China and Robert Zubrin

Excuse please but, I think Zubrin as well as yourself are basically
nuts.

Unfortunately our NASA, thus our NSA/DoD cult, has become a freaking
joke. This recent posting that I've offered has everything to do with
proper utilization of our moon, otherwise damn little to offer
Zubrin's Mars or Edwards ESE fiasco. This following post is also not
of my opinion that obtaining energy from the moon is out of the
question, as though it's certainly doable but, perhaps we should first
obtain a working LSE-CM/ISS.

"Robert Zubrin is full of it (again), Mars or bust"

Mars or bust is almost as bad off as those ESE or bust cults.

Like Dr. Robert Zubrin's variation upon conditional and/or skewed
physics, of our making a go of his Mars or bust campaign, I too agree
that it's entirely possible to place man, woman and beast on the Mars
surface. As cold and irradiated to death as it is, with a good deal of
technology, years worth of those deliveries plus "banked bone marrow"
and perhaps a trillion hard earned bucks (that's if nothing goes
horrifically wrong) is actually where this sort of adventure is going
to become possible.

Though years if not decades worth of R&D down the road, and of hiring
the likes of Arthur Andersen in order to further snooker the rest of
us village idiots into paying for all of it, it'll be another cold day
on Earth or perhaps Hell before any of that happens, least of all
within our lifetimes, and least yet for the survivors capable of
returning home. Since if they're not already irradiated dead there's a
fairly darn good chance that they'll be in the process of dying if not
infected with Mars microbe DNA and subsequent RNA that'll take Earth
by surprise.

Since the infinite wisdom of humans has been so far to advance the
onset of our very own global greenhouse, that plus the fact that Hell
isn't freezing over any time soon, time is simply not on our side,
especially if we're still looking for those WMD. So, even if we pony
up to the bar with those hundreds of billions, and devote decades into
this Mars or bust fiasco, having that much underway along with the
ongoing ESE fiasco and lo and behold, we're not only bankrupt but
still not on the moon, still unable as to obtaining those terrific
resolutions of truly fantastic VLA/SAR imaging, still unable as to
making those affordable and efficient pit stops at the LSE-CM/ISS
depot as to advert otherwise having to launch the required tonnage of
mission radiation shielding, nor do those folks returning from Mars as
survivors have a truly "safe house" for the duration of their lives as
situated on the moon.

Seems Dr. Zubrin offers no intentions of shedding truthful light upon
the overall investment budget, nor even a dim light upon the "what if"
factors, nor upon anything that's the least bit more doable at a
fraction of the cost with damn little chance of losing those
astronauts due to the extended and thereby extensive TBI dosages (not
to mention reentry crisping).

Speaking of said TBI dosages; Mars (because of it's distance from the
sun) receives far more cosmic impact per hour than our moon which
takes on a mere 6 mr/hr. Though the cosmic influx of even 12 mr/hr
seems rather manageable, that's hardly the case when those are
reportedly so energetic by a good 100 fold impact of creating
secondary radiation factors well above the typical solar influx of
rads/hr, of which those boosted solar deliveries such as the
October/November events can be detected in sufficient time in order to
alert those on the Mars surface to seeking cover sufficiently deep
underground, as otherwise that horrifically lethal solar influx is
nearly undefended by the zilch worth of Mars atmosphere (recalling
that there's also no Van Allen zone of death defending Mars).

This is clearly where the application of 3+ meters worth of Mars
density soil and rock may become sufficient for the short term of what
his mission to Mars may have to offer but, that's about it.
Unfortunately for mother Earth, we'll be stuck with at least 100 fold
the tonnage of artificially created and thereby artificially permanent
CO2 for our beloved greenhouse environment, that's 100 tonnes CO2 per
tonne of whatever is being sent off towards Mars. Now that's another
truthful investment budget that Dr. Zubrin is avoiding like the plague
(wonder why?).

In case you're another Borg morron idiot, I'm not referencing the mere
launch worth of CO2 creation, but inclusive of the associated industry
and enterprise of getting such things ready for launch, then looking
after such things once underway, as certainly providing an overall
accumulation of CO2 contributions that'll likely far exceed the 100
fold factor if one is being the least bit honest.

So, if I'm suggesting that there could be alternatives worth
considering, you'd be absolutely right, as in dead on in thinking that
I'm pushing for what's doable within existing technology, as well as
within a relatively short timeline, by what's far more affordable and
most capable of providing essential Earth sciences, upon what's been
needed for decades.

On the other hand, I'd fully support a rather significant Mars robotic
mission that's capable of putting on thousands of surface expedition
miles per year, as in year after year. Though even this task is more
than daunting with any respect to such a delivery, say a relatively
small 1 tonne machine, which is roughly not even 1% of what a manned
landing would entail.

Just in case some of the new-comers are a wee bit lost; All of this
lunar interest is in regard to my LSE (Lunar Space Elevator) and/or
GMDE (Guth Moon Dirt Express) depot, as a means/gateway to an end
(actually many ends): http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-01.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation-103.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/earth-moon-energy.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-sar.htm


lid (John Savard) wrote in message ...
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 02:54:43 +0000 (UTC), (Martha H
Adams) wrote, in part:

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 think his scheme is basically sound - or NASA wouldn't have taken it
seriously enough to use it in the Mars Reference Mission.

But here's an example of a problem I have with him from his book about
Mars Direct. He refers to worries about a plague from Mars as "simply
nuts".

It is true that many disease organisms have evolved complex life
cycles by interacting with their hosts. I think we can discount the
possibility of Martian malaria, or Martian AIDS being brought back as
categorically as did Dr. Zubrin. That kind of threat _is_ "simply
nuts".

However, new diseases start out as deadlier before they evolve into a
mode of living with their hosts.

What about Martian mold or Martian mildew - which sees the immune
systems of Earthly life as simply *irrelevant*, turning the Terran
biosphere into a nice mass of sticky orange goo?

And meteorites from Mars do not prove that this would have happened
long ago. Maybe SOME Martian life forms would have survived that
journey, but not ALL of them.

Otherwise, since meteorites from Earth have hit Mars, I suppose we
should expect to find lions and tigers and kangaroos there. In fact,
of course, even an amoeba wouldn't survive that journey.

Sure the probability is _very_ slim, less than winning the lottery.
However, given that the Earth is the only known home of intelligent
life in the Universe, the stakes are just a tad too far on the high
side to take any risk at all. (But, of course, that is _also_ an
argument for establishing a human colony on Mars - and, for that
matter, using lunar materials to do the L5 thing a la O'Neill - as
soon as possible.)

John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html

(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.

Thanks -- Martha Adams


Do not ever say "I never told you so".

I have no personal problem with the merits of technically challenging
agenda(s) created by folks such as Zubrin or even Edwards, as long as
they utilize their TAXABLE incomes as well the TAXABLE incomes of
millions of other folks intent upon persevering toward Mars or the ESE
fiasco.

If these folks have no better moral agenda, nor remorse towards
investing their TAXABLE incomes upon essentially a personal vendetta,
or at best upon risky hobby sports, such as either of these
individuals suggest as worthy things to be doing, then I have no
problem, only my advise that's obviously worth less than squat in
their eyes.

If on the other hand, to be impacting the entire world communities of
otherwise village idiots such as myself, and even impacting other nice
folks that are merely snookered fools, this is when I've drawn my line
of scrimmage, my DMZ of life as we know it putting a stop to the
insanity of it all.

There's got to be limits drawn from somewhere, even if those are the
sorts of limits that only I can think of, as even those sorts are
still worthy considerations that need to be addressed or else. The "or
else" part is my continued "I told you so" wrath upon the sorts of
Borgs so intent upon snookering the entire world no matters what, as
otherwise focused upon using up every conceivable resource of funding,
of energy and of human talents in spite of all the secondary CO2
contributions to our global warming greenhouse.

I'm no longer even sure the likes of Zubrin and Edwards are even on
our side, as Al Qaida could hardly accomplish as much global damage as
these two holier than thou idiots, as well as their Borg following
seem capable of achieving such intellectual as well as physical
carnage in one fell swoop. Perhaps if those of us on the short end of
the stick were Cathars, then the likes of Zubrin and Edwards could get
the support of the Pope.

If suggesting wild and crazy things is what makes life worth living,
in that case I've got lots to say about Venus.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/vl2-iss-02.htm
plus a few dozen other pages.

(TKalbfus) wrote in message ...
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?

All very good as well as spendy questions. I have my ideas but they're
not worth squat if you're focused upon Mars or bust.

1) situ fuel production is possible $$$$$$$$

2) nuclear rocket to send humans there is almost certain $$$$$$$$

3) largest object we could send there without developing new
technology is perhaps 1-t to the surface if we're damn lucky $$$$$$$$

Otherewise, here's a few other words of village idiot wisdom.

Unfortunately our NASA, thus our NSA/DoD cult, has become a freaking
joke. This recent posting that I've offered has everything to do with
proper utilization of our moon, otherwise damn little to offer
Zubrin's Mars or Edwards ESE fiasco. This following post is also not
of my opinion that obtaining energy from the moon is out of the
question, as though it's certainly doable but, perhaps we should first
obtain a working LSE-CM/ISS.

"Robert Zubrin is full of it (again), Mars or bust"

Mars or bust is almost as bad off as those ESE or bust cults.

Like Dr. Robert Zubrin's variation upon conditional and/or skewed
physics, of our making a go of his Mars or bust campaign, I too agree
that it's entirely possible to place man, woman and beast on the Mars
surface. As cold and irradiated to death as it is, with a good deal of
technology, years worth of those deliveries plus "banked bone marrow"
and perhaps a trillion hard earned bucks (that's if nothing goes
horrifically wrong) is actually where this sort of adventure is going
to become possible.

Though years if not decades worth of R&D down the road, and of hiring
the likes of Arthur Andersen in order to further snooker the rest of
us village idiots into paying for all of it, it'll be another cold day
on Earth or perhaps Hell before any of that happens, least of all
within our lifetimes, and least yet for the survivors capable of
returning home. Since if they're not already irradiated dead there's a
fairly darn good chance that they'll be in the process of dying if not
infected with Mars microbe DNA and subsequent RNA that'll take Earth
by surprise.

Since the infinite wisdom of humans has been so far to advance the
onset of our very own global greenhouse, that plus the fact that Hell
isn't freezing over any time soon, time is simply not on our side,
especially if we're still looking for those WMD. So, even if we pony
up to the bar with those hundreds of billions, and devote decades into
this Mars or bust fiasco, having that much underway along with the
ongoing ESE fiasco and lo and behold, we're not only bankrupt but
still not on the moon, still unable as to obtaining those terrific
resolutions of truly fantastic VLA/SAR imaging, still unable as to
making those affordable and efficient pit stops at the LSE-CM/ISS
depot as to advert otherwise having to launch the required tonnage of
mission radiation shielding, nor do those folks returning from Mars as
survivors have a truly "safe house" for the duration of their lives as
situated on the moon.

Seems Dr. Zubrin offers no intentions of shedding truthful light upon
the overall investment budget, nor even a dim light upon the "what if"
factors, nor upon anything that's the least bit more doable at a
fraction of the cost with damn little chance of losing those
astronauts due to the extended and thereby extensive TBI dosages (not
to mention reentry crisping).

Speaking of said TBI dosages; Mars (because of it's distance from the
sun) receives far more cosmic impact per hour than our moon which
takes on a mere 6 mr/hr. Though the cosmic influx of even 12 mr/hr
seems rather manageable, that's hardly the case when those are
reportedly so energetic by a good 100 fold impact of creating
secondary radiation factors well above the typical solar influx of
rads/hr, of which those boosted solar deliveries such as the
October/November events can be detected in sufficient time in order to
alert those on the Mars surface to seeking cover sufficiently deep
underground, as otherwise that horrifically lethal solar influx is
nearly undefended by the zilch worth of Mars atmosphere (recalling
that there's also no Van Allen zone of death defending Mars).

This is clearly where the application of 3+ meters worth of Mars
density soil and rock may become sufficient for the short term of what
his mission to Mars may have to offer but, that's about it.
Unfortunately for mother Earth, we'll be stuck with at least 100 fold
the tonnage of artificially created and thereby artificially permanent
CO2 for our beloved greenhouse environment, that's 100 tonnes CO2 per
tonne of whatever is being sent off towards Mars. Now that's another
truthful investment budget that Dr. Zubrin is avoiding like the plague
(wonder why?).

In case you're another Borg morron idiot, I'm not referencing the mere
launch worth of CO2 creation, but inclusive of the associated industry
and enterprise of getting such things ready for launch, then looking
after such things once underway, as certainly providing an overall
accumulation of CO2 contributions that'll likely far exceed the 100
fold factor if one is being the least bit honest.

So, if I'm suggesting that there could be alternatives worth
considering, you'd be absolutely right, as in dead on in thinking that
I'm pushing for what's doable within existing technology, as well as
within a relatively short timeline, by what's far more affordable and
most capable of providing essential Earth sciences, upon what's been
needed for decades.

On the other hand, I'd fully support a rather significant Mars robotic
mission that's capable of putting on thousands of surface expedition
miles per year, as in year after year. Though even this task is more
than daunting with any respect to such a delivery, say a relatively
small 1 tonne machine, which is roughly not even 1% of what a manned
landing would entail.

Just in case some of the new-comers are a wee bit lost; All of this
lunar interest is in regard to my LSE (Lunar Space Elevator) and/or
GMDE (Guth Moon Dirt Express) depot, as a means/gateway to an end
(actually many ends): http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-01.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation-103.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/earth-moon-energy.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-sar.htm

1) situ fuel production is possible $$$$$$$$

2) nuclear rocket to send humans there is almost certain $$$$$$$$

3) largest object we could send there without developing new
technology is perhaps 1-t to the surface if we're damn lucky $$$$$$$$


Its our money and we cna spend it however we like.
This recent posting that I've offered has everything to do with
proper utilization of our moon, otherwise damn little to offer
Zubrin's Mars or Edwards ESE fiasco.

That also costs $$$$$$$$$.

Now how about a vote: Should we spend $$$$$$$ on the Moon or Mars? Developing
economic resources of the Moon costs $$$$$$$$$$$$$$, while simply exploring the
Moon costs $$$$$$$. The same is true of Mars, but we don't know the return on
our investment until we spend $$$$$$$ to explore both places.

To live on the Moon, it costs $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, to live on Mars costs $$$$$$$$$.

Tom

TKalbfus wrote:

Now how about a vote: Should we spend $$$$$$$ on the Moon or Mars? Developing
economic resources of the Moon costs $$$$$$$$$$$$$$, while simply exploring the
Moon costs $$$$$$$.

This is my take on it: I think we should resume exploration of the moon first
because (arguments about in-situ use of CO2 aside) the moon is easier than
Mars. Travel times are a small fraction, and real-time remote control from
Earth is possible.

When it gets down to economic exploitation, here's my opinion: Right now, every
conceivable investor in existence is an Earthling. The resources of the moon
are sufficiently close by that their usage could have economic returns to the
Earthly economy. I think this is exceedingly less likely in the case of Mars.
The resources of Mars would be economical for use on Mars, but we can't argue
that the economic rationale for sending people to live on Mars is to serve the
markets resulting from all the people living on Mars because this presumes the
thing it's trying to establish.

--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We should ask, critically and with appeal to the numbers, whether the
best site for a growing advancing industrial society is Earth, the
Moon, Mars, some other planet, or somewhere else entirely.
Surprisingly, the answer will be inescapable - the best site is
"somewhere else entirely."

Gerard O'Neill - "The High Frontier"