Slashdot Mirror

You know, you really ought to catch up on the FAQs. It's only a 6-month flight to Mars, and astronauts would be on the surface of the planet for 1.5 years -- for a total round-trip of less than you're saying it'd take one-way. Besides that, if we're smart enough to use resources on Mars -- i.e. carbon dioxide in its atmosphere to manufacture rocket fuel for the return trip -- we can pare down the amount of materials necessary for this trip greatly.

Mars today is doable. We just have to do it right.

Why would anybody even use fully pressurized suits instead of space activity suits? This puzzles me to no end. Oh, the point is quite valid that if lose pressure at that altitude, you're almost certainly fuced, but even for other applications, a fully pressurized suit isn't required.

Any insight?

--grendel drago

These suit designers are right up there with the people doing Mars-on-Earth research (learning the skills and techniques for actual large-scale planetary surface exploration) and human-scale rover designers (building the car to do the exploration in) out there getting it done.

And like both those other lines of research, this one has payoffs right here, right now. Bravo!

These suit designers are right up there with the people doing Mars-on-Earth research (learning the skills and techniques for actual large-scale planetary surface exploration) and human-scale rover designers (building the car to do the exploration in) out there getting it done.

And like both those other lines of research, this one has payoffs right here, right now. Bravo!

I don't know much about this kind of technology, but I know that there are similar setups going on at the Burning Man festival every year. Maybe it's worth looking around the site to see if you can find anecdotes and contact info for people who've done the same.
Also, the Mars Society uses satellite hookups to keep in touch with its field stations. Perhaps they can give you some pointers?

Depending on where the event is held and how well cellphone signals can be received, you might also want to try a mobile phone carrier. A lot of the larger UK events like Glastonbury are, I believe, getting support in this area from larger telcos. It may be more complex, and will probably involve getting everyone a new PCMCIA card, but it could be an option.

Sorry I couldn't be of more help; sadly IANA techie, but I hope these couple of snippets I've seen around the net are of use to you.

You forgot about life on Mars and cold fusion.

How are we supposed to send humans to the Moon and Mars if we are afraid to send them into Low Earth Orbit?

There is evidence that it is actually safer to send astronauts to the Hubble than it is to send them to the International Space Station.

I am sure a robot could do the job, but where does it leave humans in the long run if we don't take risks ourselves. Will we leave exploration of the universe to the Von Neumann Machines and maroon ourselves on Earth?

Don't allow Hubble to fall back to Earth. It is still doing good science and can for years to come. New modules for Hubble have already been built and tested and only await a shutle mission to be installed. Call your congressman / woman today. Here is some info from the Mars Society on the work to save Hubble.

You people really, really need to read The Case for Mars, or at least the FAQ I linked to.

The beauty of Mars is that you can make a bunch of stuff for your stay there and your return trip from easily obtainable surface resources. For instance, all of the return fuel can easily be generated from the CO2 in the air, given that you bring along a bit of hydrogen from Earth (which is only 5% of the total mass of that fuel). Everyone who thinks that massive infrastructure is necessary to support a Mars exploration program is flat-out wrong.

You should definitely check out the efforts of the Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station and the Mars Desert Research Station -- a couple of Mars analog projects that are proving the feasability of a lot of the concepts involved in manned Mars missions.

You people really, really need to read The Case for Mars, or at least the FAQ I linked to.

The beauty of Mars is that you can make a bunch of stuff for your stay there and your return trip from easily obtainable surface resources. For instance, all of the return fuel can easily be generated from the CO2 in the air, given that you bring along a bit of hydrogen from Earth (which is only 5% of the total mass of that fuel). Everyone who thinks that massive infrastructure is necessary to support a Mars exploration program is flat-out wrong.

You should definitely check out the efforts of the Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station and the Mars Desert Research Station -- a couple of Mars analog projects that are proving the feasability of a lot of the concepts involved in manned Mars missions.

Actually, conditions being what they are on the two bodies, and technology being what it is today, it's actually *easier* to get to the surface of Mars than the surface of the Moon (from LEO, it's 4.5 km/s Delta-V for Mars vs. 6.0 km/s for the Moon), and Mars is a safer place once you're there.

Just a shameless plug really, since I wrote it, but everyone here ought to check out The Mars Society FAQ. Lots of good info on this topic, verified by Dr. Robert Zubrin himself.

Wow...the amount of anti-human hate going on in this discussion is mind-bending.

First of all, it's not as if we're about to start terraforming tomorrow. Even the most zealous of the Mars exploration types (i.e. Robert Zubrin of The Mars Society) don't think it should be done until the planet has been explored in depth.

Secondly, keep in mind that we'd really be *fixing* a planet that nature has let die here. All of our new data shows that Mars was once a very life-friendly planet, with oceans, etc.; now it's a cold, nasty place that's only getting more inhospitable as time goes on. Doesn't it make sense to reverse that process and expand the realm where life is viable?

Third, it's not like doing this would necessarily kill any life forms on Mars anyway. The process would be extremely gradual -- we're talking hundreds of years or more here -- giving microbes, etc. plenty of time to adapt. Heck, we might be giving a boost to what life there might be on Mars.

Fourth, it's not as if we've even ruined Earth anyway. People tend to forget that one solid volcanic eruption puts out more CFCs than all of human industry ever has. Environmentalists greatly overstate humanity's impact on the planet in their effort to take down industrialized society. We're not doing that poorly here, and what we've learned on Earth would certainly be applied to terraforming of Mars. Heck, the Red Planet might end up being less polluted/more natural than Earth!

So just calm down a bit and take a moment to consider some of the positives that might come with terraforming Mars. It could be a Really Good Thing.

At least a lunar base as a jumping off point for Mars.

One small caveat - the future of mankind depends on colonization, not exploration. Until we find a way to have a sustatainable colony, then we are tourists. Sending a man to mars really isn't that big of a technical challenge (relatively). We have already sent people to the moon, and we have sent rovers to Mars. The only real transportation challenge would be landing. Sending a man to Mars will only take time and money.

If we are serious about getting our eggs out of this basket then we need to start working out how to survive on Mars. Starting with and how to design a structure that can be completely repaired without help from earth, how to grow food, how to generate enough energy, and finally how to create all the materials we need on mars itself. Eventually we will need to try this stuff out on Mars, and we will have to do things in stages - there is no way we will be completely sustainable on the first try. But there is a ton that we can and should be doing here on Earth. We should be working on taking stuff like this to the next level.

I don't want our Mars mission to turn into another Apollo, where we have a wonderfull achievment and then the program dies because there is nothing to do up there. Or worse another ISS. When we send a man to mars I want us to be sending a trailbreaker, not a political statement.

If you were seriously going to make a booster to put 660 tons into LEO, this sounds about like the ticket for the first stage; they would be too dumb to fail easily and cheap enough that you could afford to lose (or discard) them regularly.

If you were seriously going to make a booster to put 660 tons into LEO, this sounds about like the ticket for the first stage; they would be too dumb to fail easily and cheap enough that you could afford to lose (or discard) them regularly.

Seeing the look on people's faces when they realize you staged the whole thing in Canada - Priceless

To reply more to your subject than your actual post, there were some interesting docs leaked by NASA that show that Hubble missions are actually more safe than ISS missions:
Document #1
Document #2

Definitely worth a read.

To reply more to your subject than your actual post, there were some interesting docs leaked by NASA that show that Hubble missions are actually more safe than ISS missions:
Document #1
Document #2

Definitely worth a read.

Just for the sake of fact clarification here, you guys might want to read my Mars FAQs. Note: this document was written for the Mars Society, with the blessing of Zubrin (though it has yet to be accepted as an official document yet). Even with that potential slant, though, everything contained within it is factual, and as we all know, Slashdot can be a little light on facts somtimes. ;-)

The arguments he cited were taken straight from NASA's own risk assesment which has been leaked. I guess you can go ahead and call them a hoax or whatever but I'm inclined to believe them.

http://www.marssociety.org/docs/Hubblerisk1a.pdf
http://www.marssociety.org/docs/Hubblerisk2a.pdf

The arguments he cited were taken straight from NASA's own risk assesment which has been leaked. I guess you can go ahead and call them a hoax or whatever but I'm inclined to believe them.

http://www.marssociety.org/docs/Hubblerisk1a.pdf
http://www.marssociety.org/docs/Hubblerisk2a.pdf

Now who's spouting absurd FUD.

From the Mars Society and written by an actual rocket scientist:

Safety arguments won't wash either; if the Shuttle is safe enough to fly to the ISS, it's safe enough to go to Hubble. It is true then when flying to the ISS, the crew has a safe haven, so that if they should discover damage to the Shuttle's thermal protection tile system, they could retire to the space station and survive for a short time while they wait for retrieval by a Russian Soyuz capsule. In this scenario, ISS missions would possess a safety features that Hubble missions lack. But tile damage during launch is not the only source of Shuttle flight risk. According to most analysis, the greatest source of flight risk stems from the possibility fatal impacts by micrometeor or orbital debris (MMOD). ISS orbits are much more hazardous in this respect than Hubble orbits. For example, on STS-113, the last Shuttle station flight, the calculated probability of loss of vehicle and crew by MMOD was 1/250. In contrast, the last Hubble servicing mission (STS-109) had a much lower calculated MMOD probability of 1/414.

After MMOD, it is believed that the greatest risk faced by Shuttle flights stems from the possibility of engine failure during launch. Because Hubble missions lift off with a much lighter payload than most ISS missions, they are can deal with this danger much more effectively. For example, in order to be able to abort to orbit on an ISS mission such as STS-113 (Endeavor), all three Shuttle main engines must fire for a full 282 seconds before one cuts out. In contrast, on Hubble missions such as STS-103 (Discovery), only 188 s of full three-engine operation is required. This lower full-power time requirement for Hubble missions is a critical safety advantage, because the maximum time that either ISS or Hubble missions can attempt a Return to Launch Site (RTLS) abort is about 232 s. Thus Hubble missions have a 50 second overlap during which either a RTLS or orbital abort is possible, whereas ISS missions have a 50 s gap in which neither is possible.

If the Shuttle cannot perform either an RTLS or orbital orbit, it might be able to reach a transoceanic landing site, but in all probability will have to splash down in the ocean. When they depart the Cape, Hubble missions fly east-southeast, and they thus have the possibility to ditch in warm tropical waters. In contrast, ISS flights leave the Cape traveling northeast, and their crews face the bleak prospect of aborts into the frigid waters of the North Atlantic, where their chances for survival would be much less. Thus, while no true quantitative engineering analysis has been done to establish whether and to what extent individual Shuttle flights to ISS are more or less risky than individual Hubble missions, there is good reason to believe that it is Hubble flights that offer greater safety.

I am paying for it and if you're an American tax payer, so are you. Hubble is part of the American space program who has it's budget approved by your representatives and mine. Thus, it is the case that the American people, or at least the ones who care to vote approve of the deployment and ongoing work of Hubble.

Do you also think that tax dollars shouldn't be spent on colleges in Florida because you don't live there or medical research because you don't have that particular sickness?

The question is not whether I should figure out how to pay for it myself but rather how to get what you and I've already paid for. If you feel so strongly that this is a waste of money, feel free to contact your representation. I would hope that you would educate yourself on the situation first though:

Risk assesment 1
Risk assesment 2
Op ed piece

I am paying for it and if you're an American tax payer, so are you. Hubble is part of the American space program who has it's budget approved by your representatives and mine. Thus, it is the case that the American people, or at least the ones who care to vote approve of the deployment and ongoing work of Hubble.

Do you also think that tax dollars shouldn't be spent on colleges in Florida because you don't live there or medical research because you don't have that particular sickness?

The question is not whether I should figure out how to pay for it myself but rather how to get what you and I've already paid for. If you feel so strongly that this is a waste of money, feel free to contact your representation. I would hope that you would educate yourself on the situation first though:

Risk assesment 1
Risk assesment 2
Op ed piece

I am paying for it and if you're an American tax payer, so are you. Hubble is part of the American space program who has it's budget approved by your representatives and mine. Thus, it is the case that the American people, or at least the ones who care to vote approve of the deployment and ongoing work of Hubble.

Do you also think that tax dollars shouldn't be spent on colleges in Florida because you don't live there or medical research because you don't have that particular sickness?

The question is not whether I should figure out how to pay for it myself but rather how to get what you and I've already paid for. If you feel so strongly that this is a waste of money, feel free to contact your representation. I would hope that you would educate yourself on the situation first though:

Risk assesment 1
Risk assesment 2
Op ed piece

Direct to Mars is clearly the best approach but who is going to convince Nasa? Or Bush?!

Since it's your tax dollars, you and me. Look to the Mars Society and their Political Task Force to get active.

There's nothing special about radiation in space. It can and has been reproduced here and there had been extensive research done on it. This looks to me like another science fair type experiment on the ISS. It's like when I didn't water a plant in 4th grade, recorded that it died and called it a project.

Having just spent 15 days in a tin can with what were on day one six complete strangers. I think I can offer an interesting insight.

Interpersonal dynamics are a very important part of any endeavor - especially in space where your life can literally depend on your crewmate/crewmates. In our instance we had six people. Four of which became fast friends, and one who the other four will probably never speak with again. It is a good thing in this instance that the crew coordinators of the ISS realized this was a problem and stepped in.

In our case we had one person running around breaking stuff and four people scrambling to fix it while simultaneously trying to get our own projects off the ground. Had we actually been on Mars, someone could have taken the long walk in 100th of an atmosphere. As it turned out we just ignored him until we were done and everything worked out. It's a good thing that in space no one can hear you scream. Had it been just the two of us nothing would have gotten done and someone may have died even on Earth.

For those actually interested in this kind of thing, I suggest getting involved with the Mars Society. We do privately funded research into what it will take to live and work on Mars. It will really open your eyes.

Having just spent 15 days in a tin can with what were on day one six complete strangers. I think I can offer an interesting insight.

Interpersonal dynamics are a very important part of any endeavor - especially in space where your life can literally depend on your crewmate/crewmates. In our instance we had six people. Four of which became fast friends, and one who the other four will probably never speak with again. It is a good thing in this instance that the crew coordinators of the ISS realized this was a problem and stepped in.

In our case we had one person running around breaking stuff and four people scrambling to fix it while simultaneously trying to get our own projects off the ground. Had we actually been on Mars, someone could have taken the long walk in 100th of an atmosphere. As it turned out we just ignored him until we were done and everything worked out. It's a good thing that in space no one can hear you scream. Had it been just the two of us nothing would have gotten done and someone may have died even on Earth.

For those actually interested in this kind of thing, I suggest getting involved with the Mars Society. We do privately funded research into what it will take to live and work on Mars. It will really open your eyes.

Having just spent 15 days in a tin can with what were on day one six complete strangers. I think I can offer an interesting insight.

Interpersonal dynamics are a very important part of any endeavor - especially in space where your life can literally depend on your crewmate/crewmates. In our instance we had six people. Four of which became fast friends, and one who the other four will probably never speak with again. It is a good thing in this instance that the crew coordinators of the ISS realized this was a problem and stepped in.

In our case we had one person running around breaking stuff and four people scrambling to fix it while simultaneously trying to get our own projects off the ground. Had we actually been on Mars, someone could have taken the long walk in 100th of an atmosphere. As it turned out we just ignored him until we were done and everything worked out. It's a good thing that in space no one can hear you scream. Had it been just the two of us nothing would have gotten done and someone may have died even on Earth.

For those actually interested in this kind of thing, I suggest getting involved with the Mars Society. We do privately funded research into what it will take to live and work on Mars. It will really open your eyes.

They are still on a decades-long timeline. Here's hoping that The Mars Society can speed that up.

None of the components you listed in your message do us much good for a manned Mars exploration program. Take the Shuttle engines you list as one component. Only they aren't. They're needed in the (remaining) Shuttles. We'd have to build more of them to make a Mars mission possible before the end of the next decade - many, many more of them.

Let's see, 1 launch window every 2 years, 2 vehicles per launch window, 4 engines per vehicle = 4 engines per year. Manufacture of High Pressure Fuel Turbopumps: "Production rate > 1 unit / month since first flight in July 2001 (STS-104)[1]. At the rate of 1 unit per month, you could have enough engines to fly a Shuttle every month and replace engines every 5 flights, send 4 vehicles to Mars every launch window instead of 2, and have about 3 brand-spanking new engines left over.

It would take several launches just to get the gadgets to Mars to make liquid water and oxygen and hydrogen and everything else for the astronauts to use once they finally arrived.

It would take one launch, carrying about 50 tons on a trans-Mars orbit.[2] The Shuttle orbiter weighs about 100 tons fully loaded; its engines are around 10 tons, leaving 90 tons for vehicle, payload and trans-Mars injection fuel. The required delta-V to get from LEO to TMI is roughly 4.3 km/sec. [3] Vacuum-specific impulse of an SSME is 452 seconds [4], or exhaust velocity of 4430 m/sec; the required TMI mass-ratio is 2.64 by the rocket equation. If you retained one SSME (modified to be restartable in flight) for the trans-Mars injection, you would need to start with ~53 tons * 2.64, or roughly 140 tons. This appears to be well within the capacity of a vehicle using 4 SSMEs and 3 SRBs to put into LEO.

Then there are the cargo / habitat landers, which also cannot fail.

Yes they can. You send them first, perhaps several of them, one launch window before you send people. If they don't land and work correctly, you hold the manned mission off for another launch window. If you send 3 and only 1 of them lands and works, you have one usable landing site; if 2 or 3 of them land and work, you have your choice of options. You can use the unused landers later, or for supply depots for long surveys.

In-situ propellant production may have been demonstrated in the lab here on earth, but we don't know yet if it would even work on Mars. Right now we're having trouble getting simple robot rovers to function correctly, at $400 million a pop.

You have some serious misconceptions about price tags here. The cost is almost entirely for research, development and engineering; manufacturing is a drop in the bucket. You could probably crank out rovers for a few million apiece now that we have the design.

A small chemical plant is much, much simpler than a rover. The biggest issue might be filtering dust to keep it out of the machinery, and you would have a lot of trouble claiming that we don't have any applicable experience with filters.

What you're proposing is that we drop a small chemical factory on Mars, along with an automated tractor and bulldozer to haul it icy rock for processing.

No, that's your proposal. I'm proposing Zubrin's scheme of carrying LH2 to the site and processing it into methane and LOX via the reactions

CO2 + 4 H2 -> CH4 + 2 H2O + heat

H2O + energy -> 2H2 + O2

Note that the methane-production reaction is e

A more complete study of a different approach is available online for anyone to view at Explore Mars Now. It's a flash tour of a possible first manned mars landing environment that is based on the virtual tour of the actual Mars Arctic Research Station.

But apparently nobody cares because it wasn't commisioned by a well known director with a fetish for explosions.

I still remember some of the first probes to the moon (Ranger?), which were sent to simply crash on the moon and transmit photos on the way down. In those days, a letter to NASA would get you a thick envelope of 8x10 prints of the images. In its day, just as exciting as viewing these new images on my G5.

Thanks and congrats to the folks at NASA/JPL, then and now! Looking forward to much more!

If the folks at the Mars Society have any clue at all, they'll be selling these as soon as they can get 'em.

At the very least, they should finagle a way to get one for Zubrin.

Me? I'm founding a company right now, cobber. Money is kinda scarce at the moment. I'll just have to hope to pick one up later.

*sigh*

Rustin

The Spirit photos are exciting, but let's figure out how to go to Mars without bankrupting ourselves or putting more workers on the streets.

1. If going to the Mars would be a start of serious space exploration by the human species then it is well worth putting more workers on the streets. Trading space exploration for more social welfare is more than stupid, it is dangerous for humanity in the long run.

2. Look here. And read Zubrin's book. He might be wrong on some details but his general idea is far better than NASA's approach (at least as demonstrated in previous missions and programs) also when it comes to costs.

There is about double the radiation in space compared to the ISS, less on the Martian surface. As the radiation dose is spread out over time the body has a chance to repair some of the damage. A trip to Mars increases the risk of cancer about the same as smoking two packs a day for 3 years.

Shielding, or a faster trip would make the trip much safer.

There are a number of common arguments against sending humans to Mars. I thought I would address them up front before too many people put forth incorrect claims.

- Mars exploration is expensive

Not so. The best estimate I've heard is a 20 billion startup cost spread over 10 years with a 2 billion cost per mission. Sure that's a lot but it's well within the current NASA budget if you take away ISS and the Shuttle program. Neither of those are of much use anyway.

Also, If you take a look at the federal budget, you'll see that the NASA budget of around 17 billion is an order of magnitude cheaper than either the defense budget, or health and human services (wellfare). Even Veterans affairs gets about 3 times that money. It's a small part of the national budget if done right with large rewards down the line.

- Mars exploration is dangerous

True to an extent but nothing work getting is without risk. NASA will run out of hardware long before it runs out of volunteers. That's not to say that we'll be killing most people we send up, but rather than there is no shortage of people willing to take the risks. Oh, and if you're going to bring up the old "too much radiation" argument, see this. There are lots of things more dangerous on Earth than going to Mars. My morning comute is probably more risky.

- There's nothing to gain from going to Mars

Where do I even start? New home for humanity. Unprecedented Scientific discovery. Easy access to the asteroids ($trillion apiece in ore!). Tech jobs at home. Youngsters inspired to go into science and engineering. Plentiful fusion fuel (this will be important in the next 10-20 years). I could go on.

Going to Mars and taming space is the only way forward for humanity as a whole. For a better description of this and more please check out Entering Space and The Case for Mars.

Lastly, I would urge everyone who is enthused about this to take action and write your representatives. I cannot stress that enough. Papa Bush made a call for this but backed out when it looked too hard because of a falsely inflated sticker price. We have to make sure that he sticks to his guns. We have to make sure he does it write and we have to make sure that he has the backing in Congress to make it work. Check out this for a primer.

There are a number of common arguments against sending humans to Mars. I thought I would address them up front before too many people put forth incorrect claims.

- Mars exploration is expensive

Not so. The best estimate I've heard is a 20 billion startup cost spread over 10 years with a 2 billion cost per mission. Sure that's a lot but it's well within the current NASA budget if you take away ISS and the Shuttle program. Neither of those are of much use anyway.

Also, If you take a look at the federal budget, you'll see that the NASA budget of around 17 billion is an order of magnitude cheaper than either the defense budget, or health and human services (wellfare). Even Veterans affairs gets about 3 times that money. It's a small part of the national budget if done right with large rewards down the line.

- Mars exploration is dangerous

True to an extent but nothing work getting is without risk. NASA will run out of hardware long before it runs out of volunteers. That's not to say that we'll be killing most people we send up, but rather than there is no shortage of people willing to take the risks. Oh, and if you're going to bring up the old "too much radiation" argument, see this. There are lots of things more dangerous on Earth than going to Mars. My morning comute is probably more risky.

- There's nothing to gain from going to Mars

Where do I even start? New home for humanity. Unprecedented Scientific discovery. Easy access to the asteroids ($trillion apiece in ore!). Tech jobs at home. Youngsters inspired to go into science and engineering. Plentiful fusion fuel (this will be important in the next 10-20 years). I could go on.

Going to Mars and taming space is the only way forward for humanity as a whole. For a better description of this and more please check out Entering Space and The Case for Mars.

Lastly, I would urge everyone who is enthused about this to take action and write your representatives. I cannot stress that enough. Papa Bush made a call for this but backed out when it looked too hard because of a falsely inflated sticker price. We have to make sure that he sticks to his guns. We have to make sure he does it write and we have to make sure that he has the backing in Congress to make it work. Check out this for a primer.

Yes, in fact, someone has done something like that. Check out the first few pictures at http://www.marssociety.org/interactive/mars_charts .asp. Doesn't look too realistic since it's all cratery. But it's neat-o nonetheless.

This very report has been debunked point per point here.

In other news, Zubrin is an armchar scientist and the people in the linked NYT article are real physicists. These specialists know what they are talking about.

Perhaps, but only in a very small area of expertise. Mars colonization is a big project for big minds... specifically, generalists.

More to the point... Zubrin? An armchair scientist? You must be thinking of someone else. This is someone who's been out stumping for Mars colonization for more than twelve years. He promotes, he gives interviews, he testifies before Congress. He was an engineer at Martin Marietta and went on to found his own company. He built a demonstration unit of the In-Situ Propellant Production design for $47,000. He is most definitely a hands-on guy.

A brief Zubrin bio: About FMARS - Dr. Robert Zubrin Crew Bio.
A slightly longer Zubrin bio: SAF's Ask the Scientists: Robert Zubrin.

this problem is known, and Mars Society already has some solution for this problem.

Anyway if you also wanted to know about radiation on the planet Mars, be sure it is not dangerous.

this problem is known, and Mars Society already has some solution for this problem.

Anyway if you also wanted to know about radiation on the planet Mars, be sure it is not dangerous.

this problem is known, and Mars Society already has some solution for this problem.

Anyway if you also wanted to know about radiation on the planet Mars, be sure it is not dangerous.

Interesting article, but it still doesn't address the "building complex things in space" problem. I mean, we're pretty good at building things in gravity, with an abundance of raw materials, but we just haven't built much of note in hard vacuum zero gravity where you have to truck everything you need there. Even the space station was flown in modular format from Earth - at huge expense. Lagrange points are cool - but planets are cooler.

Everything you want to fly to somewhere else from a Lagrangian point you first have to fly to a Lagrangian point from some planet!

Frankly, the best place from which to get to pretty much anywhere in the solar system (including the Moon!) is from the surface of Mars. Two reasons: you can build things there, and the cost in fuel is lower. Here's a table which uses deltaV (total change in velocity required and thus fuel) to illustrate this very point.

First get humans to Mars, then the whole solar system is within reach.

OK, this is bad. Really Bad(tm).

First, let's deal with some realities.

Mars is cheaper.
WHAT?
No seriously, Mars is cheaper. It takes less Delta V, and has far more economic opportunities than the moon does.

No, you can not use the moon as a bounce point for getting to deeper exploration.

First a moon base will not be self sufficient in our life times. That means a lot of money being poured into a black hole (pun intended). It is also cheaper to lunch a direct big booster rocket than to stage to Earth orbit. Even w/o the costs and uncertainties surrounding the whole space station thing.

Second, no you can not use it as a testbed for a Mars mission. The two environments are so vastly different that the equipment is not comparable. The moon has zero atmosphere, large extremes in temerature, and dust that somehow manages to find it's way into vacuum tubes.

Mars has none of those. Mars has an atmosphere that helps protect the pioneers from the cosmic rays (which are much less than we are led to believe, but still present).

Further, Mars has resources that alter the economics and safety in dramatic ways.

For example, for lunar trips, tou have to take *ALL* your resources with you. Enough to get there, stay there, and get back. You will expend large amounts of fuel to slow down to enter orbit and land.

A Mars trip on the other hand, is different. First, you can send an advance craft to manufacture oxygen, water, and fuel for the return trip in situ. By the time your people head out, you can have a return craft, fully fueled, with enough oxygen and water to last for a couple years. The means to do this is mostly solid state, and can be built in your garage. It is a proven technology that is inexpensive to make.

The moon does not offer that.

Further, a direct mission to Mars has an advantage in that it can use a technique called aerobraking. This means you use the atmosphere of Mars to slow the craft down, as opposed to buring fuel to do it.

The combination of a resource filled atmosphere and permafrost allows pioneers to build houses, making bricks from the land. The less you have to take and can make in situ, the less costly and more long term the whole #! is. It also means it is likely to be more stable (bricks are a proven technology, btw ;) ) and can be repaired w/o needing more supplies from Earth, several months away.

Indeed, plastics, ceramics, and glass can all be manufactured in situ quite inexpensively and simply on Mars. No so with the moon. Aluminim, steel, copper, and silicon are also not complicated givent he resources available.

The martian soil is quite good for plants, the moon's is not. This means that a greenhouse can be built to provide fresh greens (and oxygen) for those pioneers on Mars. That means less cost in support. Water is heavy, and plants contain a lot of water. Thus, not needing to ship them is a damned good thing. Morale is improved dramatically by the presence of plants, so another plus is to be had.

The moon offers none of these advantages and comes with a more difficult set of technology to develop and deploy.

Space stations should only come into play for earth-related observation and study, not as jumping points for interplanetary exploration. At least not until we have them a Mars base. It takes more to go to orbit and then launch then it does to launch directly.

Much of this can be discovered reading, among other things, Zubrin's Mars Direct plan. Go to Mars Society webpage to find out more.

In particular, the book "Why Mars" details the plan in amazing simplicity and common sense. (BTW, no click-through or affiliate stuff; just a direct link to the book )

The moon push, especially when done by NASA, is a bad trip that should be avoided. For the amount NASA is spending (or wanting to) on th

The Mars Society won't be happy...

What I would like to know is why more research isn't being done on artificial gravity. So many of the health problems encountered in LEO gravity cound be sidestepped if you just spin the damn craft.

I would love to know why some of the effort being spent on watching things get sick in 0g isn't being directed to something as simple as spinning a glorified beer keg in orbit with some mice in it.

Check these links for more information;

• Centrifuge Accommodation Module
• Space Station Fundamental Biology Research Facility
• ISS Elements: Centrifuge Accommodation Module (CAM)