Straight to Mars?

I agree with some of the ideas expressed in the commentary of LEO K. O'DRUDY
III (Washington Times,
http://washingtontimes.com/commentar...2513-7254r.htm). I
disagree, however, with the notion that we should go directly to Mars at
this time. I believe he has missed an important reason for the existence of
both the space station and, subsequently, the establishment of a base on the
moon prior to embarking upon a manned Mars program.

There are four types of information relevant to this discussion,

1) That which we know that we know,
2) That which we know that we don't know,
3) That which we don't know that we know,
4) That which we don't know that we don't know.

The first item is self-explanatory. The second can be solved by R&D. The
third - and most importantly - the fourth items can be found only by
experience. In my opinion, one of the most valuable (ongoing) lessons to be
learned in the space station program is the act of building and operating
it. How can we possibly go on to explore Mars in a program of continuous
manned missions if we haven't addressed item 4?

The space station is providing valuable experience in continuous manned
space activities that will be essential in undertaking the next logical
step: setting up a continuous manned presence on the moon, a mere few days
away - as opposed to a few months - in travel time, and a couple of light
seconds away instead of a few minutes (at best). Granted, we ought to do all
that we do in a lunar program with an eye towards other goals; we ought to
be generic where possible. But, let's get the human and mechanical heritage
of longer term living on another celestial body under our belt before we set
out for Mars. Let's find out what we don't know, close to home.

Jon

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 19:32:36 -0600, Jon S. Berndt jsb.at.hal-pc-dot.org
wrote:

The space station is providing valuable experience in continuous manned
space activities that will be essential in undertaking the next logical
step: setting up a continuous manned presence on the moon, a mere few
days
away - as opposed to a few months - in travel time, and a couple of light
seconds away instead of a few minutes (at best). Granted, we ought to do
all
that we do in a lunar program with an eye towards other goals; we ought
to
be generic where possible. But, let's get the human and mechanical
heritage
of longer term living on another celestial body under our belt before we
set
out for Mars. Let's find out what we don't know, close to home.

Jon



MIR was created with that in mind. In fact we have 20 years of experience
with manned presence in space. I fail to see what is new.

That being said. I believe a manned mission to Mars would be cheaper
if lanched from the moon if it used moon material for fuel
and perhaps construction. I do regret that by the time someone
finally decides to go to Mars I will probably be dead. (I'm 37)

Werner Von Braun was one asked "What was the most difficult problem of
going to the moon?"
He answered "To have the will to go there."
The same, I feel, is true for Mars. No one wants to pick up the bill.

--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

"John Thingstad" wrote in message

MIR was created with that in mind. In fact we have 20 years of experience
with manned presence in space. I fail to see what is new.

Quite a few things - not least of which are dealing with another gravity
well, another ascent/descent, and the unavailability of quick abort to
earth.

That being said. I believe a manned mission to Mars would be cheaper
if lanched from the moon if it used moon material for fuel
and perhaps construction.

I disagree completely with this. The moon, IMHO, should be used as a testbed
only, and for science that can only be done there. Nobody has convinced me
yet that materials for a Mars mission can be economically extracted from the
moon - at least anytime soon.

Jon

Jon S. Berndt (jsb.at.hal-pc-dot.org) wrote:
: I agree with some of the ideas expressed in the commentary of LEO K. O'DRUDY
: III (Washington Times,
: http://washingtontimes.com/commentar...2513-7254r.htm). I
: disagree, however, with the notion that we should go directly to Mars at
: this time. I believe he has missed an important reason for the existence of
: both the space station and, subsequently, the establishment of a base on the
: moon prior to embarking upon a manned Mars program.

: There are four types of information relevant to this discussion,

: 1) That which we know that we know,

Leadereship

: 2) That which we know that we don't know,

Simple

: 3) That which we don't know that we know,

Asleep

: 4) That which we don't know that we don't know.

Fool

: The first item is self-explanatory. The second can be solved by R&D. The
: third - and most importantly - the fourth items can be found only by
: experience. In my opinion, one of the most valuable (ongoing) lessons to be
: learned in the space station program is the act of building and operating
: it. How can we possibly go on to explore Mars in a program of continuous
: manned missions if we haven't addressed item 4?

: The space station is providing valuable experience in continuous manned
: space activities that will be essential in undertaking the next logical
: step: setting up a continuous manned presence on the moon, a mere few days
: away - as opposed to a few months - in travel time, and a couple of light
: seconds away instead of a few minutes (at best). Granted, we ought to do all
: that we do in a lunar program with an eye towards other goals; we ought to
: be generic where possible. But, let's get the human and mechanical heritage
: of longer term living on another celestial body under our belt before we set
: out for Mars. Let's find out what we don't know, close to home.

You're trying to go from 'fool' to 'simple'. Exactly how is that done?

You're from Houston and no doubt familar with JSC, etc. What do you think
about the international partners helping out more? ESA, NASDA, etc. Do you
think that they should play a bigger role or a lesser role? Why or why
not?

Eric

: Jon

"Jon S. Berndt" jsb.at.hal-pc-dot.org wrote in message
...
I agree with some of the ideas expressed in the commentary of LEO K.
O'DRUDY
III (Washington Times,
http://washingtontimes.com/commentar...2513-7254r.htm). I
disagree, however, with the notion that we should go directly to Mars at
this time. I believe he has missed an important reason for the existence
of
both the space station and, subsequently, the establishment of a base on
the
moon prior to embarking upon a manned Mars program.


Opinions are like assholes...

Bush says the Moon first, so that's how it's gonna be. Who cares about what
anyone else thinks? I mean, there's no right or wrong in this discussion.
One could argue both ways.

This time I totally agree with our resident warlord, even if he and a
few others need to be tried for their war-crimes against humanity, as
the moon is absolutely our next priority-1.

Going for the likes of Mars is not only a seriously bad sort of
village idiot and ultra moronic halfwit and absolutely dumb and
dumber idea but, it's also incredibly time consuming, absolutely
extremely spendy, as well as 1000:1 polluting for mother Earth, and
that's not even to mention the need for bringing along your own
banked bone marrow, or having to fend off whatever infectious microbe
aspects.

Anyone that goes to Mars need stay there, or perhaps if the option
even becomes available as to live out there lives within a safe-house
that's preferably situated upon our moon (I believe that lunar
safe-house part shouldn't cost us but another few hundred billion).

To even remotely chance the potentially lethal nature of our humanity
encountering another entirely new form of DNA/RNA code, especially as
having evolved from the sorts of potent microbes capable of being from
Mars, of microbes that have long since mutated as to surviving
thousands of years worth of massive TBI and otherwise
ultra-sub-freezing with such damn little O2, all of which hasn't
managed to exterminate it, and if that isn't exactly suggesting a
somewhat reasonably bad sort of outcome should even one of those
suckers arrive externally and/or internally upon this Earth, then
perhaps WW-III isn't going to nearly as bad as I'd thought.

It seems we can't hardly deal with the sorts of panspermia of whatever
few microbes (possibly even a few aeronautical diatoms) as arriving
via solar wind express, as so easily extracted from them relatively
cool clouds of Venus.

Any Mars expedition requires that absolutely everything be imported
from Earth, all 10+ tonnes per soul per month after month, and that's
only if absolutely nothing goes wrong on the surface or to/from. Thus
you've got to be kidding.

Regards, Brad Guth / GASA~IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com

*-----------------------*
Posted at:
www.GroupSrv.com
*-----------------------*

On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 07:45:18 -0600, Jon S. Berndt jsb.at.hal-pc-dot.org
wrote:

I disagree completely with this. The moon, IMHO, should be used as a
testbed
only, and for science that can only be done there. Nobody has convinced
me
yet that materials for a Mars mission can be economically extracted from
the
moon - at least anytime soon.

Jon



This surprises me. Remember that the moon has 1/6'th earths gravity and no
atmosphere. That is where the great savings are. It's a order of
magnitude cheaper to send material from the moon to space than
from earth to space. As you indicate real factories on the moon
are quite a bit in the future.

1. find water
2. break water down into oxygen and hydrogen (sun power)
3. We have rocket fuel.
4. Go for metals and minerals
5. send rocket to mars
6. use lessons leaned to extract fuel on mars for return fuel

Nevertheless this was the essence of Bush's space initiative.
I think it is doable. Though the engineering is challenging.

--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

On 8 Nov 2004 15:27:55 -0600, BradGuth
wrote:

This time I totally agree with our resident warlord, even if he and a
few others need to be tried for their war-crimes against humanity, as
the moon is absolutely our next priority-1.

Going for the likes of Mars is not only a seriously bad sort of
village idiot and ultra moronic halfwit and absolutely dumb and
dumber idea but, it's also incredibly time consuming, absolutely
extremely spendy, as well as 1000:1 polluting for mother Earth, and
that's not even to mention the need for bringing along your own
banked bone marrow, or having to fend off whatever infectious microbe
aspects.

May I remind you that the earth is bombarded by about 4 meteors from Mars
a year.
If there are microbes on mars we already have them.

rest of nonsense snipped

--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

"BradGuth" wrote in message

This time I totally agree with our resident warlord,

??? Who is that ???

JOn

"Henk Boonsma" wrote in message

Opinions are like assholes...

That's your opinion. ;-)

Bush says the Moon first, so that's how it's gonna be. Who cares about
what
anyone else thinks? I mean, there's no right or wrong in this discussion.
One could argue both ways.

Of course. That's the reason for this NEWSgroup.

JOn