Zubrin on about Mars again

On Feb 8, 5:55 pm, (Derek Lyons) wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:
Now thinks he is a economic whizz kid as well as a space cadet:
http://www.rollcall.com/news/32103-1.html

Wow, just *wow*. I didn't think it possible for him to be any more
loony.

Try working with/for him for a few years. After a while, nothing
surprises you.

On Feb 8, 8:34 pm, wrote:

Relative to the technical skills and costs of the 15th century it was
far harder to settle the American wilderness than it is for us to
settle the Martian wilderness in the 20th and 21st centuries.

That's so bizarre it's not even *wrong.*

I'm pretty sure Columbus was able to breath in the New World without
having to resort to a space suit.

This
was analyzed back in the 40s by vonBranu and Eriche when they were
debriefed in operation paperclip. Truman and Eisenhower classified
this report because they felt it would inspire the American public to
such an extent, that it would create an uncontrollable monster - and
America cannot afford doing that and fighting the Cold War.


Annnnnnnddddd..... that's nutty. von Braun didn't know doodly ****
about colonizing Mars in 1945. And damn near everything he came up
with prior to the Mariner missions to Mars was dead wrong, because the
atmosphere of Mars was vastly overestimated. And his Ferry Rocket, as
cool and downright spiffy as it was, is an engineering nighmare using
horrible engines and horrible propellants.



Zubrin always puts the cart before the horse;

No he doesn't he understands the technical requirements and how easily
they may be undertaken. Read vonBraun's Project Mars.

A nice mathematical treatise that gets the orbital dynamics right and
the landing at Mars dead fricken' wrong. And the economics are, sadly,
not even close.

Derek Lyons wrote:
Zubrin always puts the cart before the horse; he wants people to go to
Mars, so he is constantly trying to find some economic or philosophical
reason for that to happen,


And that fetish for Grand Themes is a great deal of what keeps him and
his ilk grounded.


We must save the trees.
That is mission #1!
They never do say in "Silent Running" where exactly all the Earth's
oxygen is coming from once the planet has been completely deforested.

Pat

wrote:
Try working with/for him for a few years. After a while, nothing
surprises you.


I take it you found yourself in that "lucky" position?

Pat

wrote:
On Feb 8, 8:34 pm, wrote:


Relative to the technical skills and costs of the 15th century it was
far harder to settle the American wilderness than it is for us to
settle the Martian wilderness in the 20th and 21st centuries.


That's so bizarre it's not even *wrong.*

I'm pretty sure Columbus was able to breath in the New World without
having to resort to a space suit.


Other problem: No Martians to enslave or steal land from.
Don't do it mister! He'll steal your planet and give you cheap beads in
return!: http://www.frankwu.com/Paul76A.jpg
Ah, now he's wised up: http://www.frankwu.com/Paul51A.jpg
The Pilgrims would have been in for a mighty big surprise if the Native
Americans had been equipped with green balloon projectors... and then
immediately had gotten in war canoes and set out on the conquest of
Britain, as the Martians here have done to our Moon.

Pat
..

On Feb 9, 1:04*am, (Derek Lyons) wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 8, 8:45*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Derek Lyons wrote:

Wow, just *wow*. *I didn't think it possible for him to be any more
loony.

It doesn't exactly help that his voice, looks, and demeanor are
reminiscent of Bruce Dern in "Silent Running".
Let's make damn sure we keep him far away from those nuclear detonators.
:-D

Pat

Again the adhomenim attacks. *haha - you haven't said anything that
shows he's wrong. *In fact, if you knew anything about rocket
engineering, you'd know he's not wrong at all.

If the article in question had discussed rocketry or engineering,
you'd have a point.

It didn't.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

That's a false choice. Obviously rockets and their operation have a
cost involved with them. How these costs are paid is a legitimate
subject of discussion.

Modern rocket technology takes a 2,100 ton launcher and can place 50
tons on the surface of mars, and with Zubrins methods - which he has
written extensively on, use the atmosphere of Mars to return 50 tons
to the surface of Earth - recovering ALL parts.

Now at present this involves a 5% sructural fraction - which means the
vehicle is 105 tons empty. At $100 per ton for propellant, and
$10,000,000 per ton for structure - and payload - which is current
costs - we have $10.5 billion for the lancher and $200,000 per
launch. At present it costs $5,000,000 per launch for all the
falderah that's involved. And at present we throw away everything.
So, we're talking about $10,005,200,000 to send 50 tons to Mars.

Of ourse a commercial operation would do things differently. They'd
reuse the vehicle 20 times - and they'd spend money to engineer cost
cutting. See, cost plus contracts that the government favors tends to
focus engineering and management creativity on justifying ever higher
costs. Engineers and managers that cut costs are cutting profits
under these contracts and are opposed. Which is okay if you want to
contain missile proliferation, but what's the point when North Korea
and Iran are launching satellites? sheez. Change it to fixed price
with a deflator over 10 years already.

Fact is, aerospace engineering costs if done in a different
environment would be well below $500,000 per ton - so our 105 ton
vehicle costs $525 million to build - and our 50 ton payload is $25
million if done this way. Also, the $5,000,00 can be reduced to
$500,000 using 21st century techniques at launch and loading - and
modern tracking and quality control methods. The propellant costs
we'll keep the same - so, we're down to $700,000 recurring costs and
$25 million cost per launch attributed to capital - and another $4.3

That's $30 million to transport 50 tons to Mars. Which is enough to
support 20 people. So, if we charge $20 million per person - this
could be qute a profitable enterprise.

Are there enough people out there to pay for this?

Absolutely! In spades!

There are over 100 private aircraft that are personally owned that
cost over $65 million. Over 1,000 private aircraft that are
personally owned that cost over $20 million

http://www.laasdata.com/corpjet/corpjet-by-type.php?t=2

There are more than 100,000 people worth over $30 million.

There are over 9.5 million people worth over $1 million.

Total liquid wealth on the planet is $40 trillion.

http://www.us.capgemini.com/Download...ile.asp?ID=648

So, we don't really need to talk about rockets - the rocket thing is
pretty well under control. We've been operating under a (failed)
control regime for the past 50 years which artificially inflates
rocket travel to keep it out of the hands of dictators and skews the
public's perception - including the business community about the
utility, efficiacy and feasability of spae ventures. But a clear
analysis shows even if rocket engineer estimates of real costs without
torturous government interference are 3x to 10x higher than expected,
we can expect earlly adopters to spend billions per year to settle
mars.

Now, does it make sense for the US government to claim land and then
sell off long term leases for development while making its space
faring assets available for development to the private sector?

Basically, to make Zubrin's idea work economically for the benefit of
the USA - the USA would have to claim Mars on some pretext, and then
offer leases on the red planet - along with making technical assets to
travel there available.

Is there anything at all like this in US history?

Absolutely!

The US extended its claim on territorial waters from 12 miles to 200
miles a few years back, and then leased off the claimed lands -
developing off shore assets. The US government also helped fund the
development of offshore drilling platforms as well.

The US created radio frequencies for cellular telephone use and then
sold off the rights while also helping the development of portable
telephone technology.

The US claimed lands West of the Mississippi, and then offered that
land to companies who built railroads on that land. That's how the
West was won! In 1830 there were 23 miles of rail in the USA and it
cost $1 million per mile of rail to install. The US government to
promote rail offered land grants to railroad companies in the 1840s
and those programs grew over time. Grants on lands that it claimed
were offered to companies, the government issued bonds to support the
construction and operation of railroads, and loans to rail companies
to build rail. In 1864 Lincoln signed the largest land grant act in
history. In 1871 when the program ended, the railroad companies owned
15% of North America, there were over 30,000 miles of rail, and the
cost of a mile of track was $30,000.

This is an excellent model for the development of Mars using our
existing rocket technology. If we connect with our history, and see
that our national security is different in the 21st century than the
20th - we can attract back the $8 trillion that have left our country
since we invaded Iraq. This is something we can do, that no other
nation can claim - and it is something that will attract hundreds of
millionaires a year to actually travel - with their family and friends
- and tens of thousands of millionaires to INVEST in America creating
decent American jobs.

On Feb 9, 2:33*am, "
wrote:
On Feb 8, 8:34 pm, wrote:

Relative to the technical skills and costs of the 15th century it was
far harder to settle the American wilderness than it is for us to
settle the Martian wilderness in the 20th and 21st centuries.

That's so bizarre it's not even *wrong.*

I'm pretty sure Columbus was able to breath in the New World without
having to resort to a space suit.

This is a red herring having nothing to do with what I've said.

Why don't you learn a little about rational though;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECZm7dm3R2c

and Joanne isn't a bad teacher! lol.


*This

was analyzed back in the 40s by vonBranu and Eriche when they were
debriefed in operation paperclip. *Truman and Eisenhower classified
this report because they felt it would inspire the American public to
such an extent, that it would create an uncontrollable monster - and
America cannot afford doing that and fighting the Cold War.

Annnnnnnddddd..... that's nutty. von Braun didn't know doodly ****
about colonizing Mars in 1945.

What specifically what didn't von Braun know? haha - Have you even
read Project Mars?

von Braun knew what vehicle fraction could be reliably sent to mars
using rocket technology, what structure fraction, and what that
structure and payload fraction would cost, with estimates of recurring
cost. In short, he was able to tell folks precisely what it would
take to get to Mars, and organize efforts to do so - just as he
successfully organized efforts to land on the Moon in the 1960s.



And damn near everything he came up
with prior to the Mariner missions to Mars was dead wrong,

Again, what specifically and how did that specifically impact the
estimates made in papers such as Project Mars? Obviously, it does
not.

because the
atmosphere of Mars was vastly overestimated.

Which changes the shape of the vehicle and entry angle. Clearly your
implied assertion that it was a show stopper or made aerobraking
infeasible or radically changed the costs somehow is bogus.

And his Ferry Rocket, as
cool and downright spiffy as it was, is an engineering nighmare using
horrible engines *and horrible propellants.

Yes, I agree, his estimate of cost based on 1940s technology was far
higher than the cost of a mars project would be today for the very
reasons you cite. Obviously this supports my view and not yours.

Look, you said Truman and Eisenhower's concern about wasting money in
space was nutty. Plainly vonBraun's estimate is the first reliable
engineering estimate of the difficulty of the problem. Obviously its
something we could have done as a nation any time we wanted after
1940s. Surely, as our knowledge grows, costs will fall. As you so
rightly point out here. Clearly economics works in a fashion that
when the cost of something drops demand for it increases. Plainly for
those who believe any money spent on space is a waste, this is a
reason to classify all this bull**** and marginalize the very idea,
especialy if you want to control access to missile technology.



Zubrin always puts the cart before the horse;

No he doesn't he understands the technical requirements and how easily
they may be undertaken. *Read vonBraun's Project Mars.

A nice mathematical treatise that gets the orbital dynamics right and
the landing at Mars dead fricken' wrong.

Plainly you are elevating minor changes in aerosheild shape and entry
angle due to a difference in air density estimate into showstoppers.
haha - another logical fallacy! Clearly these changes are easily made
and accounted for. You may recall if you read the report that
vonBraun had budgeted flights to get it right before committing the
major mission.

And the economics are, sadly,
not even close.

The sadness isn't due to any error on his part, but due to several
generations of cost plus contracting that have destroyed any desire to
contain costs in the aerospace business.

On Feb 8, 11:03*pm, Ulla wrote:
On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 19:38:12 -0800 (PST), wrote:
Again the adhomenim attacks.

Using lame technicalities like "adhomenim" or "straw man" is the first
resort of one who has already lost the debate. Either stick to the
facts or give up. That's all that matters.

Since when did using words correctly count as a reason not to believe
someone? lol.

haha - adhominem means attacking the man - since you didn't know.
lol.

You are attacking Zubrin and O'Neill personally - without offering any
real support of your conclusion. Saying "O'Neill is like Zubrin they
always get it wrong" doesn't prove that either are connected or that
anything is wrong. Its an attack on them personally - that's what
adhomenim means.

I didn't use the term strawman - so there is no logical reason for you
to mention it. Since you are confused I will offer an explanation of
that too if you wish,

A straw man," describes a position that superficially resembles an
opponent's actual view, but is easier to refute. Then, one says that
position is your opponents.

A straw man argument may work as a rhetorical technique—and succeed in
persuading people—but it carries no real logical weight, since the
opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

On Feb 9, 1:04*am, (Derek Lyons) wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 8, 8:45*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Derek Lyons wrote:

Wow, just *wow*. *I didn't think it possible for him to be any more
loony.

It doesn't exactly help that his voice, looks, and demeanor are
reminiscent of Bruce Dern in "Silent Running".
Let's make damn sure we keep him far away from those nuclear detonators.
:-D

Pat

Again the adhomenim attacks. *haha - you haven't said anything that
shows he's wrong. *In fact, if you knew anything about rocket
engineering, you'd know he's not wrong at all.

If the article in question had discussed rocketry or engineering,
you'd have a point.

It didn't.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

The cost of rockets, and their use, the size of the market that would
pay those costs, and the legal structure to organize capital on the
scale needed - are all examples of important points about making the
use of rockets a reality without talking about the rockets themselves.

The fact is there are 9.5 million millionaires on the planet and they
have $40 trillion in liquid assets. The USA has a unique position in
history as the only nation to send men to the moon. The USA maintains
a leading position among nations in its aeropsace abilty. The USA has
recently suffered a financial reversal as from 2003 through 2008 -
foreign investors withdrew over $8 trillion from the US economy.
According to the economist, before the changes that killed the S&Ls by
Reagan in 1980 US citizens saved at a rate of 9% per year and had
debts totally 60% of their annual income. 90% of American debt and
corporations were owned by Americans. In 2003 after a generation of
Reganomic banking the US savings rate was -2%, people owed 160% of
their annual income in debt, and 60% of Americas corporations and debt
was owned by foreigners. Reganomics made the dollar strong by making
the banking system weak.. George Bailey's bank was taken over by Mr.
Potter, and Mr. Potter was Chinese national.

When Bush invaded Iraq looking for WMDs - most Americans didn't care
he didn't find them. Not so foreigners. Some foreigners were so
angry they began withdrawing money from the USA. They investedin
China and India. By 2007 those markets were strong and others joined
suit. The US banking and finance system collapsed.

WE HAVE TO GET THAT MONEY BACK AND SOON!

Claiming Mars, and then leasing the property on mars, issing bonds to
support construction of infrastructure, arranging loans to support
operations - very similar to the way railroads were developed - is a
way to get that $8 trillion back into US hands.

Its something we can do right now that no one else can do.

On Feb 9, 4:20*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
wrote:
Try working with/for him for a few years. After a while, nothing
surprises you.

I take it you found yourself in that "lucky" position?

Pat

Scott was fired for bringing a gun to work in his lunchbox and firing
while on break. I guess if anyone knows loony - he does. lol.