Why We Shouldn't Go To Mars

Gregg Easterbrook is at it again.

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101...sterbrook.html

I wonder if this column is as error filled as his shuttle OpEds? (I haven't
read this one, yet).

Jon

"Jon Berndt" wrote in message news:400b547d$0$41120

Gregg Easterbrook is at it again.

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101...sterbrook.html

I wonder if this column is as error filled as his shuttle OpEds? (I
haven't
read this one, yet).

Jon

---

Error #1:

Easterbrook: "Rather than spend hundreds of billions of dollars to hurl tons
toward Mars using current technology, why not take a decade-or two decades,
or however much time is required-researching new launch systems and advanced
propulsion?"

GWB: "Our third goal is to return to the moon by 2020. ... With the
experience and knowledge gained on the moon, we will then be ready to take
the next steps of space exploration: human missions to Mars and to worlds
beyond." [some estimates put the hoped-for Mars mission around 2030 -- over
*two and a half decades away*]

Additionally, the Prometheus project is doing just such related research
today.

---

Easterbrook is absolutely *infamous* for not checking his facts before
publication -- and this is well-known and commented on publicly even by his
*friends*. It throws into question what this guy is basing his
pronouncements on. Are all "Brookings Scholars" this sloppy on such key
points?

---

Misleading statement:

Easterbrook: "And Mars as a destination for people makes absolutely no sense
with current technology."

This is true. Did anyone claim that we'd go to Mars in 2030 with 2004
technology?

---

Easterbrook: "Present systems for getting from Earth's surface to low-Earth
orbit are so fantastically expensive that merely launching the 1,000 tons or
so of spacecraft and equipment a Mars mission would require ..."

Where did he get his 1,000 tons figure? Does this sound right?

---

Easterbrook: "Space-exploration proponents deride as lack of vision the
mention of technical barriers or the insistence that needs on Earth come
first. Not so. The former is rationality, the latter the setting of
priorities."

The pittance that NASA receives compared to that of social programs is a
drop in the bucket. The priorities have already been set. If we want the
Mars part of the vision to be accomplished, it will require that
breakthroughs and cost reductions be made during the lunar phase, or else it
will be canceled before it starts. The cost figures cited by Easterbrook and
others are thus invalid.

---

Easterbrook: "The drive to explore is part of what makes us human, and
exploration of the past has led to unexpected glories. Dreams must be
tempered by realism, however. For the moment, going to Mars is hopelessly
unrealistic."

Did he not listen to the President?:

Bush: "Returning to the moon is an important step for our space program.
Establishing an extended human presence on the moon could vastly reduce the
costs of further space exploration, making possible ever more ambitious
missions. ... With the experience and knowledge gained on the moon, we will
then be ready to take the next steps of space exploration: human missions to
Mars and to worlds beyond."

---

Easterbrook: "... which calls for "reprogramming" some of NASA's present
budget into the Mars effort, might actually lead to a reduction in such
unmanned science-the one aspect of space exploration that's working really
well."

Did he not listen to the President?:

Bush: "Robotic missions will serve as trailblazers -- the advanced guard to
the unknown."

---

In article , Jon Berndt wrote:

Easterbrook: "Present systems for getting from Earth's surface to low-Earth
orbit are so fantastically expensive that merely launching the 1,000 tons or
so of spacecraft and equipment a Mars mission would require ..."

Where did he get his 1,000 tons figure? Does this sound right?

It's big, but not insanely so.

Mars Direct is specced for two HLV lanches per crew, or about 300t to
LEO. The Mars Reference Mission, for comparison, seems to want three per
crew plus additional hardware (eg, a common surface lab). It assumes
200t-to-LEO capacity, though; Mars Direct works on 140t.

The first Mars flight under the Reference Mission will take three
dedicated launches, plus a possible lab, but then there's also the next
two bits of hardware flying out as backups/staging for Ares 2.

So, depending on how generous you're being, anything from six to twelve
hundred tonnes to LEO there.

--
-Andrew Gray

Henry Spencer wrote:

In article ,
Andrew Gray wrote:
Easterbrook: "Present systems for getting from Earth's surface to low-Earth
orbit are so fantastically expensive that merely launching the 1,000 tons or
so of spacecraft and equipment a Mars mission would require ..."
Where did he get his 1,000 tons figure? Does this sound right?

It's big, but not insanely so.

Moreover, the more generous you are with mass to LEO, the easier it
becomes to design the vehicles that are going to Mars. It's very likely
that you could get substantial net savings on a modest program of Mars
expeditions by doubling the mass into LEO, despite the extra launch costs.
--
Unfortunately, mass minimization is virtually a religion at NASA. They
would never believe anything so heretical.


MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

(Henry Spencer) writes:

Moreover, the more generous you are with mass to LEO, the easier it
becomes to design the vehicles that are going to Mars. It's very likely
that you could get substantial net savings on a modest program of Mars
expeditions by doubling the mass into LEO, despite the extra launch costs.

Ah, but surely there is this wisdom "lauching mass is expensive, so we
have to save mass at all costs" getting in the way.


Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take
away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
om...
I thought this topic was about why we should NOT goto Mars?


Moon He3/3He is there for the taking, our wonderful GW Bush is super
terrific at such taking. For that alone I'll back the Moon or Bust
notions long before there'll be any sympathy for the likes of a frozen
and irradiated to death Mars.

He3 is not free power. Go do some homework.

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 21:51:35 -0600, "Jon Berndt"
wrote:

Gregg Easterbrook is at it again.

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101...sterbrook.html

I wonder if this column is as error filled as his shuttle OpEds? (I haven't
read this one, yet).


Don't know about errors, but there are things they disagree with.

Lewis and Clark were headed to a place amenable to life;
hundreds of thousands of people were already living there.

"Amenable" is no guarunteel of survival. Britain's early colonies
were not successful; there were many casualties. People still get
lost in the wild and killed today. Lewis and Clark could just have
easily been lost.

Lewis and Clark were certain to discover places and things of immediate value to the new nation.

Were they? Since when? How could they know in advance? Wasn't that
the point?

In fact, hadn't the Lousiana Purchase been ridiculed?

why not take a decade—or two decades, or however much time is required
—researching new launch systems and advanced propulsion? If new
launch systems could put weight into orbit affordably, and if advanced
propulsion could speed up that long, slow transit to Mars, then the
dream of stepping onto the Red Planet might become reality.
Mars will still be there when the technology is ready.

That's like saying Columbus shouldn't have made his voyage until
modern jets were available, or that Lewis and Clark shouldn't have
left until highways and jeeps had been built. You wait for the
'technology to be ready,' you could wait for hundreds of years, and
even then, I wager someone would still say, "But we have other
priorities." It's more of an excues not to go than anything else,
IMHO.

We HAD an engine to speed up the transit a little. It was called
NERVA, a nuclear thermal engine. It was in development thirty years
ago, and was dropped. We had a booster on the drawing board to get
really big payloads in space, called Nova; it was never built. And
thirty years later, we are wondering why we can't go to Mars.

Dreams must be tempered by realism, however. For the moment,
going to Mars is hopelessly unrealistic.

If not now, when?

If not us, who?

Oh, and I love the sidebar pole, "Would you volunteer for a one way
journey to Mars?" 53% say no; no doubt this will be bandied about as
proof most people oppose a mission to Mars!

Dick Morris writes:

Unfortunately, mass minimization is virtually a religion at NASA. They
would never believe anything so heretical.

The contractors that have actually build the stuff have become more agnostic
lately. Compare Atlas V and Delta IV with previous launchers.

Will McLean

January 21, 2004

McLean1382 wrote:

Dick Morris writes:

Unfortunately, mass minimization is virtually a religion at NASA. They
would never believe anything so heretical.

The contractors that have actually build the stuff have become more agnostic
lately. Compare Atlas V and Delta IV with previous launchers.

It is extremely difficult to compare the Delta IV medium to any previous
launcher. Being entirely hydrogen powered, it is an order of magnitude
improvement. It is one mass minimization step away from SSTO.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

McLean1382 wrote:

Dick Morris writes:

Unfortunately, mass minimization is virtually a religion at NASA. They
would never believe anything so heretical.

The contractors that have actually build the stuff have become more agnostic
lately. Compare Atlas V and Delta IV with previous launchers.

Led astray by those Air Force heathens no doubt.

Will McLean