The Romulan Republic wrote:Obviously, Zubrin's books go into the details more, both why it should be done and how it can be accomplished.
It's more or less what he said on youtube. Only the first two points in the list linked are really Mars-specific (most would apply to the Moon as well, and anyway under the assumption that Space race wasn't a pissing contest with Soviet Russia, and that setting such high goals without having to prove the RED COMMUNISTs are worse than you can still mobilize enough people for the plan to succeed.).
The second point (planetology) is the only one I think is really worth doing, but I still think that sending a zillion robots and a few research bases would be more cost effective than outright colonize it for kicks. It's a hellhole with just enough atmosphere to steal your heat much more than vacuum would and create huge overtly annoying dust storms with
abrasive sand, let's not forget this.
The link is wrong, you wrote "
marsociety" instead of "
marssociety". Thanks though.
eion wrote:You don't think NASA would like a permanent scientific outpost on Mars? Colonizing and exploration start pretty much the same way, with survey missions.
That means what? NASA does not want to colonize Mars (and that's not talking of Congress, that won't give the money even for scientific manned mars missions, go figure for clonization). Zubrin wants to. For the initial stages both want the same thing, but how that shows "widespread support"?
Thanks for conceeding that his rambilings, from a technical standpoint, enjoy widespread support.
I dislike this point-scoring attitude. Feel free to continue though.
I clarified my view on his stuff since I failed to get that across the first time.
Yes, his plans to reach and stay look sound (i'm no expert), but I thought I said the part I disagree with him is the "let's go to mars" part.
So, where is the widespread support you are talking about anyway?
NASA prepared some papers that use his ideas, then what? They were good ideas so others decided to do the same, but NASA produces so much papers on ludicrous stuff that making a mars plan it isn't an indication of very heavy support.
Last real, funded plans plans were Constellation, and they were for the Moon. Something is still alive and is still (pompously) aimed at reaching Moon or NEOs.
But the last noteworthy stuff for Mars manned was that thing where people sealed themselves up in a Mars Mission mockup in Russia (not run by NASA if I'm not mistaken).
Or not?
$30 Billion (the Mars Societies estimated cost for a 20 year Mars Direct program) is nothing in government spending.
You are not answering the question. I asked: You think money will come anytime soon?
I know that space endeavours aren't horribly costly given how much money the US congress can play with, but the question was aimed to make you realize that there is jack-shit support (i.e. no money anyone is willing to spend) for Manned Mars missions or even colonization, which is what I was saying when you started this.
There are plenty of political reasons to go to Mars, and even more scientific, economic, and sociological ones.
I would jump on your wagon only if part of the plan is building some decent space-based infrastructure.
Like say, orbital depots, moon fuel mining facilities, Earth atmosphere skimmers that are in-orbit fuel manufacturing facilities, and possibly orbital shipyards to assemble the stuff we send up so we can use small rockets. Some superstructure and fuel tank fabs on the moon would also be awesome (diminishing the weight and bulk of the crap we have to lift up from Earth dramatically), but may be too difficult to pull off.
THAT is good for science and awesome for colonization since it will then allow to send stuff wherever the fuck you want (Mars isn't the only place you can play planetologist on, Venus is another very interesting place, and Jupiter's moons are interesting as well, or you can say screw planets! and begin to build orbital colonies that as far as abitation goes fare much much better than any other planet in the solar system), not myopically focusing on a single damn planet without giving a good reason like Zubrin.
He is missing the point no better than Apollo did. Going
anywhere is a premature feat we can do but not affordably, we need to establish a useful (ISS does not count at the moment) presence in space first. And build infrastructure to make any other mission to anywhere cheaper.
Hell, I've seen more real support (money coming, prizes being won by tiny firms and research being performed) for orbital depots and in-orbit refuelling than to make true Zubrin's dreams these years.
. I don't own the book, I only saw him various times talking on youtube, and the reasons he told don't hold water in real life (like "it is a logical extension of the settlement of North America"). Or aren't mars-specific, like the usual "all eggs in the same basket".
