Hello, I agree with one of Mr. Zubrin's basic ideas, is that to go to Mars cheaply and effectively, we must start to use the Martian environment for resources, like fuel, etc. I've heard less talk about this on this group lately, but to me, this is one of the most important things for a mission (or a series of missions). I really believe that we could have 'cycler' ships that go back and forth to Mars and back, ferrying people and supplies to and from Mars, and we could do it much better than many bloated, politically-motivated governments could, or would, do it. We could use propulsion methods like solar-powered ion engines, etc., and we could eliminate some huge costs by having renewable supplies on Mars. But for this to be a reality, we need a good and careful start. We would launch several unmanned missions, with each including a giant chemical factory, etc. I could go one forever, and I'm sure many of these ideas have been stated before, but you get my general thoughts. To me, a little original thinking can go a LONG way, including making successful missions possible. If we do a plan similar to what I'm talking about, there is no reason Mars missions would have to stop. But we need cooperation and the ability to take risks, as well as the ability to recover in the face of failures, for this to come to fruition. These are just a few thoughts from me.
Hope this starts people talking. Gino Costa ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary McMurtry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 6:23 PM Subject: Re: Fw: Slate Article: Is Mars Ours? > > Robert, > > Good to hear from you. You bring up many good points and ideas. > People can do a lot of great work with unmanned probes, but unless > folks get to go to the Moon again and eventually onward to Mars, at > least, widespread public support for space exploration will likely > wane. I'm a not-so-secret proponent for manned exploration, so it > hurts to see money wasted that could have been saved for these > ambitious but highly rewarding efforts. (Your points about the > recent oil "occupations" are probably correct, but a political push > in alternative energy directions and conservation could put a stop to > it.) > > It cost billions to put men on the Moon, but it was worth every last > penny. Human spirit demands exploration. It must be in our genes. > And, we are willing to risk our lives to do it, several times over. > The thrill of being there is like an addiction. > > After Mars, then what? Venus? No way. Europa? Very tough, > distance-wise and radiation-wise. Maybe your ideas about non-gravity > well space occupation will be the long-term solution, at least until > we can get out of the local solar neighborhood and do some real space > exploration! > > Gary > > >On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Gary McMurtry wrote: > > > >> 1) WE are not "Back on Mars", a robotic probe is there, taking > >> pictures and doing pre-planned experiments on our behalf; > > > >Yep and at a cost of ~1/400th of what a manned mission would > >have cost a decade ago. So we could send 400 robotic missions > >to Mars for the cost of a manned mission (given economies of > >scale it would probably be more like 1000 robotic missions for > >the cost of a manned mission). Show me *where* a manned mission > >is going to do 1000 times the amount of science that increasingly > >complex robotic missions might accomplish over the next decade! > > > >> 2) As Michael has already explained, it will take a lot of effort to > >> terraform a planet. > > > >Caca. Almost all of the people involved in in the Mars debate do > >*not* understand nanotechnology. As a result they will continue > >to get it wrong. The same technologies that make the colonization > >of Mars affordable and the terraforming of Mars feasible are also > >the technologies that allow you to dismantle it and turn it into > >O'Neill style space habitats that allow the distribution of humanity > >(or its uploaded counterparts) around the solar system to take advantage > >the abundance of solar energy that the sun currently wastes. > > > >Repeat after me -- the colonization and/or terraforming of Mars is > >a really, really stupid idea. Zubrin almost gets it right at the > >tail end of "The Case for Mars" in terms of robotic construction > >of solar power satellites but he doesn't carry it to its logical > >conclusion. If we are going to spend gigabucks to get even a > >few humans out of their current gravity well and to the moon or > >even Mars then one should be asking *why* are you putting these > >people back into the bottom of a gravity well when you just spent > >an enormous amount of money to get them out of one? (The problem > >of adapting to weightlessness is a biotech problem -- it will > >be solved within the next 10-20 years -- its a simple matter > >of convincing bones and muscles to believe they are under > >gravitational stress using drugs and/or gene therapies. And > >that doesn't even go into the methods for providing artificial > >gravity in O'Neill habitats). > > > >> The only aspect he has wrong is the time scale, > >> and the economic scale, not to mention the technological scale. > >> Recall what the current Iraqi "makeover" is doing to the US economy, > >> per the IMF--keep reading tonight's paper; > > > >Yep. That's because people are doing much of the work and not > >robots (be they macroscale or microscale) that come off of > >an assembly line. *But* -- if you look at the problems we > >are going to have maintaining and expanding oil and gas > >production over the next decade (we are probably at or near > >peak oil production on a planet-wide basis) then significant > >investments in Iraq and/or Libya, perhaps expanding > >production capacity by 3-4 billion barrels/day which has been > >lost due to their lack of investment in their infrastructure > >is probably a cheap investment considering the alternatives > >may be watching the economy take a big hit due to oil > >prices rising $10-$30/barrel. > > > >[snip] > >> Mars--a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there! > > > >I agree -- an O'Neill habitat would be much nicer. > > > >All of the above is a general appeal to invest in increased > >capabilities for robotic probes and produce more of them. > >Design them for missions that will work on both Mars and Europa > >and Asteroids. Take advantage of the economies of mass > >production. Keep making them smaller so one can launch > >more of them. Add incremental improvements to known-to-work > >designs. Then when launch windows open up launch half-a-dozen > >or a dozen such that arrivals are staged to give programmers > >enough time to fix any software bugs encountered by the early > >probes. > > > >What Mars and Europa offer are opportunities to explore possible > >routes for the evolution of primitive life. After that is done > >they offer material resources for the support of advanced > >intelligent life forms. > > > >Also, with respect to the political realities of Bush's efforts, > >I draw your attention to the following: > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3919608/ > > > >I have my doubts as to whether Bush is really serious. I would > >more likely believe he is playing games. > > > >Robert > > > > > >== > >You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/ > > > == > You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/ > == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
