••• Video - Mars Direct - settlement on Mars in 10 years within NASA's EXISTING budget •••

[breadandwine]

Here's an incredible film on YouTube about a truly attainable New Frontier in the mode of JFK, without an increase in NASA's budget. Thrilling and with dramatic music and simulations. Total of 44 minutes plus the trailer. Right now we have NASA futzing around tinkering with new technologies and planning to go back to the Moon "someday" as a prelude to going to Mars, but not in our lifetime.

After our landings on the Moon Nixon killed further landings on other worlds. What would you expect from someone who hated Kennedy?

But currently the plan is to go back to the Moon first, someday, if anywhere, where eventually a huge Mars ship would be built on the Moon at enormous cost using all sorts of new technologies yet to be developed such as nuclear-electric engines. This plan has been rightly ridiculed as the "Battlestar Galactica" approach. A budgetary and engineering monstrosity. Estimated cost: $450 billion. It was started by George H.W. Bush. Current NASA spending is a scaled down version of this emphasis on diffuse technology development with no clear focus. Most of the new technologies being tinkered with now by NASA won't wind up ever being used. They're just toying with different things "just in case" they might prove useful later on when we figure out where we're going. And as I am fond of saying, if you're ever not going anywhere, the space station is one BEAUTIFUL place to stop in the middle.

But the Moon has an infinite number of things wrong with it as a destination while Mars is truly suitable for life and civilization. Leading the way on this is Dr. Robert Zubrin, who has been dubbed the "Columbus of Mars." Zubrin has battled all the idiots and bureaucrats at NASA. He has emphasized that destinations drive transportation. NASA hasn't been doing Jack Sh*t for 30 years not because of a lack of money but because of a lack of focus and goal. For 30 years NASA has been going around in (low earth orbit) circles and doodling with spaghetti.

Given that NASA is not going to disappear, because industry and aerospace would stagnate further if NASA were cancelled, here is the Zubrin plan, Mars Direct, meaning going directly to Mars without a detour to the Moon, on NASA's EXISTING budget and using EXISTING technologies.

Given that this doesn't add to NASA's existing budget, WHY DON'T WE GET OUR MONEY'S WORTH AND DO IT?

In Mars Direct oxygen for breathing and methane propellant for the return trip would be made from the Martian atmosphere, radically reducing the weight and cost of the craft going to Mars. Everything in this plan is based on existing, not future technology. Cost? Only $55 billion or only $5.5 billion annually, a helluva lot less than we spent bailing out Wall Street. Given what we spend on NASA, if we can get to Mars on only $5 billion a year, and within NASA's existing budget, it's a Federal crime if we don't go. And this is real science, not a brief "flag and footprints" exercise. The voyagers would stay on Mars for months. The plan allows for continuous replacement crews that would gradually put more habitat modules on the Martian surface, linked together, a slowly developing settlement that would eventually become self-sustaining in a few decades. Direct Mars also includes a serious plan for terraforming Mars - making Mars more hospitable, wet, warm and earthlike so that by 2300 Mars will be truly a second home for advanced life in our solar system, including forests, crops and a denser, breathable atmosphere not requiring spacesuits. The whole plan is ingenious. If nothing else this film shows that the world does not HAVE to be run by idiots.

Also included in the film is Zubrin's testimony before Congress.



The Mars Underground




Mars Underground Trailer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YepDf8YtF1I



The Mars Underground

Part 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3REZZWeWcU

Part 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiPU6Xvrq44

Part 3:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHhp1aLiSio

Part 4:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLfFnK8w0Wc

Part 5:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-XKNK2Eja0

[time_has_come]

1. The idea of spending resources/energy to to to Mars with the realities we face on earth is a bit..

..sickening to me.

What do we think...we're going to colonize that place? Mine it for resources?

After another 20 years and untold billions when our problems here are compounding and requiring all our attention people will look back on these Mars missions as a huge waste of time and opportunity. All that ingenuity and money could be directed to helping us solve real and current problems like climate change.

[TampaAnimus2010]

20. Using that logic, man would have never made it to the Americas...

Waiting until we reach some mystical state of perfection isn't just silly, it's suicidal on a planetary level. We have all our eggs in one basket now and to survive as a species, we need to get out there colonizing anything we can.

[breadandwine]

24. Thanks, TampaAnimus2010. In fact, that's a point made in the film.

And some of those opposed to the inexpensive way to get to Mars proposed by the film are instead pushing the vavoomicon battlestar rocket engine. Cost, $450 billion.

[time_has_come]

27. Now THERE'S a bad analogy

You liken the investment of explorers sailing a ship into the unknown with the space program going to Mars?

We know where Mars is, and we know a great deal about it. We know it's inhospitable to life.
We know it costs billions to mount missions to Mars, and for what? Especially when we have matters at hand we need to deal with which are threatening our survival here.

You talk like it's time to give up/abandon earth and spend a fortune in cash and scientific effort to colonize other planets.
And that I just lack vision because I think it's foolish.

Why don't we colonize the ocean floor?

[TampaAnimus2010]

42. Your right... it is a bad analogy...

Had we stayed in Eurasia, a single asteroid could wipe out mankind and coming to the Americas may not have changed that -- whereas putting people on other planets gives our species a fighting change if some stray asteroid wipes out this planet. Even living on the ocean floor isn't going to save you from a really big asteroid as the oceans will boil away.

Also, I see you completely ignored the point that under your ideas...there is NO perfect time for humanity to progress to take it's rightful place among the stars. If there's one thing that holds mankind back more then religion, its Luddite thinking like this.

[time_has_come]

89. take our rightful place among the stars?

yeah, alright!

Go Captain Kirk!

[TampaAnimus2010]

95. You dont really think mankind will stay trapped at the bottom of a gravity well do you?

I cant even fathom the mindset that expects mankind to stay where he is and not explore. What an incurious and pitiful view you have of yourself and humanity. I know people like that though... never went beyond 50 miles of their hometown, content with the given and has no interest in expanding their horizons. Luckily, evolution doesn't favor those types and it's the adventurers, explorers, innovators that push things ahead. Good luck with that daily grind and no future to look forward to.

[time_has_come]

121. Incurious and pitiful view I have of myself?

Get bent. We know what mars is. We know a lot about mars, a voluminous amount, including that it's not hospitable to life:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7248062.stm
So tell me, what "future" does your curious and grand view of yourself look forward to there? Exploring some silica caves?

I think you've watched a few too many Star Trek episodes. But you keep right on mounting billion dollar boondoggles to dead planets. Just do it with your own money.
I'd rather my money went to exploring more important things, like solving global warming. Not contributing to it with more mars missions.

[TampaAnimus2010]

132. Way to keep avoiding the point...

That as long as we all exist on a single planet, we are threatened with destruction as a species from a rouge asteroid. Whats your food drives to Africa going to do about that? Your going to get to feel all warm and mushy about how charitable you are right up to the point your vaporized. Let me simplify it so you can focus... one planet puts our species at risk.

[Bert]

190. give it a break dude

Hey, I like star trek as well and am for the legalization of marijuana, but give it a rest dude. I dont think we will be colonizing the moon much less the galaxy any time soon.

[breadandwine]

191. Bert, what you "don't think" is hardly turned into conferred wisdom by adding the word "dude"

or mentioning Star Trek.

And back in school I knew a guy who preceded almost every sentence with "Dig on it!" The two of you should really get together.

It is obvious that you rushed to post before examining the information in the OP. Did you view the video linked in the OP? Sounds like you aren't up on the facts.

Fact One: The Moon and Mars are radically different. It would be much easier to colonize Mars than the Moon. The Moon does not have mineral ores available near the surface like Mars does because the two worlds have very different geology. Mars has a much more complex and active recent geologic past. The Moon has no atmosphere. Mars does and it is predominantly CO2 from which you can derive oxygen for breathing and propulsion and carbon for producing methane and growing plants. Mars has sources of nitrogen too, unlike the Moon, important for plants to make protein. Mars has a 24 hour 37 minute day, perfect for growing crops. The Moon has a day lasting nearly a month, with horrendous extremes of heat and cold. Mars has oceans of water in its soil, the Moon doesn't.

The fact that you suggest that colonizing the Moon would be easier than alternatives shows how utterly ignorant you are of the subject matter, even though links both to the video and to other web information on Mars Direct, including from Wikipedia, have been provided to you in this thread.

In the words of the Kotzker Rebbe, "There is nothing so crooked as a glib straight line."

What you "don't think" is hardly proof of anything.......

"DUDE."

[breadandwine]

192. But hey. We gotta stop them modernists and get back ta the horse and buggy!

Dang!

[Statistical]

112. If mankind doesn't leave this rock then eventually mankind will cease to exist.

Our planet has had about one dozen extinction level events in the past that we know of.

Eventually an asteroid large enough to wipe out 99% of life will hit the earth again. What survives won't be high level organisms which require an abundance of resources to exist.

Maybe it will be next year, maybe it will be next century, or next milenium, or maybe it won't come for 100,000 years but an extinction level event WILL happen on this rock eventually.

If mankind remains limited to one planet then everything we ever accomplished (science, art, philosophy) will be wiped clean.

[time_has_come]

118. You're probably right, but is that such a horrible thing?

We could go to mars, and take the archives of all our art/science/etc...and keep it alive (ie. viewable by men) for another billion years, or two. Eventually the sun will die though. Of course, we could stretch into several different solar systems and hedge our sun bets, but those solar systems will expire eventually as well.
It's just a romantic notion that humankind needs to extend beyond earth to ensure our survival, and it presumes our survival of a species has some kind of inherent importance.

[Statistical]

120. If there is no importance then what would nuclear war for example be a bad thing?

Simply speeds up the process right?

[time_has_come]

122. I didn't say there was no importance. Human life is very important...

...to those of us that are alive. Let's not pretend I'm saying human life has no importance, I obviously didn't.

I said the eventual, inevitable, extinction of humankind is not the romantic tragedy some try and suggest as an excuse for dressing us up as interplanetary colonizers.

[Statistical]

124. "I said the eventual, inevitable, extinction of humankind "

I don't accept that as a foregone conclusion.

It will only be ignorance, stupidity, fear, and greed that results in any potential extinction of mankind.

However eventually mankind will need to leave his planet to avoid that extinction.

Will putting a dozen people on mars prevent mankind from becoming extinct? No but it can be the first step towards a spacefaring race.

There are significant amounts of resources in asteroid belts that could enable a future human race (maybe 1000 years or 10,000 years from now) to survive an extinction level event on Earth. However it will take generations to develop the capability to live outside this biosphere and we need to start eventually.

Unless our understanding of physics changes we will never have an interstellar empire. The distances are too great but that doesn't mean that humans can't eventually travel to multiple stars.

[Warren DeMontague]

127. If it doesn't matter, then why NOT do it?

:shrug:

[breadandwine]

62. time_has_come, it's kind of amazing to me how disconnected you are from the available facts here.

You say Mars is inhospitable to life. Firstly, Mars is the one planet in the solar system other than the Earth where life may actually exist right now. (Other than a moon or two with water and energy sources in the outer solar system.) All evidence indicates that there is life on Mars RIGHT NOW, because there is methane being generated on Mars and in the absence of geologic processes to generate it the only other explanation is that microbes are making it.

Secondly, Mars has water, carbon dioxide (from which oxygen can be derived), iron-rich soil that could support crops, a geology that allowed for the formation of mineral ores that could support human settlement. Mars at its equator is frequently warm enough to melt water and the presence of perclorates in the soil lowers the freezing point, allowing for the frequent presence of liquid water on the surface or near it. Not far under the surface is enough geothermal energy for liquid water and also energy for assisting human settlement.

As the film makes clear, all we have to do is warm up Mars a relatively small amount and huge amounts of carbon dioxide adsorbed into the Martian soil would begin outgassing, causing a runaway greenhouse effect that would ultimately warm the planet enough for cultivation of crops. Till then we can live in habitation modules and begin settling Mars.

You also refer to colonizing other planets - plural. No. All those who talk about colonizing Mars are NOT talking seriously about colonizing other planets. Venus is hot enough to melt lead, Mercury is equally inhospitable, Jupiter is a huge ball of gas with no solid surface without descending thousands of miles into the planet, where atmospheric pressure would be crushing. The gravitational field on Jupiter is so great that a person would barely be able to stand even if there were solid ground and he would soon die of cardiac arrest.

And the Moon is extremely inhospitable. It has a month-long day with frigid night and blistering day, no geologic past that would have supported useful mineral ores near the surface, it has virtually no available water and no atmosphere.

No. You completely miss the point. There is exactly one really Earth-like planet other than Earth in our solar system and it's nearby, it's Mars. In fact, for a billion years Mars was very warm and had oceans of liquid water on its surface and could again with a little help.

You also say, why not colonize the ocean floor instead. Well, the pressure down there is actually pretty dubious as we see with the BP oil disaster, that nobody can get down there and only robots can get there. But why colonize the ocean floor, which would probably crowd out the plant life there that our planet depends on for oxygen?

You also miss the point when you suggest that settling Mars means ABANDONING Earth. That's ridiculous. That's like saying that Europeans should never have come to America because it meant abandoning Europe. Do you notice a shortage of people in Europe lately?

[time_has_come]

90. It's earth-like like my middle finger is arm-like

sure, there's some life there.....but it's inhospitable to us.

It's a waste of time going there. It's just an ego-stroking vote-getting exercise.

[breadandwine]

92. Um, time_has_come, when your science teacher in elementary school told you about the space program

were you kind of expecting a welcome committee from the Emerald City?

And if not then you figured just forget the whole dam thing?

Are you aware that goals require effort?



Nevertheless, man has existed on Earth for thousands of years.

Two or three centuries from now, the astronomical equivalent of blink of the eye, there will be cities on Mars.

One of them will be named after Bob Zubrin.

There will be cities named after Earth cities too, like "NEW York."

Perhaps even a Washington.

Like this:

Washington D.Z.


That's Washington, District of Zubrin.


Because people are calling Zubrin the Columbus of Mars.

And they're right.

[time_has_come]

94. Maybe Zurbrin should pay for it then. Oh, yeah...

..he wants taxpayers to pay for his little Columbus routine.

[time_has_come]

91. And that movie is propaganda

btw.

[breadandwine]

93. time_has_come, YOUR POST is ideology without FACTS.

....

[breadandwine]

189. Actually, Time Has Come, destinations of early explorers were probably just as inhospitable

as Mars would be if we landed there under Mars Direct.


Early explorers faced lack of potable water.

NOT TRUE OF MARS DIRECT.

Early explorers lacked decent food.

NOT TRUE OF MARS DIRECT.

Early explorers had to face the possibility of dangerous and hostile native populations.

NOT TRUE OF MARS DIRECT.

The list goes on.

Mars is very hospitable. It has an atmosphere, water, carbon, nitrogens, oxygen, a 24 hour day, a complex geology that has created mineral concentrations for mining. To a scientist Mars is extremely hospitable. And it has a temperature that gets up to zero degrees centrigrade and much higher near thermal vents. It has a 24 hour 37 minute day, perfect for growing plants.

Mars is the most Earth-like planet in our solar system. It is perfect for establishing life and civilization. To a SCIENTIST it is a great destination, much better than the Moon.

[RainDog]

148. the human beings that had already settled the Americas might take issue with your statement

Some might take issue with the way colonists dealt with the indigenous population, as well.

some might say this attitude is exactly why this earth is facing the suffering it does today. some might wonder if it's responsible to let such primitive animals colonize another planet.

not to mention the issue of class - so the poor are left to starve on an earth that was exploited for the benefit of the rich who then do the ultra in gated community assholishness and take their ill-gotten gains to another planet.

I'm not opposed to space exploration but, be honest... the same assholes who created the current mess will create yet another one anywhere they go.

It's stupid to be utopian about this issue. However, if the neo-cons want to be sent to a Mars colony, I'd be inclined to go along with that idea, as long as the oxygen supply is limited.

[Better Believe It]

39. What a waste of money when those bucks could be going to Wall Street and corporate America!

[GreenStormCloud]

214. Who do you think will build the stuff for the Mars mission? N/T

[breadandwine]

215. Zubrin's plan gets us to Mars within NASA's EXISTING budget.

The secret is that you can derive oxygen and methane for fuel from the Martian atmosphere, greatly reducing the size, weight and cost of the round trip.

Right now we are planning huge, costly and wasteful trips back to the Moon which has nothing like what Mars can offer in terms of resources and habitability.

Right now we are wasting money on a SPACE STATION TO NOWHERE.

Why not do something USEFUL with that money instead?


Again:

Zubrin's plan gets us to Mars within NASA's EXISTING budget.

[GreenStormCloud]

216. That does not address the question I asked.

Betterbelieveit posted, "What a waste of money when those bucks could be going to Wall Street and corporate America!"

My response was to point out that the money, even if it is NASA's existing budget, will still end up in Wall Street and corporate America, as it will be major aerospace corporations that will make the rockets, capsules, etc. I was pointing out to him that he was being naive.

Personally, I see no value in a manned Mars mission, or in a return to the Moon.

[breadandwine]

217. That's a pretty vague linkage.

Wall Street has brokerage firms, investment bankers and such.

The aerospace industry is not a brokerage firm.

Merrill Lynch does not make jets and rockets.

[GreenStormCloud]

218. Who make the rockets and the systems?

Hint: They aren't a bunch of Mom & Pop places. They are corporations. They have stock. Stock is traded on the NYSE, on Wall Street. My comment was addressed to Betterbelieveit's naivety. Somehow he believed that corporations would be left out.

[breadandwine]

219. So, GreenStormCloud, it's your testimony that if someone makes something, they're BAD.

The luddites strike again.


Enjoy your goat curd.


Don't neglect your yodeling now.......

[GreenStormCloud]

220. BBI assumes that corporations are bad, in his statement.

He assumes that corporations won't be getting any of the Mars money. I merely reminded him that corporations will be making the stuff.

I oppose it for different reasons.

Nor am I an ignorant Luddite. I happen to subscribe to Scientific American, Discover, Science News and my undergraduate degree was in math.

Antarticia is friendlier to human life than is Mars, and nobody lives there full time.

[breadandwine]

222. Antarctica is cold unless the greenhouse effect warms it up. Bad on Earth, but planned for Mars.

Sorry, but you are not focussing on Zubirn's very real plan for warming up Mars which can be done in only a few decades and very cheaply. Only a modest warming would cause huge amounts of CO2 adsorbed into the Martian soil to outgas, causing a runaway greenhouse that would warm up the whole planet.

You may have a degree in math, but you could try learning to spell better. It's "Antarctica," not "Antarticia."

[athenasatanjesus]

41. In fairness we have the resources to solve many of today's problems as well.

Getting the people who control the resources to go along is the problem.

[TheKentuckian]

59. Be sick then. Space exploration could and likely will provide us the answers

to some of the very problems that vex us here on Earth.

[conscious evolution]

174. Please do not nominate humanity

for a Darwin Award.

[Motown_Johnny]

2. I am for unmanned exploration at this point.

I don't have time to watch all your links right now. I will get to them later today.


It sounds a bit optimistic to me but I could be wrong.

[gristy]

3. Build a "settlement" on Mars?

This implies that people will live, die, give birth, and otherwise sustain themselves with only occasional supply ships from mother earth. That sounds pretty absurd to me. I have a feeling what's going on here is there is some kind of new definition of "settlement" in play here.

[HereSince1628]

4. Why?

Surely, at least because it is there and it seems attainable.

The drive to go farther, higher, faster is ever present.

Why? For the experience, if nothing else.

Experience is that thing that humans share between each other and across generations that makes our culture so much more information rich than that of other animals on this planet. It's the thing that would be predicted to make all cultures information rich, no matter what species owns the experience. No one can really say exactly what could be learned in the process of getting ready to do it or in the process of doing it. So, no one can say exactly if it will be of more benefit that could be had by other spending on problems that seem more proximate to our earthly existance.

The way this nation wastes money trying to hit bullets with bullets, it seems our budget could both explore Mars and address immediate problems facing terra firma.

[TK421]

12. Well...we're not completely finished with fucking this planet up

but eventually, we'll need a new one to ruin!

because we are so awesome at stuff like that!

[HereSince1628]

33. As I said, it's because it's there. A colony there wouldn't be much

of a life-preserver for this planet.

[breadandwine]

35. TK421, solar cells were used in the early satellites like Telstar.

They were invented earlier but the push to make them, use them and make them more efficient was boosted by the space program.

Now they might help our planet convert to solar energy instead of fossil fuel.

There are many ways that living on another world could boost technologies in alternative ways that would be beneficial.

You talk about ruining another world.

On the contrary, settling another world is all about human settlement BY DESIGN instead of by chaotic greed.

It could be that settling Mars would boost alternative ways of living on Earth that could be beneficial.

[TampaAnimus2010]

72. I guess the only solution is suicide... you first!

Those evil humans!

[TK421]

107. We should start by letting Florida go first...it IS the dick of the US after all!

:hi:

[Confusious]

96. And how would we do that

Would we destroy the LUSH vegetation on mars?

Would we foul the VAST seas on mars?

Would we pollute the PRISTINE atmosphere of mars?

I'm not really sure how we would do it, since mars has none of that. Maybe you could explain.

[TK421]

108. Hey..you just named everything humans did WRONG to this planet in that post! thanks!

edited to add: I never said Mars had any of those things....could you point out where I said that? Pretty please? with sugar on top? Does Mars even need life? What would you look for there as far as natural resources go?

So many questions, but anyway the fucking-up of this planet is a work in progress

[breadandwine]

109. Did you say "natural resources," TK421 ???????????

As the video mentioned (I'm still waiting for evidence the critics on this thread actually saw it....), Mars, unlike the Moon, has a complex geological history that supported concentration of minerals into ores.

Of course, Mars is packed with iron.

But as Zubrin has pointed out, near Mars are asteroids with precious metals such as platinum. Going to Mars has benefit because of a "triangle trade" that would develop in the same way that trading ships traveled from Europe to mainland colonial America in part because of the incentive of stopping off in the Caribbean before heading back. The Caribbean, with its hot climate, offered precious sugar and spices. Spices had huge value in a small volume. Same with precious metals on the asteroids. Zubrin has worked out the economics of all this in concert with the cost of getting there and everything. The economics works for this.

[Confusious]

129. Well you said fucking up mars

I was giving examples. Of course none of them apply to mars, since mars has nothing I mentioned.


So I ask again, how would we fuck up mars, please explain

[Trillo]

5. I'm sure a lot of us would rather be living elsewhere,

given what's been going on here on planet earth for some longish period of time.

Nevertheless, it seems to me we do not deserve to spread our filthy, corrupt ways of power for a few elsewhere in the universe. We haven't been able to properly care for this planet. Why do some of us feel we are entitled to another?

[Confusious]

97. My thoughts on this

The grass is always greener on the other side. If people could actually see how small the earth really is, then they might appreciate it more.

Besides that, It's our solar system, nobody there, mars is a dead world for the most part. Why shouldn't we bring life there?

Newton once said "If I have seen farther it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants"

You would have us stand on the shoulders of midgets.

[Skidmore]

162. And how do we know that Mars is in fact "dead?"

We are midgets, a world full of midgets, standing the shoulders of generations of midgets. I think we should learn how to get it right here on the world that is our home before promoting the inevitable exploitation of other worlds.

[breadandwine]

6. Some on this thread did not in any way view the videos. Knowledge? What is that??????

Also, some of the posters on this thread did not read the opening post.

Always engage brain before putting mouth (or keyboard) into gear.

As stated, this plan, Mars Direct, does NOT raise NASA's budget. Unless you have figured out how to cancel NASA in this or any other likely political climate, what is your excuse for us NOT going to Mars? What ELSE should NASA be doing with the money, dreaming up better toilets for the space station?

[Trillo]

10. You should take your own advice about brain and keyboard.

Are you implying that what you wrote is not reflective of the contents of the videos. Or even worse, that you didn't write the post and just copied and pasted, instead?

Some folks have learned to loathe TV. Just to watch an online video one has to turn on scripting, and that identifies a single computer's "fingerprint" (see "panopticlick").

So you seem to believe that people are "stupid" if they don't want to "show their papers". Is that a "progressive" value?

[breadandwine]

21. Perhaps I should also add some advice about paranoia, Trillo.

Nobody makes anybody watch an online video from YouTube.

But those who throw spitballs should watch the video if they feel like commenting on it.

As for you, are you saying that all the videos posted by DUers on the DU home page are somehow EVIL?

If so, that is your point of view. But then, what are you doing here on a site with lots of videos?

[Trillo]

34. You didn't answer my question of whether you accurately summarized them. So, you did not?

Yet, you expect me to answer your questions?

I'm putting you on ignore. Nothing good will come of this. :hi:

[breadandwine]

36. So you still didn't watch the videos, Trillo. It is only the truth that hurts.

There used to be a political party called the "Know Nothing Party."

Their presence in American history did come to mind while reading your posts.

Putting me on ignore is like a child sticking its fingers in its ears and jumping up and down while singing "La la la" real loud.

Suit yourself. Some people can't handle the truth.

[Warren DeMontague]

46. So Sez you. The Youtube gave me the bunions!

If that's not proof of a conspiracy, nothing is!!!

[Odin2005]

19. Those folks are misathropists who are against ANY manned activity in space.

And declare colonization wrong because Mankind is evil.

[Codeine]

26. They are myopic and small-minded.

They've substituted the stupid religious notion of Man's natural sinfulness with the equally stupid animistic nation that Man is unnatural and needs to be destroyed for some greater ecological good. Crap like Avatar just fuels their fervor. "We are Gaia's cancer!!" :eyes: :puke:

In the war of Hobbes vs. Locke I'll take Locke every time.

[breadandwine]

30. Wow. Heavy post, Codeine. I'm not up on Locke and Hobbes.

Can you summarize their conflicting views?

[Confusious]

99. They should take an astronomy course

We are small fry. The universe destroys with a fury, and if we're to close, would fry us like an ant in a magnifying glass.

Starquakes are my favorite. They send out massive gamma ray burst in all directions that would strip the atmosphere of the earth and fry it to a cinder if we were within 10 light years.

YUM!

[Warren DeMontague]

47. Often, they're the same people who screech that no one should be allowed to have kids, too.

Coincidence? I think not.

[eShirl]

7. without checking out the links, my first reaction is it sounds too good to be true

[breadandwine]

8. What good is how "it sounds" if you haven't informed yourself?

Better to get the facts.

Watch the videos. Would that kill you?

Read up on this. This is also on Wikipedia and Zubrin has testified before Congress. He's up against the NASA establishment which hasn't been doing Jack Sh*t for years.

Why not examine the information posted and linked in the OP instead of telling us how uninformed your opinion is?

[eShirl]

43. Some of us can't watch videos on our computers. I currently have no sound soit wouldn't do me much

good.

Why don't you lay out the plan for those of us who are in text mode?

[eShirl]

44. by the way, breadandwine... it is said one can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar

just a friendly reminder

[breadandwine]

65. Actually, eShirl, that's bees, not flies. Another one of your informational inexactitudes.

Does your computer have some sort of allergy to Wikipedia too?

Here:

Mars Direct:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct


The way to find that is by going to Wikipedia and then typing in "Mars Direct." You'll find that research is useful in life.

Robert Zubrin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Zubrin

The Mars Society:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Society

The Mars Society website:

http://www.marssociety.org/portal

That's packed with information.


The problem is you openly say you are going to form opinions before having the facts. I'm genuinely sorry your computer is having problems but lack of knowledge is no excuse to weigh in on an issue before getting the facts.

[eShirl]

77. ignored

screw you.

[breadandwine]

81. eShirl, I just gave you exactly what you asked for - lots of info without videos.

including several links packed with information.

And instead of examining it and getting back to me with a coherent reply or rebuttal, your choice, instead you freak out.

I guess facts were too much for you, huh eShirl?

Is there really something wrong with your audio?

Looks like you just can't handle ANY information.


Your above remarks have got to be some of the most reflexively opinionated fact-free comments I have seen on DU.

[Posteritatis]

83. Most people upset about things like this are just emoting anyway

A lot of them actively fight to maintain the fact-free state, either ignoring information and refusing to so much as read OP articles, or moving the goalposts all over the place to the usual tired cliches ("we need a perfect utopia here first," "I think NASA's budget is $500 billion and I'm going to argue as though that's the case," "we'll pollute the pristine vacuum of space with toxins," "space needs to be kept safe from us so everyone except me should die," etc).

Even before getting into the really brain-dead ones like people who deny the moon landings, DU's had a pretty strong hate on (and clue off) when it comes to space for awhile. At least some of that is programming from the previous administration - if Bush had said that anything to do with space was intrinsically evil this site would be naught but Tsiolkovsky clones - but there's a big anti-science streak in general around here, and space is one of the two things that group hates the most.

[breadandwine]

9. Ah. Someone gave this a rec.

Thanks.

[Codeine]

11. Shit. Accidentally unrecced.

Sorry. Meant to rec. :dunce:

[architect359]

13. K&R. n/t

[breadandwine]

14. Thanks.

..

[L0oniX]

15. These fellows may have something to say about it...

...who are trying to blow up earth with the Illudium PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator because "it obstructs their view of Venus".

[breadandwine]

16. Well, for an alternate take, check out this ---

Third From The Sun


Twilight Zone Episode

full video ----


http://www.cbs.com/classics/the_twilight_zone/video/index.php?pid=rXi55jKAB_NBNJvgpjNs9ht8_ja6QCjo



Be sure to use the full screen button.

[breadandwine]

17. Now 6 recs....

Looks like intelligent life down here......

[Odin2005]

18. And the NASA-haters come one schedule, like flies on shit!!!

[neverforget]

28. It's really sad.

[breadandwine]

31. If we can do it relatively cheaply, I think we should.

We'll probably get a lot more out of it in many ways than we would if we didn't do it.

[Desertrose]

22. Kinda wish we'd clean up our mess here before we head out.

Just saying...

I mean if we can't take proper care of the Earth...what will we do to Mars?

:shrug:

[Codeine]

23. The "problems here first" crowd will never be satisfied.

There are always pioneers, people who press on to new frontiers and expand our horizons. Those people are to be lauded, not pinned down by petty concerns over amounts of cash that barely rate as a drop in a bucket.

[breadandwine]

29. Good points, Codeine. I'll add some:

Over a century ago leading scientists said it was literally IMPOSSIBLE for a ship to enter outer space at all. Their argument was simple and seemed devastating. They pointed out that even the most efficient fuel, such as hydrogen - huge bang for the weight - couldn't get us into space because it would still require so much of it to get us into space that the resulting weight of the fuel would KEEP us from getting into space. In fact, in a very real sense they were right.

But then they developed multi-stage rockets, with one stage after another dropping away as the rocket ascends to lighten the weight.

Bingo. We entered space and made it to the Moon.

In fact, today there are even various plans for SSTO - Single Stage To Orbit. Some of these designs work by taking oxygen even out of the thin upper atmosphere instead of having to carry it in tanks onboard, meaning less oxygen carried, less weight, therefore easier to get all the way into space with a single stage rocket.

[Confusious]

100. You forgot to add spin of the earth

The closer to the equator you are, the less speed you need, since the spin of the earth makes up for it.

That's why they launch from florida.

[Desertrose]

50. Point is about being good stewards and not money.

Screwing up a planet is not exactly a petty concern.

[Warren DeMontague]

58. Nature itself is the #1 Screwer-Upper of Planets.

Define "Screwing up a planet", please.

And If there's no life on Mars, and we bring life there, is that "screwing it up"?

[Codeine]

61. And explorer or not exploring Mars

has absolutely nothing to do with screwing anything up here.

[breadandwine]

67. Desertrose, I'm a fanatic environmentalist, but Mars Direct does not raise NASA's bloated budget.

So there's no problem, despite your sloganeering.

We might also learn something about proper stewardship by going to Mars. We have a chance to do something right there.

As I pointed out elsewhere on this thread, solar cells were advanced by the space program. That was BENEFICIAL for stewardship of this world. You can't make blanket statements about it all being negative when someone has come up with a plan that doesn't raise NASA's budget. Personally I'm pretty pissed off that NASA wastes so much money and hasn't done much that's useful for 30 years. If we are going to continue funding NASA, and I guarantee we are, then why not get our money's worth and do something worthwhile with it?

[Confusious]

101. Screwing up mars?

Seriously, take an astronomy class.

You couldn't mess it up if you tried, since it's already DEAD.

[Desertrose]

133. I was referring to our screwing up THIS planet....

Seriously.

[Confusious]

137. You didn't make that clear

The post stated that we should clean up our mess before screwing up another planet.

Your post stated that we should take screwing up a planet seriously.

Considering everyone on this board is concerned about that, and didn't make it clear, I inferred you were talking about screwing up mars, which is impossible to do.

[AsahinaKimi]

56. It begs the question...

What would Captain Kirk do?
:hide:

[Warren DeMontague]

57. Captain Kirk practically epitomized the Interstellar Patriarchal Phallic Conspiracy

He might as well had "Male Gaze" blasters on the front of the Enterprise, next to the Photon Torpedoes!

:sarcasm:

[AsahinaKimi]

60. "Well, captain, er, the Klingons called you

a tin plated over bearing swaggering dictator with delusions of godhood...
they also compared you with a Denebian slime devil."


I am sure he's been called worse.. :P

[Confusious]

102. Then you punched him?

No sir, I punched him when he called the Enterprise a garbage scow.

[Canuckistanian]

176. THAT was unforgiveable

Scotty was entirely justified

[Posteritatis]

84. I'm actually sorta convinced Trek's at fault for at least some of the anti-space crowd...

The whole "we need to magically become superior as a species somehow before we're worthy to leave the atmosphere" mindset isn't exactly suppressed in the Trek canon, and it's certainly parroted widely enough outside of it..

[breadandwine]

106. Hey, Warren DeMontague, we evil humans are the monsters of the galaxy.

Here's proof from the annual worst-fiction Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest of 2003, here the winner of worst fiction in the Sci-Fi category:


"Colonel Cleatus Yorbville had been one seriously bored astronaut for the first few months of his diplomatic mission on the third planet of the Frangelicus XIV system, but all that had changed on the day he'd discovered that his tiny, multipedal and infinitely hospitable alien hosts were not only edible but tasted remarkably like that stuff that's left on the pan after you've made cinnamon buns and burned them a little."

(Submitted by Mark Silcox, Auburn AL.)


There you have it. Proof we must never go to Mars.

[breadandwine]

25. Desertrose, I would agree with you emphatically except for one thing.

The Mars Direct plan for getting to Mars does not raise NASA's budget so there's no problem with diverting resources to the wrong thing. Right now NASA is wasting money on so much nonsense and the Mars Direct plan would merely replace some of that nonsense. So there's truly no conflict. Unless you can show that we can actually cancel the whole space program, cancel NASA, which is politically untenable, why not go to Mars?

[Desertrose]

51. Its not about the money...its about our behavior.

Like we did so great here we get to start on another planet?


Seriously, going to other planets is cool with me if we know how to treat the place we land.

That's all.

[Posteritatis]

79. Many of us are big boys and girls who can both walk *and* chew gum. (nt)

[breadandwine]

32. Ooh. We were at 7 recs and then down to 6. Somebody's in a bad mood.....

....

[Odin2005]

66. I was Rec #7, which jerk neutralized my Rec!?!

:grr:

[breadandwine]

37. Hooey! Now up to 13 recs.

Thanks folks.

There is intelligent life on Earth.

[proteus_lives]

38. Our future is in the stars.

:thumbsup:

I hope this happens.

[Vinca]

40. Oh, great. Another planet to occupy and trash. Have the oil rights been sold yet?

[Motown_Johnny]

49. If someone finds fossil fuels on Mars I will change my mind about this

is someone just finds fossils on Mars I might change my mind about this

[TampaAnimus2010]

73. Your right... those evil humans need to commit suicide...

Go for it!

[time_has_come]

123. You show up on a board and start telling people they should commit suicide?

Smooth technique.

[Confusious]

103. And how would we do that?

Would we destroy the LUSH vegetation on mars?

Would we foul the VAST seas on mars?

Would we pollute the PRISTINE atmosphere of mars?

I'm not really sure how we would do it, since mars has none of that. Maybe you could explain.

[tranche]

116. Does your type ever give up?

Everything might be lost and nothing is worth doing to you, but thank God there are some who are not so miserable as to want to strive for something bigger than sitting on a sofa and bitching about how everything's gone to hell.

[Warren DeMontague]

45. Excellent. The self-hating Yurt Dwellers will piss and moan, but man WILL leave the crade of Earth

sooner or later.

As for "fucking up" Mars; if there's no life there, and we can bring life to a dead rock, how is that "fucking it up"?

That's what life does. Not just humanity- LIFE. Life on this planet has occupied every single available nook, cranny and crevice it can. It moves, it spreads, it grows. Weeds pop up in the cracks in the concrete- bacteria live inside volcanoes- life colonizes that which is not alive- it is the closest thing to a biological imperative (that, and reproducing, which is another thing the self-haters can't stand) that we, as living things, have.

Now, you can whine and bleat about Patriarchal Space Brutes sending giant penises to ravish the sky goddess all you like, but this is not a not a behavior of civilization, not a human behavior, not even a primate or mammal behavior exclusively- this is, again, what life does.

We will go to Mars, and I'm hoping my grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren will see it terraformed.

[eShirl]

48. a terraformed Mars would be easier on my old knees than full Earth gravity

Anybody got a time machine for me?

[WinkyDink]

53. There is nothing inherently superior in your opinion, fellow Yurt-Dweller.

[Warren DeMontague]

55. It's not superior, it's just right.

Humanity will leave this planet.

[Statistical]

126. Or die here. Some feel content for human race to simply cease to exist. n/t

[TampaAnimus2010]

144. Exactly - the anti-humanists...

They see no possible good coming from humans, only the negative components. To them, any modification to nature is evil. Planting a garden is disturbing the natural order. Building a campfire is raping the forest. They completely forget mankind IS nature...and all this evolution, pollution, revolution, is all part of the path... Any intelligent species out there would go through these phases as they mature and step out into the universe.

[TampaAnimus2010]

74. Awesome response to those Luddites out there!

Lets go cower in our caves and sit around the campfire!

[Confusious]

104. Fire!?

That's damn technology! I eat my greens raw! Don't eat meat, that's bad!

[NeedleCast]

203. The self-hating Yurt Dwellers

Love it. I'm stealing that for future debates on this topic.

[WinkyDink]

52. Oh, good; another planet we can take from Eden to perdition. FOLLY.

[Warren DeMontague]

54. Mars is "Eden"?

Maybe we can just keep it essentially the same--- but dress it up in different clothes?

Sort of the way you have taken residual Western Religious Monotheistic Guilt and "Original Sin" and transmogrified it into "Man as Eco-Sinner vs. The Pristine Original State of the Universe".

[TampaAnimus2010]

75. Last time I looked, Mars was pretty much an empty rock...

If you think humans are that evil, we should all commit suicide... you first!

[time_has_come]

125. Again telling people to commit suicide, huh? What's wrong, haven't you been welcomed to DU yet?

[TampaAnimus2010]

130. Do you have anything other then a flawed attempt at...

an argument from authority? Suggesting that one needs a zillion posts before one has a valid point is so vapidly intellectually empty I just have to giggle a little. Come back with you have something substantial.

[time_has_come]

141. Telling people to commit suicide is a "valid point"?

Anyone could have a valid point, high post count or not. But as a new poster you might want to curb your tendency to encourage people to kill themselves. just sayin'.

[TampaAnimus2010]

143. I think it's perfectly acceptable that if you think your evil...

then you have a moral responsibility to either stop being evil (and the anti-humanists around her aren't about to do that), or off yourself for the good of whoever or whatever you want. Wouldn't you say the same thing to Hitler if you could travel in time? Either dont be evil, or if you cant control yourself... kill yourself. I think it's perfectly reasonable.

If you really have such a negative view of humanity that you see nothing but negative things in the future, then you have a moral responsibility to remove yourself from the universe.

[breadandwine]

85. WinkyDink, if your compassion for another world is sustained, you might consider the opposite

of your position. Mars was once warm and full of deltas and rivers. For about a billion years. There is a lot of evidence now that life arose during that period and still exists below the surface. We would be doing Mars a favor by warming it up and bringing the planet back to life.

[proteus_lives]

110. Luddite.

[Bucky]

181. No, we must attack and colonize Mars NOW, before they decide to get us first! OGM!!1!

[breadandwine]

182. Bucky, perhaps you've been watching too much Twilight Zone ---

Third From The Sun - Twilight Zone Episode

http://www.cbs.com/classics/the_twilight_zone/video/index.php?pid=rXi55jKAB_NBNJvgpjNs9ht8_ja6QCjo

For a lot of the rest of us Mars is actually something potentially positive as a place to go to. Especially if it can be done cheaply instead of the way NASA is currently wasting money on the Space Station to Nowhere. Mars is the only truly Earth-like planet in our solar system. Maybe your fixation on the idea that anyone who wants to go there has a predatory attitude is a Freudian projection.

[roscoeroscoe]

63. thanks for posting, great stuff

we should continue to push forward into space. it would be sad to ... give up. those of you who say no, don't you get that?

we are the ones who need to step up and make the future happen. clean energy, space travel, the whole high frontier.

two points, please. first, please take a look for the mars trilogy, by kim stanley robinson. lots of wonderful discussion of these very issues, summed up as the positions of the Reds and the Greens. the reds want a slow-growth, environmentally careful approach. the Greens want to press ahead with terraforming mars and expanding immigration. also, some great discussions of the philosophy of science, formation of the new government, etc. really can't recommend this series highly enough.

second, the issue is related to information coming out recently that the European Space Agency probe that scanned Phobos, the small moon of Mars, performed scans that revealed the interior to be...hollow. like an artificial moonlet. check www.enterprisemission.com for the updates on this very interesting story.

mars.

[breadandwine]

183. Thanks for the thumbs up, roscoeroscoe. But Phobos a spaceship?

Simply because it has some internal structure that seems hollow? Firstly, I don't know how accurate that is, but even if it is, even if Phobos is hollow, that is far from proof that it is artificial. Your link says it has more than one hollow area inside. Meteorites also have hollowed out structures. Phobos could be a mixture of rock and ice where some of the ice evaporated away, leaving the hollow structures.

Wikipedia has a different take ---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobos_(moon)

(The DU system keeps adding a space between the underscore and moon in parentheses. You have to remove the space to get to the page.)

Firstly, that early evidence that Phobos was hollow is now believed to be at least partly incorrect.
Secondly, that the behavior of Phobos can be attributed to tidal effects, not a hollow interior.

Nevertheless, Wikipedia adds this:

"...mapping by the Mars Express probe and subsequent volume calculations do suggest the possible presence of vast caverns within the moon and indicate that it is not a solid chunk of rock but a porous body instead..."

Okay, so it may be partly hollow. But having caverns inside does not make something artificial. There are huge caverns in the Earth that are completely natural. They're called CAVES.

Wikipedia also has this on the grooves on Phobos:

"Analysis of results from the Mars Express spacecraft, however, revealed that the grooves are not in fact radial to Stickney (crater), but are centered on the leading apex of Phobos in its orbit (which is not far from Stickney). Researchers suspect that they have been excavated by material ejected into space by impacts on the surface of Mars. The grooves thus formed as crater chains, and all of them fade away as the trailing apex of Phobos is approached. They have been grouped into 12 or more families of varying age, presumably representing at least 12 Martian impact events."

Sorry to pop your (hollow) balloon, but it looks like Phobos is natural.

In any case, this makes me happy because it would be more problematic ethically to terraform Mars if it had major presence of life there. My own suspicion is that Mars has some cellular life but nothing more. I think we would be doing Mars a favor if we warmed the planet up and brought it back to life. Provided we can avoid polluting the planet.

[jp11]

64. Mars yes.

I have to admit to being annoyed I had to get to part 4 to have the issues they didn't address get addressed, shielding, food supply, etc. but I'm sold have been since I was a kid about NASA actually doing something besides being glorified mechanics in space.


For those that say why not fix Earth first, I can only tell you there is always going to be a reason to do this over that for us to focus on fixing our own country, state, county, city, house before lifting a finger to help or do anything for someone else, somewhere else, for some other reason. I think doing things like this, pushing the limits of our technology and will are good for us, there are other ways to do that but they will often pale in comparison to a brighter endeavor and you have to admit space is a really bright endeavor.

[breadandwine]

68. Wow. We're up to 19 recs, folks. Thanks.

...

[smalll]

76. You wouldn't do nearly as well if you didn't know how to make those fancy-schmancy DOTS ---

Where the rest of us make do with asterisks.

You must be some kind of IT person.

Please, teach the rest of us how to make those dots!

[breadandwine]

88. It requires a security clearance 38 levels of Sensitive Compartmentalized Information (SCI) above

Top Secret.

[Hempathy]

69. IMHO- sending anything other than robots to mars is a waste of resources at this point...

I've always been of the opinion that we'd be much better off exploring our own oceans than outer-outer space, as far as manned missions go.

Had we invested more money/resources to it- we might have already had the technology to solve the gulf oil crisis- or to have made deep-sea oil exploration unnecessary.

[Confusious]

105. I think your time would be better spent

Bitching about the military budget rather then NASA.

$100 Million dollars VS $1 trillion. About a 1000x return on investment.

[Hempathy]

134. Please explain how I was bitching about NASA?

I'm not against space exploration in general- i just feel that manned missions, especially to another planet, are a waste of resources at this point. Sending humans means that they have to take along food, water, and air for each person- which is a HUGE and unnecessary waste, IMHO. Robotic "explorers" would be a much more effective use of resources.

[Confusious]

136. As a NASA scientist

Who was the head of the mars explorer program said: "Not Really"

[Hempathy]

138. "was" being the operative word.

There's nothing that human explorers could do on mars at this point that couldn't be done robotically, other than spending WAY MORE money/effort/resources getting/being there.

[Confusious]

140. Wow! You picked out one word

and I made that in error. He still is.

There are a thousand things that a human can do, and do quicker. You vastly overestimate robotics.

It takes three weeks to get less then 30 yards. One or two experiments. You think a human could do the same amount in that time?

Maybe if they were developmentally disabled and in an iron lung.

[Hempathy]

145. Anything that humans would be able to accompish on Mars, robotics can do cheaper

And without risk to human lives.

How many supplies would be needed to keep a human explorer roaming the surface, collecting data for years longer than their mission intended?

You say that there are "thousands of thing that a human can do, and quicker"...

Name 5 things for which that would be true on the martian surface.
(btw- you can forget this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pcYXhXVbng )

[breadandwine]

70. Just an interesting little question:

Of those now criticizing Mars - Mars under NASA's EXISTING budget - how many of you were out there railing against NASA while it wasted the last 30 years twiddling its technological thumbs and building the space station to nowhere, which is not much different from the bridge to nowhere?

Perhaps some of you. How many?

Just wondering.

I put it to you that while NASA wasted billions and billions some of you were not so exercised against NASA until someone came along and actually came up with an idea to actually DO something.


Just wondering.

[Warren DeMontague]

78. NASA gets fractions of a penny on the discretionary dollar, but people line up to complain about it.

Meanwhile, the Military-Industrial Complex gets a half a trillion a year, not including additional war appropriations, not including "black budget" items-- the Drug War gets $40 Billion a year to go after pot smokers.... yet, for some reason, it's always the money for science and peaceful exploration that causes immediate, loud, apoplectic wallet-clutching.

[Posteritatis]

80. A lot of people just don't have a clue what NASA's budget is

Some guys did a poll about it in the US a year or two ago and the typical American who was polled guessed the budget at about twenty to forty times what it actually is.

[breadandwine]

82. Beautiful point, Warren DeMontague.

...

[breadandwine]

98. Warren DeMontague, here's another comment in support of what you said.

The US government is now buying a total of 2,443 F-35 stealth fighter jets for an estimated cost of $323 billion, making it the most expensive defense program ever.

That lousy stinker Bob Zubrin with his dirty rotten $5 billion a year peaceful science project to go to Mars....

The nerve.

[breadandwine]

71. T minus 20 recs and counting.....

.....

[breadandwine]

86. T minus 22 recs and rising. Houston, I believe we have lift off.

....

[Bryn]

87. I'd go for it! A big thumb up!

Will they bring animals from Earth, too? I only saw 1, 2, and 5 because videos don't provide close captioning for us in hearing impaired community, but they look interesting enough for me to be curious.

[berni_mccoy]

111. All they need to do is say there is Oil on Mars. BP would fund it in an instant.

[Statistical]

113. "Sadly" for BP there is no oil. There are actually no hydrocarbons at all.

Of course BP could
1) terraform the planet
2) promote a massive abundance of carbon based life
3) create a massive extinction level event
4) wait a billion years
....
TADA whole new source of hydrocarbons.

[Warren DeMontague]

128. There is, however, a SHITLOAD of methane on Titan.

Just sayin'.

[breadandwine]

142. Actually, Warren DeMontague, some methane has been detected on Mars too.

And if it were caused by inorganic geologic processes the geology is wrong for that on Mars.

MEANING: That since they have detected methane on Mars, it is strong evidence that there is life.

[Warren DeMontague]

Delete. Dupe. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

155. Yep. It'll be interesting to see what the Mars Science Lab Rover finds.

However, my point was more that if you're talking about methane in sufficient concentrations and quantities to be a fuel source, Titan has lakes of the stuff. It is, of course, really far away.

[lumberjack_jeff]

114. K&R, just to mess with the Yurt-dwellers. n/t

[Johonny]

115. he makes it sound so easy

thanks for the laugh. Those that are in the actual space industry need a giggle now and then. I'd tell you all the things wrong with it, but I don't have enough energy. Enjoy the fantasy.

[breadandwine]

117. And maybe, Johonny, on the other hand Zubrin could refute all your glib objections.

The video tells how Martin flew Zubrin all over NASA and everyone at NASA was acclaiming him from the rafters and giving him standing ovations. Everybody but the bureaucrats had been converted to Mars Direct.

So maybe, JUST MAYBE, you laugh too soon.


Did you actually see the video, or are you another one of those on this thread who is busy posting without listening?


Because Zubrin won over legions in the aerospace industry who MIGHT know something you don't.

[Johonny]

147. I doubt it.

We are already on Mars. I mean we've been there for a long time now. Zubrin is so worried with crack pot schemes to he's missing the show. The history of space exploration is and always has been a history of unmanned space vehicles. Anyone that really understands the industry, knows that.

[breadandwine]

119. Cawa-friggin-bunga! Rec # 24! Thanks folks.

.....

[defendandprotect]

131. Presumably a "settlement" of robots . . .

because given our current knowledge and human condition, we are earthbound --

i.e., Van Allen Radiation Belts

[Warren DeMontague]

139. Ah, yes, it's the "Moon Landing Hoax" crowd.

Thanks for weighing in.

:crazy:

[Cleobulus]

150. That poster is crazy...

don't worry, they already put me on ignore because I called them, ahem, "woo". :D

[Warren DeMontague]

156. With a Capital "W". nt

[Codeine]

157. Science fail. Reality fail. Critical thinking fail. nt

[grantcart]

135. won't work -- too logical and simple

sorry I missed your rec window - what a great idea.

[struggle4progress]

146. The Antarctic is warmer, easier to get to, and has more fresh water.

Really. It's a really long boring ride to Mars; and you've got to pack several years worth of food for the crew, in addition to designing multiply-redundant systems for everything, since the communication time-lag with prevent earth-based help from making any difference in the case of an emergency. We don't have a good success rate landing on Mars and we haven't brought anything back from Mars yet. So it's grossly premature to talk about landing enough people on Mars to start a colony there. Why the fuck should we spend money trying to put a colony on Mars? Once you're on Mars you're not even in a human-friendly environment: you've got to worry about food, water, radiation, equipment repair and all the rest -- with any emergency help from Earth at least two years away. And nobody's going to get much from a Mars colony: it's just a boondoggle for the aerospace/defense industry

You want to do Mars science? Fine with me. Do robotics. Design machines to get there, take soil/rock samples, and come back. Keep sending better orbital satellites with better sensing equipment and get 3D data that can be computer processed to obtain good surface maps. Send multiple landers with sensors to ten or twelve sites and do some seismology. Do it all without the huge and pointless payload costs of life support for a crew. But let's forget the idiotic childish Star Trek fantasies about how Mars colonies will save humanity if we destroy Earth

[Cleobulus]

151. And when we raise the ocean level about 30 meters because of activities in Antarctica...

what then, cry over the millions dead and still destroy this planet? On Earth, whenever humans do something, especially on mass scale, we have to suffer the consequences to the environment, because we live in it with every other organism on this planet. Yes, there is plenty of fresh water in Antarctica, but what will be the cost to everyone on Earth if we use them.

I'm not saying going to Mars is necessarily the answer, however, staying on Earth isn't the answer either, at least for the most damaging of things we do on Earth, extraction of resources, heavy industry, agriculture etc. These can be, for lack of the better word "outsourced" beyond Earth's atmosphere, so we can damage the Earth less, and still be able to have power for our homes, food on our tables, and access to other resources as well. This will require some human presence in space, long term.

[Cleobulus]

149. I find this to be a fools errand...

I haven't watched the videos but I'm familiar with this argument. Its romantic, it may even be practical, but in the end, its not going to be useful in the short term. The best way to get to Mars(eventually), is to create a robust space industry in Near-Earth Orbit. There are free floating rocks in space right now that only require a fraction of the delta-v needed to get to Mars to get to them. We can mine them, change their orbits, utilize them for space construction, and use them as bases of operation for many things that can have a short term benefit to life on Earth, and also begin colonizing space at the same time.

[breadandwine]

152. •••Cleobulus, you're right: You didn't watch the video. Thanks for being one of the few naysayers•••

on this thread to admit it. You also didn't read most of the posts on this thread.

If you were in any normal group gathering in real space instead of cyberspace and you butted in on an already ongoing discussion without first listening to what others were saying, it would actually be considered rude. Yet some on this thread have done precisely that, adamant that they are not actually going to read and watch the material under discussion, no, NOT THEY!!!

You say the best way to get to Mars is to create a robust space industry in near earth orbit.

As Zubrin points out, this is what NASA has been doing for 30 years and we are just going around in circles. Much of the technology being cooked up by NASA now is useless beyond low earth orbit and especially for Mars, the only planetary neighbor of ours attractive to settle. Your approach has given us NASA research into incredibly unnecessary nuclear electric engines etc. that we don't need and plans to build "Battlestar Gallactica" on the Moon since the machines intended for low earth orbit aren't very robust.

Incredibly, DESPITE people like you, Zubrin found a way to use existing technology to get all the way to Mars despite your certainty that we can't.

I sympathize with the calamity, the tragedy, the sense of GRIEVING you must feel at someone having found an easy, inexpensive way to leave low earth orbit and ACTUALLY GO SOMEWHERE while you are being such a group-think goody two shoes spoilsport saying that we can't. And your emphasis on the "short term" is yet another example of how ill-informed you are, your know-nothing determination not to actually watch the video that is THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD. Because right on the video it is clearly explained that everything being proposed by Zubrin for Mars can be done in the SHORT TERM using EXISTING technology, which is why so many at Martin and then inside NASA were cheering Zubrin and even giving him standing ovations. I sympathize. It must be heartbreaking, heartbreaking truly, to be confronted with the facts. I empathize with your intellectual loss. Fantasy Island was such a nice place in its day. What gives you the moral right to weigh in on this topic by parading your ignorance as wisdom? You explicitly say, "I haven't watched the videos." Then what's the point of all your useless blather? What purpose is served by saying, Hi, I'm ignorant, I can't be bothered to watch the video that is the subject of this thread, but let me pontificate nevertheless. Are there people on this thread who need to have a gun put to their head to watch a simple video or to go to the Wikipedia links I posted on this thread about Mars Direct and Zubrin and ACTUALLY INFORM THEMSELVES ON THIS ISSUE?

The asteroids you refer to are indeed useful for minerals, some very precious, but many are near Mars, which lies next to the asteroid belt. Going to Mars and making stopovers at the asteroids makes trips to Mars much more advantageous economically. Your bringing up the asteroids serves the purpose of GOING to Mars, not the contrary.

It is true that low-earth orbit requires less propulsion. It is also true that therefore the technology created for this leaves us with the need for incredibly elaborate endeavors requiring multiple launches to assemble larger ships in space at staggering expense with higher risks if we want to go beyond those low earth orbits. It's an incredible Catch-22. You are saying, in effect, hey! I got an idea! Let's make small, weak spaceships that only get us into low earth orbit, so that when we actually decide to GO SOMEWHERE we will have to have multiple launches with risky in-space assembly to build precisely the large craft I don't want to build! Lunar and in-space assembly is an incredible Catch-22, dangerous because statistically some of those craft in so many missions for all that in-space assembly will fail.

These are key points you would be familiar with if you had CONDESCENDED to watch the video, read the links and inform yourself.

I am astounded at the smug, self-absorbed arrogance and I-don't-need-to-know-anything of some of those on this thread who clearly weigh in with their wisdom from the mount without informing themselves on this issue because they think they are already KNOW IT ALLS.

What people like you have given us for THIRTY F*CKING YEARS is nothing but a space station to nowhere which is no different from the bridge to nowhere. Even plans to use the space station for further assembly of a craft to go beyond the space station requires huge additions to the space station of space station hangers, depots and so on, an incredible waste of time, energy and fuel. All because some people are convinced, ideologically, almost PATHOLOGICALLY, that we have to futz around for decades in low earth orbit with technology to nowhere, objectives to nowhere, ideas to nowhere and A SPACE STATION TO NOWHERE. All because you have this fact-free ideological fixation that surely - SURELY - we must spend decades futzing around in low earth orbit because surely - SURELY - we are not ready to actually DO anything.

This is all based on hazy, 1960s sit-around-the-campfire with beads and weed hippie group think that the earth comes first so therefore surely - SURELY! - we could certainly not go anywhere even if someone figured out how. SO DON'T CONFUSE ME WITH THE FACTS.

In fact, what you are proposing is HIGHLY REDUNDANT. All you have said about having to first master low earth orbit HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE SUFFICIENTLY ENOUGH - for 30 years! Zubrin figured out how to use what we have ALREADY developed to get all the way to Mars! And we could have done this far earlier than the 30 years we just wasted.

Your perspective, wittingly or not, has sent NASA on an incredible 30 year wild goose chase at taxpayer expense with nothing to show for it.

As I said elsewhere on this thread, if you're ever not going anywhere, the space station is one BEAUTIFUL place to stop in the middle.

Since some on this thread are for all intents and purposes proposing suicide, I suggest that you combine objectives. Take a gun, put it to your own head and FORCE YOURSELF TO GO THROUGH THE AGONY - THE EPIC MELODRAMA - the sheer TORTURE of absorbing an alternative perspective to your hallowed own and

WATCH THE VIDEO ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Cleobulus]

159. No, you misunderstand, I'm not talking about space industry as...

in the technology required to get to Mars, we have that now, that's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about robust manufacturing, fabrication, and sustainability in orbit around Earth and in Near Earth Orbit space.

The biggest problem with going to Mars is that, outside of research, there's no economical reason to go there. Its at a bottom of a gravity well, in addition to being only economically accessible about twice a year, at max, and more like once every 2 years for the shortest trips.

Also, I wasn't talking about staying in LEO, indeed, quite the opposite, we need to utilize resources that are in space to get to Mars economically, and that will involve using what is already up there, not launching things from Earth.

The basics include raw materials, an Asteroid like Cruithne approach Earth very closely, and will itself actually get close to Mars in 2058 or so. Its 5 kilometers in diameter and could potentially have millions of tons of iron, nickle, volatiles, etc. that can be used as fuel and building materials for spaceships.

Here, this OP of mine explains things much better:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8164718

Also, the reason I didn't watch the videos is because I was at work at the time. I'll see them now.

[breadandwine]

160. Self delete.

...

[breadandwine]

161. Cleobulus, okay, industry in space. But making ships in space is absurd, as Zubrin explains.

The key for truly economical industry is asteroid with precious metals like platinum family metals. The important thing is not going to the ones near earth but near Mars so that we get a double wammy economically when we go to Mars by stopping off at the asteroids on our way back. But why do we have to do that first BEFORE going to Mars? The asteroids near earth are not going to have the same exact geology as the ones near Mars. You make it sound like the trip to Mars is some titanic struggle that simply can't be done before endless mining activity on asteroids near earth. This is simply not the case. Not only do we have the means to get to Mars right now but we have the means to do so CHEAPLY. Only $5 billion a year for the Mars Direct program, which can be done in NASA's EXISTING budget, especially when you eliminate some of the fantasy, like nuclear electric engine development. So what's the big deal going to Mars and developing industries there gradually? Columbus didn't become a gold miner the moment he got to the new world. Why demand this of the initial Mars program? In any case, Zubrin makes the point that "Destinations drive transportation." I could add that destinations also drive industry. Go there and industry will develop. There is more to Mars than just industry. It's also about having another place for man to live where specialization can take place. The more that people live on Mars the more they will develop their own specialties and they and we will then trade. But it seems to me that first we should get a permanent human station on Mars so we can begin human exploring, prospecting, etc. Columbus came to America in 1492. It wasn't until the mid-1800s that the American gold rush started. I think prospecting sites in asteroids near Mars will become a lot more appealing if we actually put people on Mars first.

[Cleobulus]

163. Uhm, there is no difference, really between Amor asteroids and Aten asteroids...

I don't know why you made that unsupported claim, it seems silly to me. The difference is this, however, we can reach Aten asteroids in days or weeks, depending on the orbital period, and the amount of energy required would be negligible.

The problem you have is this monomania about Mars as if its the savior of humanity, its not, at least, not really. Yes it has materials and resources we could use, for people who live on Mars, but most people don't live on Mars, now do they? And they won't for a long time yet. I have a feeling you didn't read my OP I linked to, simply because the assertions you made are so illogical.

Asteroids, for example, depending on spectral class, can be metallic, indeed all the Iron and heavy metals we find on Earth today came from previous asteroids that crashed to Earth after it cooled 4.5 billion years ago or so. There are others that have water, ammonia, silicates, carbon and numerous other elements we can use, and no you don't need to only find "precious" metals to make this economical, again, I don't know where you come up with this stuff.

You see, the problem is this, Mars has the same problem as Earth when it comes to lifting materials into space, they both have relatively strong gravity wells. This makes trade between the two expensive, and perhaps impossible. Asteroids do not have this problem.

Here, allow me to illuminate this for you, to launch a payload into space from Earth's surface costs anywhere from 4,000 to 40,000 dollars per kilogram, depending on what the target orbit is and other factors. In addition, payload size is limited as well, reducing mass lifting of materials. For Mars, being at about only 1/3 the gravity of Earth, the cost would be reduced to about 1333.33 dollars to 13,333.33 dollars. The math may be fast and loose, the estimate is accurate though.

The cost to transport materials, raw or manufactured, from NEOs will be an even smaller fraction of this cost, time it right and it could damn near be free, pennies on the dollar. We are talking about objects that have gravity wells so weak, humans can jump into orbit around them, or leave them altogether. The amount of fuel and time needed to fly into an insertion orbit of Earth wouldn't even be a blip compared to launching payloads from any planet's surface.

You seem to think the Asteroids aren't suitable destinations, I would argue that they are better than Mars, at least in the near future. For one, we can get to some that are close by, we can develop them a hell of a lot faster, and we can also provide immediate benefits to people who live on Earth, something that will be important if we are to have sustained and LONG term presence in space.

The problem is you are thinking, and I hate to say this, provincially. For example, you seem to think manufacturing in space is going to be horrendously expensive, when that is far from the truth. In the video, Zubrin makes this argument, however, its under the assumption that we are going to build space ships like we built the ISS, in parts on the ground, and then launching them into space. This is expensive, wasteful, and unnecessary.

We can, at a fraction of that cost, build spaceships in space, in microgravity, from materials mined, refined, and ultimately assembled in space. The advantages are immense, without the limitations of gravity being imposed, we can create truly huge ships, kilometers long. They don't have to be designed to deal with atmosphere if it isn't necessary, lets say transit cargo ships, that can haul millions of tons of material in one trip. All this is possible with current technology.

Not to mention the potential for new technologies and inventions that would be developed in space, there's already exciting research going on in microgravity manufacture of electronics that are huge improvements over anything that can be manufactured in a gravity well. Not to mention new ways to combine elements in microgravity chemistry labs, aeroponic farms with yields far exceeding those growing plants in either gravity or soil. And this is just the beginning.

I'm not saying that we should ignore Mars, or abandon terraforming it, however getting there will not necessarily follow that permanent settlements will happen, particularly when there are limits to how many people can be put into LEO, much less sent to Mars itself. This has nothing to do with technological limits, but limits imposed by being on Earth itself. Spacecraft built on Earth have a size limit, in addition to having to launched into orbit before they can be used for things such as mass migration. It doesn't follow that sending, let's say, a dozen or so people to Mars to stay there for a year and a half will be followed by hundreds or thousands of people that will immigrate there anytime soon after that. You need quite a large infrastructure in space to allow that to happen, in addition to utilizing raw materials in space to make it even remotely practical.

[breadandwine]

164. Aw, man, Cleobulus, I was actually starting to embrace some of your point

until you got into the ideology blinder stuff. Calling Mars Direct "this monomania about Mars as if its the savior of humanity" is like Columbus saying "Hey, there's seaweed out here. Kelp is nutritious. Why go all the way and risk not getting back when we can fill up the cargo hold with all this nutritious, protein-rich, mineral-laden ocean agricultural crop and be back in time to chow down and get this stuff to market!" Show me one post of mine in this entire thread where I said or even implied that going to Mars is "the savior of humanity." I think you are arguing with someone else, maybe someone with a religious view and you are focused on be contrarian and going to an opposite pole. You sound fixated on somebody and something else because I said no such thing.

Nevertheless, there is more to dreams, ideas, and journeys than just MONEY. Can you imagine that there might be more to Mars than just making a fast buck?

But you are right about one thing. I did not yet read the OP you linked to. And do you know why? I was waiting to see if you would actually view the videos linked to in THIS thread. Fair is fair, no? Besides, I don't doubt your point that asteroids have valuable minerals and are useful. In fact, that is one of the points Zubrin makes for a "triangle trade" with Mars. But I would add that there are vastly more asteroids in the asteroid belt next to Mars than closer to Earth. What's so melodramatically horrible about testing the limits of our ability to seek out those? That's where the stuff is.

Your third paragraph I find problematic and fuzzy. You say we don't need to find precious metals in the asteroids to make them economical. I basically disagree. As Zubrin has outlined in great detail, the geology of asteroids makes precious metals in many of them likely, and you have to weigh the cost of traveling there against what you would get back in precious metals. If you are going to advocate going to the asteroids for non-precious metals, that's silly, we can go to any garbage dump on earth and recycle the same elements as a tiny fraction of the cost of going to an asteroid. You seem to think that precious metals on asteroids is some sort of fantasy. It's not. Zubrin has gone over this a lot.

You say that going to near earth asteroids to get non-precious materials we can find on earth could be "near...free." Come on. This is DU, not Fantasy Island. Are you next going to say we will find electricity there that is "too cheap to meter"? But you also say $1,000 to $3,000 (rounding your numbers) per kilogram. And you're telling me you would spend this to pick up silicates -- sand? You talk about how easy it would be to transport minerals due to the microgravity on asteroids. Aren't you forgetting a little thingypooh about the gravity of EARTH along the route and back????? Zubrin is right. It's the PRECIOUS metals in some asteroids that make them attractive. How can one trust your judgment on the near-earth asteroids when you clutter up your post with such fuzzy thinking?

You insist that asteroids are a better destination than Mars. Even if one could argue that there are economic advantages, there are even bigger economic advantages to mining the same non-precious minerals on EARTH. Neither of us can make the claim that visiting bodies either near Earth or near Mars can be justified by economics alone. It's NOT just about the MONEY. Perhaps you aren't very well schooled in political science because NOBODY in the general public is going to be leaping from the rafters in this country over the great dream of going to asteroids for a few bucks. Politically, the dream, the imagination fired, the desire to explore the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe is only available on Mars, and Congress is never going to hold celebrations over trips to asteroids alone for the next few decades.

You say I am thinking "provincially." I am talking about going to MARS while you are talking about near Earth, close to home. Have you ever heard of the term "Freudian projection"?

I also have to tell you that purely on economics, what I said and what Zubrin is saying is that we can go to Mars cheaply, not that somebody is going to be making moola by going to Mars or near Earth asteroids either. This is silly. Your thinking on the "dream" of mining and manufacturing in near weightlessness sounds a bit like NASA's fixation on using the space station for all sorts of experiments in weightless environments to justify what is essentially a space station to nowhere. Will you next tell me that it is easier on near earth asteroids to manufacture Tang instant breakfast drink? I'm overwhelmed.

You also refer to "mass migration." Nobody is talking near-term about mass migration to Mars OR the near-earth asteroids, so NEITHER location is going to be the economic paradise you seem to be imagining for near-earth asteroids.

Again: IT'S NOT. JUST. ABOUT. THE MONEY.

We should go to Mars because, GIVEN that we have a space program, we should get our money's WORTH. Zubrin offers a way to make the space program live up to its vision and allow us to do serious science on another planet for the same cost we are now spending on space stations to nowhere and other nonsense.

Okay? Got it? Mars Direct is not about making money. It's about using the money we're already spending more wisely and scientifically usefully.

[Cleobulus]

165. Actually it is all about money, or, to put it more simply, resources...

Look, as a mission for PURE science, its a good shot, on par with the Apollo missions, but it will be just that, a ONE SHOT DEAL, if we don't find a way for Joe Everyman to see that exploring or settling space benefits him. To make sure he sees that its his taxpayer money that is well spent.

Think about what happened after the Apollo missions, everything dried up, and NASA and space programs worldwide sort of just muddled along without reason.

At least you admitted to not reading my OP I linked to.

But you are right about one thing. I did not yet read the OP you linked to. And do you know why? I was waiting to see if you would actually view the videos linked to in THIS thread. Fair is fair, no? Besides, I don't doubt your point that asteroids have valuable minerals and are useful. In fact, that is one of the points Zubrin makes for a "triangle trade" with Mars. But I would add that there are vastly more asteroids in the asteroid belt next to Mars than closer to Earth. What's so melodramatically horrible about testing the limits of our ability to seek out those? That's where the stuff is.

OK, so basically this is like ignoring the "useless" rocks with only a little gold in them to dig 5 miles down hoping to get at the "good stuff". There are thousands of NEOs we can exploit, we may go out to the Asteroid Belt, but frankly, we don't have to until we need to. Granted, some people may want to go, that's fine, but to ignore the vast amount of resources in our backyard to travel almost halfway to Jupiter is stupid.

Not to mention that when you said that's its cheaper to mine stuff like iron on Earth, yes it is, its also massively destructive to the environment, as is all resource extraction on the surface of Earth. I would much prefer we mine asteroids that do not have native organisms, than my own home planet, but that's just me. Not to mention that we can "outsource" heavy, polluting industries into cis-Lunar space where it will no longer harm Earth's ecosystems.

I love it that you derided my mention of silicates, or as you put it sand, yeah, a totally useless substance, only responsible for creating things like glass, enamels, silicon chips, like in your computer, and thousands of other materials, mostly because the metal Silicon is present. No reason to get that stuff, totally useless. :eyes:

Oh, and this is the kicker.

Are you next going to say we will find electricity there that is "too cheap to meter"?

Uhm, yes, and I find it infinitely amusing that you used that as example, see, especially near Earth, and to a lesser extent near Mars as well, Electricity is completely free. There are called solar panels, look them up.

Look, it seems rather obvious to me that your enthusiasm is laudable, but you seem to not be aware of how space engineering takes place, what research is going on right now, or what is possible. Do you even understand orbital mechanics, and the energy, in fuel, required to do certain things?

[breadandwine]

166. Cleobulus, looks like you're back to that Freudian projection thingy ----

To quote you,

"You seem to not be aware of how space engineering takes place, what research is going on right now, or what is possible."

This could be applied to you massively.

For instance, you say solar panels in space are free energy.

I am a fanatic when it comes to support of alternative energy. But if solar panels are free, why aren't they all over the world right now? Because there is that little cost of MAKING them which still has to be made competitive. You really sound like someone with a VESTED interested in near earth asteroids. Nothing else could easily explain some of your comments.

Again, it's NOT all about money.

Here's what:

You get in your rocket ship to go exploit near-earth asteroids and I'll get in my rocket ship to go to Mars with the asteroids near it, and we'll see which one Congress funds first. I guarantee Congress will fund that more. I don't doubt that exploiting asteroids in general, including near earth ones, has value, but the public is simply not inspired by going to asteroids alone unless there is a planetary component to the mission. You are ignoring the imagination that has been inspired by the space program.

Also, the merits of some of your comments notwithstanding, I really can't believe that I read you defending going into space for the desperate, urgent, vital need to pick up sand in space. It occurs to me that it might do you some good to become even more "provincial" than you already are (despite accusing me of the same). Take your feet, plant them firmly on the ground, take your head out of Cloud Nine and stop being the political equivalent of a "space cadet."

Congress is NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER going to make a monolithic cause out of going out to space to pick up sand.



Look. I'm definitely interested in asteroid mining. ZUBRIN got me into that. Zubrin with his Mars Direct, NOT YOU. I'll probably save your article when I get the chance. But with all due respect to sand-in-space, if you haven't yet even inspired ME to read your link, how are you going to get CONGRESS to read it when Congress is full of people much less intellectual than you or I?

I am trying to HELP you ...

get. This. Through. Your. Mind.

There is simply going to be NO POLITICAL WILL for the deep inner outer upper under DREAM of picking up sand in space.

[Jubal-Waters]

153. If the aliens let us...

[breadandwine]

Here's an important article by Zubrin that explains a lot and with further links inside ---

Going Nowhere

Why President Obama Must Give NASA a Destination

By Robert Zubrin

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/going-nowhere

[Hempathy]

158. "Why President Obama Must Give NASA a Destination"

How about Challenger Deep in the Mariana Trench...?

[breadandwine]

154. Dupe - deleted.

...

[Odin2005]

167. And the self-hating misathropists are still goes at it!

:puke:

[breadandwine]

168. You have to understand, Odin. People stink.

They never created anything worthwhile.

[breadandwine]

169. They're just no good.

...

[breadandwine]

170. There couldn't be any intelligent life out there.

After all. There's none down here.

[breadandwine]

171. Two giant aliens encountering the space station (to nowhere):

Morgon: Look Zorgon, an aluminum bud! We've seen this around some other worlds...

Zorgon: Quite right, Morgon. Just eliminate the useless organic interior and it'll be DELICIOUS!




Munch, munch, crunch, crunch........

[mzteris]

172. DAMNIT!!

I'll definitely be too old by then!

:hmmmph:


Yeah, I know I'm too old now, but a girl can dream, can't she?

I stayed glued to the tv watching those first landers on Mars. Incredible.

[breadandwine]

173. But that's just the point. Zubrin has figured out how to do all this in just 10 years.

On NASA's EXISTING budget. Only bureaucratic inertia and ignorance stops this from getting off the ground RIGHT Now.

[Canuckistanian]

177. I heard Zubrin and Buzz Aldrin making their case last night on CtC

They made a very convincing argument for their case.

[breadandwine]

178. Wow. Give us more info.

What did they say? Got any links abut that? Videos? Articles aboiut it?

[Canuckistanian]

180. It's pretty much in Aldrin's website

http://buzzaldrin.com/

You could try this for the details:
http://buzzaldrin.com/space-vision/rocket_science/

[breadandwine]

185. Thanks for that! What's Aldrin's "Mars cycler" all about?

What's a Mars cycler?

[breadandwine]

186. Does that refer to the close approaches of Mars and Earth?

...

[breadandwine]

187. Is a Mars cycler a concept or a type of craft?

...

[breadandwine]

188. Are there any videos of the lecture or videos from a similar one by them?

....

[conscious evolution]

175. K&R

[breadandwine]

179. The rec window has passed, but thanks for the thumbs up.

...

[breadandwine]

184. Thanks for the 23 recs, folks.

....

[breadandwine]

193. Let me summarize, brevity like. If this can be done without raising NASA's budget,

JUST
DO
IT.

[breadandwine]

194. From the video ----

Since some people continue to spout off without having viewed the informative video that is the subject of this thread, let me indulge your laziness and quote from the video. I would have thought that it would be easier to view an enjoyable, illustrative and informative video than to read the info in print. Apparently not. Apparently some people are too lazy even to watch television. That's a very serious observation on our culture. Here is a quote from Zubrin in the video:

2:30 into the video:

“Mars is the next logical step in our space program. It's the challenge that's been staring us in the face for the past thirty years. It's the planet that's most like the Earth. It's the planet that has on it the resources needed to support life and therefore someday technological civilization.”

Again, Zubrin showed how to get there on NASA's existing budget, instead of wasting money on the space station to nowhere. We're already funding NASA and that's not going to change. Shouldn't we get our money's worth? Now go view the video and think about it.

[breadandwine]

195. More from the video ---

12:59:

Zubrin:

"We decided to do Mars the way Lewis and Clark did America. Use local resources. Travel light. Live off the land."

[breadandwine]

196. Here's some clarification of Zubrin's "conjunction class mission" trajectory ---

http://www.sff.net/people/ckanderson/flight.htm




It takes advantage of the boost given by the movement of the planet from which the launch occurs and the pull of the Sun and so on to reduce fuel needs and also speed the mission to minimize radiation exposure in space.



The diagrams include use of Venus as a fly-by boost which is not part of Zubrin's plan but the main point is using the relative positions of planets to assist the trajectory. Zubrin's plan avoids going too close to the Sun to avoid unnecessary radiation.

[breadandwine]

197. Here are the diagrams ---

Outbound --








Inbound --










Though these are not identical to the Mars Direct trajectories.

[breadandwine]

198. And see this DU home page video on Zubrin & Mars ---

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x471670



and post there too.

[breadandwine]

199. More from the video ---

At NASA's request under Dan Goldin, Zubrin led a small team to see if they could in fact design a device that would make oxygen and methane fuel from Mars' atmosphere and they succeeded in only 3 months with a device that was 94% efficient.

Result: Zubrin proved you don't have to bring all that fuel from Earth, you can make it on Mars, lowering the cost and weight of the mission.

[breadandwine]

200. Here's an article on methane on Mars ---

http://www.livescience.com/researchinaction/ria-090910.html


Methane has been found on Mars, appearing in local summer and disappearing in local winter. (Mars tilts like earth so has seasons, summer in the northern hemisphere and then in the southern hemisphere. The methane appears in the one hemisphere and then in the other, alternately.) Soon NASA and the European Space Agency are going to send a rocket to Mars to probe its methane.

Increasingly it is believed that the methane on Mars comes from living organisms.

[breadandwine]

201. Here's another Mars Direct video ---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ttBRh0r9Go

[breadandwine]

202. Here is a detailed presentation by Zubrin, very clarifying:

Part 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0OJX52twGU


Part 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Br2zr58YuNM&feature=PlayList&p=53B6909F54810665&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=1


Part 3:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ybr4gSHjm4&feature=PlayList&p=53B6909F54810665&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=2


Part 4:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFNvhXa06ZE&feature=PlayList&p=53B6909F54810665&playnext_from=PL&index=0&playnext=1

[breadandwine]

204. Note that in this video Zubrin says the delta-v needed to go to the Moon is greater than to Mars.

(Delta-v explained on Wikipedia -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_V )


Zubrin:

"The delta-v required to go from low earth orbit to the lunar surface is actually greater than that to go from low earth orbit to the surface of Mars."

This means that the idea of building a Mars spaceship on the Moon since it's easier to launch with the Moon's lesser gravity is still a lousy tradeoff.

[breadandwine]

205. Possible life on Saturn's moon Titan --

See headline on DU home page ---


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4414362


That makes now THREE possible locations of life in our solar system. We can get to Mars. This greatly increases the argument for going to Mars.

[breadandwine]

206. Might be good that Titan is not very easy to get to. It's loaded with hydrocarbons.

we've got enough of those...

[breadandwine]

207. BP could be going to Titan......

.....

[Hempathy]

208. Wow. You sure like the sound of your own words, huh?

nt

[breadandwine]

209. Looks like you've enjoyed a few of your own words on this thread yourself there, Hempathy.

274 of your own words on this thread so far.

[GreenStormCloud]

210. Wait 20 years, then send intelligent robots. N/T

[breadandwine]

211. Welcome to this discussion, GreenStormCloud. Watch the videos. This is about more than exploring.

It's also about a new home for man with new life and a new branch of human creativity.

There's also the fact that Zubrin figured out how to do it all on NASA's existing budget, so why wait at all?

Very fascinating and exciting video. You should view it.

[GreenStormCloud]

213. New home? Antarctica is less harsh, and nobody lives there.

Sorry, but it is about exploring, just as the stations in the Antarctic are about exploration, not about living.

[breadandwine]

226. GreenStormCloud, it is about both.

Living on Mars has been made incredibly easy by the work of Zubrin, the Mars society and years of gradual improvement in space activity.

After all the work on things like the space station, we're ready for Mars RIGHT NOW.

We don't need more of the space station to nowhere. We can go to Mars right now.

If we establish a new branch of humanity there it will have huge benefits to us right here on Earth in terms of expanding human creativity and specialization.

[entanglement]

212. Fundamental technological and biological problems must be solved before a MANNED mission

to Mars. I'd say the propulsion problem is the biggest one - One year one way is just too long for a manned mission. Conventional propulsion technologies and clever orbit design are not going to solve that problem.

(Incidentally, Mars is quite inhospitable to earth life, especially human life - it slightly 'better' than the moon, perhaps. The UV flux is intense - there is no protective ozone shield like earth's. The atmosphere is extremely thin, and devoid of oxygen. Water is present only in trace amounts. Temperatures are exceedingly low, with a vastly bigger diurnal variation than earth's due to the atmosphere.)

edit: Yes, there are 'extremophiles' here on earth, but they are single-celled organisms, not exactly astronauts.

[breadandwine]

221. entanglement, I thought I was making your life easy by posting the video. Care to view it?

This thread is a plan to get to Mars by Bob Zubrin. The plan involves a conjunction class mission trajectory, which takes only 6 months to get to Mars.

Do you always speak before finding out the facts?

[breadandwine]

223. entanglement, you say Mars is "quite inhospitable to earth life." Except for one thing:

THERE IS LIFE ON MARS.

There is a seasonal release of methane on Mars. Mars tilts like the Earth and has summer in alternate hemispheres. Where it's summer methane is released and this is strong evidence of microbial life on Mars.

The video that is the subject of the opening post explains clearly how HOSPITABLE Mars is for HUMAN life and how easy it would be to live there, much easier than on the Moon.


Please note:

LEARNING IS EDUCATIONAL.

Try absorbing the facts.

Watch the video.

The Moon has no atmosphere, virtually no water and lacks the complex geologic history needed for the concentration of mineral ores that Mars has. All the materials needed for life including water, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, soil that can grow crops and all the materials needed to support human life are there as well as a 24 hour day that supports plant life. The lunar day is 2 weeks with horrendous extremes of heat and cold. Martian soil is full of adsorbed carbon dioxide. All you have to do is warm the planet up a little, and Zubrin explains how to do that, and the carbon dioxide adsorbed in the soil starts outgassing and you get a runaway greenhouse effect that warms up the whole planet, restores atmospheric pressure. Then planting plant life will ultimately oxygenate the atmosphere enough that people will be able to live there without space suits or oxygen tanks. This can actually be done in a matter of decades.

Mars is the most Earth-like planet in our solar system.

Again, watch the video.

[breadandwine]

224. More info from Zubrin's Mars Society ----

http://www.marssociety.org/portal

[breadandwine]

225. The Mars Society also has forums at that link.

...