of the metal-bending engineering problems.
The one part with solid work behind it, the ISRU testing, may yet be
completely knocked flat by Martian particulates, to pick a random
example.

Any single part of MD, as a plan, has untold reams of engineering
analysis that hasn't been written; to get the impression that it's a
done plan only needing NASA to say "let's go!" is to be misled :-)

In particular I very much like Zubrin's philosophy of using in-situ
resources to reduce mission requirements. I think this philosophy may
also be applicable to other missions than Martian.

It's probably easiest on Mars, however :-)

There might be interesting applications on Titan or Europa, but I
wouldn't see it as immediately useful for anywhere else - on the Moon,
you're going to need infrastructure to get at the ice/whatever, which
limits the benefits of it for a simple program.

--
-Andrew Gray

(Martha H Adams) :

Would someone please outline for me, as a serious piece of information
that I might use seriously, what problems people are having with
Zubrin? I have read some of his work and I felt positive about what I
saw there. If I'm unrealistic, I'd like to know about it. Pointers
to publically accessible published material would be helpful.

Thanks -- Martha Adams

I don't know him at all but an article he published in Analog magazine
probably shows the problem some people have with him and his logic. Basicly
in the article about life else in the universe he sets out a chain of logic
where each step has a high chance of probability (let's use 50% per step for
an easy example). By the end of the chain he has strung say eight steps each
that depend on the previous step to work in his favour. However, at the end
he does not act/treat his conculsions as the sum of probabilty 2^8 ie one
chance in 128, but rather acts and is it is still a 50% chance he is right.

So it it not that he is wrong in his conculsions that he rubs people wrong,
but because he assumes he is right before all the facts come in t know if he
is right or not.

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

Earl Colby Pottinger earlcp[at]idirect.com :

(Martha H Adams) :

Would someone please outline for me, as a serious piece of information
that I might use seriously, what problems people are having with
Zubrin? I have read some of his work and I felt positive about what I
saw there. If I'm unrealistic, I'd like to know about it. Pointers
to publically accessible published material would be helpful.

Thanks -- Martha Adams

I don't know him at all but an article he published in Analog magazine
probably shows the problem some people have with him and his logic.
Basicly
in the article about life else in the universe he sets out a chain of logic
where each step has a high chance of probability (let's use 50% per step
for
an easy example). By the end of the chain he has strung say eight steps
each
that depend on the previous step to work in his favour. However, at the
end
he does not act/treat his conculsions as the sum of probabilty 2^8 ie one
chance in 128, but rather acts and is it is still a 50% chance he is right.

So it it not that he is wrong in his conculsions that he rubs people wrong,
but because he assumes he is right before all the facts come in t know if
he
is right or not.

Boy, major brain fart in writting that one, let me try again.

I don't know him personally at all, but an article he recently published in
Analog magazine probably shows the type of problems some people have with him
and his logic.

Basicly in the article about intelligene life elsewhere in the universe he
sets out a chain of logic whereas each step has a high chance of probability
of being true (let's use 50% per step for an easy example). And by the end
of the chain he has strung, say eight steps each that depends on the previous
step to be right to work in his favour.

However, at the end article he does not act or treat his conculsions as if
they are the sum of probabilties of all the previous steps in ie... 2^8 or
one chance in 128 of happening, but instead acts as if it is still a 50%
chance that he is right.

So it not that he is sometimes wrong in his conculsions that rubs people
wrong, but rather because he assumes he is right before all the facts come in
to know if he is right or not.

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp