If you read the article more closely, you'll find that Zubrin's complaint is that the Bush vision calls for seperately developed technology for each the moon and Mars rather than progressive technology to do both. With NERVA, Apollo technology could have taken us to Mars and anywhere else we wanted. This is not one shot only.

The state of the art Mars rovers took months to travel the same distance that the Apollo astronauts travelled in a few hours. Besides, as I explained before, a manned program has more human value than just scientific value. Young kids aren't inspired by the sight of a robot, but they are by a person doing cool things.

What? Because it's all automated? Because there's no human component?

Didn't you read the article? We want to do more than we did 35 years ago. We want this to be about more than just flags and footprints.

That's rubbish too. Spaceship One is hardly old tech. In fact, this is the first time I've heard anyone going even close to insinuating such a thing. Concorde is considered a technological marvel even today if there is no market for SST in the future. Manned space flight has been called lots of things, but low tech, never. You're on your own with that one.

In that case, I won't count on you viewing the first Mars walk. Plenty of other people will, just as they watched the first moon walk. Sometimes a human face on things gives it a little more value to the public. It's certainly more interesting than nerds in a backroom tinkering with their robots.

How dystopic! I have visions of people getting fatter and fatter while they sit on their couches watching the universe on their TV screens. I find that sickening. We should go out and see things for ourselves. Again, what a crushing of high frontier dreams.

__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131

Well, I wouldn't mind being one of the nerds tinkering with robots. I also get totally fired up by following the MER mission, as well as Cassini, etc. I visited the Galileo mission page just about every day for the entirety of it's mission (including extensions).

Then again, if they'd offer, I'd be jumping up and down going, "Me! Me! Meee!!!! Me-me-me-me!!!" for a chance to be a Mars or Moon walker!

CJSF

__________________
Two years ago moved from my town
I was looking up past the city lights
But the city lights got in my way

See the constellation ride across the sky
No cigar, no lady on his arm
Just a guy made of dots and lines

-from "See The Constellation"
by They Might Be Giants

I agree with Glom on this. Cugal, you do not seem to see the big picture. Exploration, exploitation, and the colonization of Mars, and other places in the solar system, grand in vision, are still but a start to galactic exploration.

"We godda get outa this place, if its the last thing we ever do..." BOC

__________________
I have grasped the bull by the tail and am lookin' 'im right in the eye.

And why am I the only one responding to this? Whatever happened to the lively community that would jump at the chance to cheer on manned spaceflight? Has cynnacism and apathy taken you? Has pragmatism replaced any hope for dreams of high frontiers?

__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131

Okay I guess I'm not.

__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131

An astronaut outrunning a MER rover is actually the first rational argument you have produced. The rest of your reasoning is based on emotional arguments. (It will inspire, it will open up the road to the universe, etc...)
Now, as a first argument it does have the merit of being true. I admit. But after spending the odd $20 billion on outrunning a rover you will have to spend another $20 billion on getting the astronaut safely back to Earth. A MER rover comes in at $0.4 billion. Inspiring? Maybe for a kid.

Besides, a MER rover is just an instrument. Like a telescope. The exploration and discovery is still done by humans, back in the lab here on Earth. So, there is just as much a human component in robotic exploration as there is in manned. It's just a more clever way of spending your budget.

Some responses:

1. I agree, NERVA would have been cool. There simply wasn't the public support for Apollo anymore. Not even then, when it was state of the art science and technology.

2. I know a few kids who are inspired by a robot!

3. Well, I don't want to go to Mars! Don't like the climate.

4. SpaceShip One is cool! Funded by private money, as it should be with tourism.

5. I won't take calling me a nerd as an offence, but it comes close.

6. You're asking me and all other taxpayers to pay for your dreams. Calling our dreams sickening is a really great starting point for that. Good luck!

__________________
Our Moonshot: join the One Campaign.
please visit: www.one.org

If you want more examples:

• Apollo brought back large amounts of samples.
• Apollo could collect more diverse samples.
• Apollo could work tools to do more thorough exploration.
• Apollo could more easily work a problem with equipment.

And for a Mars mission.

• Astronauts could work when out of radio contact.
• Astronauts wouldn't have to deal with a time lag because they could work more automonously.
• We wouldn't have all this crap about what colour the surface really is because we'd have human eyes to judge it.
• A project done properly would build infrastructure for future endeavours and expansions.

Of course, but the thought of a real person going there is more inspiring.

Your choice.

But NASA needs to crack open further horizons.

I take it that you work on some unmanned projects, perhaps Mars Express. I'm sorry. I'm not meaning to flame the scientists behind those excellent unmanned missions, although it's pretty obvious it could be seen that way. I'm trying to say that your average person will see manned missions as pioneers explorering new frontiers while they will see unmanned missions as nerds tinkering around with robots.

And a bigger future for this species. Mars and even the moon offers more than just a geology field trip.

Well sickening is probably not a very diplomatic word. Sorry about that.

I just find it a very apathetic notion that you should see a future where we effectively give up our opposable thumbs and our bipedal locomotion and view the galaxy on a screen rather than for ourselves. There's a real world out there for us. It's very Matrix.

If you tell me that watching documentaries on Discovery about exotic places provides you with all the fulfilment you could want in learning about the wider universe rather than actually going there, then I'll drop this issue and say that we're just very different people.

__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131

Well, you know, not EVERYONE who watches Discovery can go to all these exotic places. The overwhelming majority of people will be watching future manned missions on TV or Computer or whatever.

I agree that for many, that acheivment will be inspiring. But Cugel does raise a point. If the notion of manned planetary exploration was that inspiring, then we'd already HAVE an impetus to go to Mars - we'd have had it for along time. The fact is, as much as I had to admit it, most people that I know think space is cool and all, but they don't feel a personal stake in it. They think people on Mars is cool and exciting, but they don't see the real need for it nor do they grasp the implications.

What would the average person (in the US) rather have... $50 Billion for one Mars mission or $50 Billion for US infrastructure improvements (as one example)? I see the real need for both, but funding requires choices. And this isn't a "Feed the children first" argument. We're not talking about $500K or even a cool Billion. Numbers in the tens of Billions DO have a huge impact on where the funding comes from and what it might else be used for.

So I guess, after all the semi-coherent blather I just typed, I am saying I agree with both Glom's and Cugel's arguments. But no one said taking our first real interplanetary steps would be easy.

CJSF

__________________
Two years ago moved from my town
I was looking up past the city lights
But the city lights got in my way

See the constellation ride across the sky
No cigar, no lady on his arm
Just a guy made of dots and lines

-from "See The Constellation"
by They Might Be Giants

Small steps. We can never get anywhere if someone doesn't go there first. This world is becoming more and more open to more and more people. The DC-3 didn't do that, but it was a small step in that direction. You seem hung up on the idea that if you can't have it all now now now, we shouldn't even consider a move in that direction..

__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131

I'm not hung up on that idea. I, in fact, believe we shouldn't do it all now. The question is, what is a small step? Many consider robotic exploration that first step. If that's too small, then some consider a return to the Moon, to see how we can do long term quasi-autonomous/self-sufficient manned missions. Is that too small?

I can see and understand a certain point of view, where it's "about time" we continued on from Apollo. There's a sense of impatience and trying to make up the intervening 3 decades in just a few years. The fact remains.. we left manned extra-earth exploration in 1972, and it's going to be tremendously expensive and time-consuming at first to get things going again. And that means trying to get support from people who right now, don't see the larger picture or have different priorities. A president standing at a podium and saying "We have to go to Mars" isn't going to cut it for most people.

And with the sad state of a risk-averse NASA (though hopefully that will change with the new administrator), heaven forbid the first Moon-return or Mars mission has a tragedy!!

CJSF

__________________
Two years ago moved from my town
I was looking up past the city lights
But the city lights got in my way

See the constellation ride across the sky
No cigar, no lady on his arm
Just a guy made of dots and lines

-from "See The Constellation"
by They Might Be Giants

Speak for yourself!

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

I would gladly live on Mars. In fact my one dying wish is to stand at the edge of Valles Marineris.

In that case, can I still continue to moan about that decision?

__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131

Sure! I do all the time. I'm always bringing up the fact that the last manned Moon mission was the same year as my birth... at least my wife's moved past the glaring-at-me stage and has moved on to the ignoring-me stage.

So I'm as old as the abandonment of the final frontier. Hmm...

:-k

CJSF

P.S.
As an aside, you'll find few supporters of manned spaceflight as staunch as my wife... just in case the above comment would be misconstrued.

__________________
Two years ago moved from my town
I was looking up past the city lights
But the city lights got in my way

See the constellation ride across the sky
No cigar, no lady on his arm
Just a guy made of dots and lines

-from "See The Constellation"
by They Might Be Giants

The real problem is that Boeing and lockheed-Martin have two EELV's that are not selling, with the up-to-20-tons-to-LEO market glutted by cheaper boosters from

Europe
Russia
Ukraine
India
China
etc. etc.

So, the suits are telling a pack of lies as to how EELVs will save money--when some engineers inside these companies agree on the need for HLLVs--including our new boss in NASA--the Griff' man. The folks at Michold know that the Denver-based Lockmart execs want their ET heads on the chopping block. So some of both Boeing and Lock-Mart engineers are breaking ranks--and their official efforts are being sabotaged by the suits--including the Blue-Suits at the Air Farce.

ATK Thiokol is perhaps the biggest pro SDV HLLV advocate--along with Pratt & Whitney--now that they have Rocketdyne and have changed their tune, that is.

But that doesn't keep the other suits from lobbying the White House/Gov't into using NASA funding to support manned use of EELV--effectively putting the Albatross--no, more like a millstone--of the EELVs around the neck of the taxpayer.

But Zubrin won't wear it.

Sadly, when it comes to the EELV-only BS-- some space advocates are dumb enough to buy into it.

Especially when the EELVs were specifically designed to put sats in higher orbits. You need depressed trajectory launch profiles that EELVs may not be able to take structurally--unlike "the stick" CEV booster--a lone SRB that is very strong--and can fly depressed trajectory profiles. Ironically--the EELVs would actually subject the astronauts to higher g forces in some instances--as high as 27 g's. That is why the astronaut office is wary of them.

That is what I call bad engineering.

Now make your voices known, people.

It's past time to start squawking.


************************************************** *******
More comments on Zubrin:

http://starshipmodeler.net/cgi-bin/p...=339470#339470

http://www.newmars.com/cgi-bin/ikonb...t=ST;f=5;t=236

--------------------------------------------------

Some dope on the Delta 4
http://starshipmodeler.net/cgi-bin/p...sc&start=0

When I read Dr Zubrin's proposal I never noted if he made an argument as to the profitability of such a venture. He pointed out(one way or another) that there could be spin offs as far as knowledge about ourselves through the study of Mars; however, I wonder if a larger picture could be presented?

When Europeans went to the new world, the only profit they conceived of was out right exploitation, or spiritual conversion of the "heathens". As we all know, the long term profit were many new nations adding to the general good of us all as humans. With a few exceptions this was done fairly cheaply.

Could a case not be made if someone did a cost analysis as to what it would cost to produce the communications (both transport and information) colonial facilities, and the bodies?

I remember in my history cases that the colonization of Quebec was fairly cheep. Most of the expenses were incurred when the French tried to defend from the Brits. On Mars that should not be to much of a problem; unless those nasty Jovians act up.

But seriously, what would it cost to set up a basically self sustaining colony/colonies on Mars? Not forgetting that any technology that is invented/used could be used elsewhere.

__________________
I have grasped the bull by the tail and am lookin' 'im right in the eye.

Heh. I’m descended from free settlers! :-) Still, the point worth making is that travel by sea in the 18th century was dangerous, and lots of ordinary people died making the passage from Britain to Australia, as well as the sailors, in conditions which were pretty terrible. These days, volunteers are not going to want to settle Mars if they’re accommodated in crappy conditions, and their craft has a 10% chance of failure, leading to death, either on the journey to Mars, or in the atmospheric entry phase.