Slashdot Mirror

I disagree. Check out this testomony. During the Apollo program, the NASA budget was onlu 10% higher than today and they accomplished orders of magnitude what they are today. It's a problem with culture not money. If we get the proper culture though, more money can get us cool stuff like terraforming equiptment.

Mars is where we need to go. I agree that NASA does need some goal if they are ever going to do anything useful again but if they're going to set a goal, it should at least set a potentially habitable planet as a goal with the Moon as a sub goal or a proof of concept.

Robert Zubrin, president of Pioneer Astronautics and founder of the Mars Society has called for the mobilization of Mars exploration proponents to write their representatives on the future of post-Columbia NASA. From his announcement: 'This debate will play out over the next six months, and the result could determine the future of the American space program in our generation. Now is the time when anyone who cherishes hopes for a spacefaring future for humanity must step forward and speak up.'

This is happening alongside the recent testimony Zubrin gave to the full Senate Commerce Committee on Oct 29th (audio files here and the .pdf) and the proposed Bill from Congressman Nick Lampson TX to restore Mars as a goal and put NASA on a schedule. Here are a few sample letters if you want to write your congressman.

Mars is where we need to go. I agree that NASA does need some goal if they are ever going to do anything useful again but if they're going to set a goal, it should at least set a potentially habitable planet as a goal with the Moon as a sub goal or a proof of concept.

Robert Zubrin, president of Pioneer Astronautics and founder of the Mars Society has called for the mobilization of Mars exploration proponents to write their representatives on the future of post-Columbia NASA. From his announcement: 'This debate will play out over the next six months, and the result could determine the future of the American space program in our generation. Now is the time when anyone who cherishes hopes for a spacefaring future for humanity must step forward and speak up.'

This is happening alongside the recent testimony Zubrin gave to the full Senate Commerce Committee on Oct 29th (audio files here and the .pdf) and the proposed Bill from Congressman Nick Lampson TX to restore Mars as a goal and put NASA on a schedule. Here are a few sample letters if you want to write your congressman.

Mars is where we need to go. I agree that NASA does need some goal if they are ever going to do anything useful again but if they're going to set a goal, it should at least set a potentially habitable planet as a goal with the Moon as a sub goal or a proof of concept.

Robert Zubrin, president of Pioneer Astronautics and founder of the Mars Society has called for the mobilization of Mars exploration proponents to write their representatives on the future of post-Columbia NASA. From his announcement: 'This debate will play out over the next six months, and the result could determine the future of the American space program in our generation. Now is the time when anyone who cherishes hopes for a spacefaring future for humanity must step forward and speak up.'

This is happening alongside the recent testimony Zubrin gave to the full Senate Commerce Committee on Oct 29th (audio files here and the .pdf) and the proposed Bill from Congressman Nick Lampson TX to restore Mars as a goal and put NASA on a schedule. Here are a few sample letters if you want to write your congressman.

Mars is where we need to go. I agree that NASA does need some goal if they are ever going to do anything useful again but if they're going to set a goal, it should at least set a potentially habitable planet as a goal with the Moon as a sub goal or a proof of concept.

Robert Zubrin, president of Pioneer Astronautics and founder of the Mars Society has called for the mobilization of Mars exploration proponents to write their representatives on the future of post-Columbia NASA. From his announcement: 'This debate will play out over the next six months, and the result could determine the future of the American space program in our generation. Now is the time when anyone who cherishes hopes for a spacefaring future for humanity must step forward and speak up.'

This is happening alongside the recent testimony Zubrin gave to the full Senate Commerce Committee on Oct 29th (audio files here and the .pdf) and the proposed Bill from Congressman Nick Lampson TX to restore Mars as a goal and put NASA on a schedule. Here are a few sample letters if you want to write your congressman.

Mars is where we need to go. I agree that NASA does need some goal if they are ever going to do anything useful again but if they're going to set a goal, it should at least set a potentially habitable planet as a goal with the Moon as a sub goal or a proof of concept.

Robert Zubrin, president of Pioneer Astronautics and founder of the Mars Society has called for the mobilization of Mars exploration proponents to write their representatives on the future of post-Columbia NASA. From his announcement: 'This debate will play out over the next six months, and the result could determine the future of the American space program in our generation. Now is the time when anyone who cherishes hopes for a spacefaring future for humanity must step forward and speak up.'

This is happening alongside the recent testimony Zubrin gave to the full Senate Commerce Committee on Oct 29th (audio files here and the .pdf) and the proposed Bill from Congressman Nick Lampson TX to restore Mars as a goal and put NASA on a schedule. Here are a few sample letters if you want to write your congressman.

Mars is where we need to go. I agree that NASA does need some goal if they are ever going to do anything useful again but if they're going to set a goal, it should at least set a potentially habitable planet as a goal with the Moon as a sub goal or a proof of concept.

Robert Zubrin, president of Pioneer Astronautics and founder of the Mars Society has called for the mobilization of Mars exploration proponents to write their representatives on the future of post-Columbia NASA. From his announcement: 'This debate will play out over the next six months, and the result could determine the future of the American space program in our generation. Now is the time when anyone who cherishes hopes for a spacefaring future for humanity must step forward and speak up.'

This is happening alongside the recent testimony Zubrin gave to the full Senate Commerce Committee on Oct 29th (audio files here and the .pdf) and the proposed Bill from Congressman Nick Lampson TX to restore Mars as a goal and put NASA on a schedule. Here are a few sample letters if you want to write your congressman.

Mars is where we need to go. I agree that NASA does need some goal if they are ever going to do anything useful again but if they're going to set a goal, it should at least set a potentially habitable planet as a goal with the Moon as a sub goal or a proof of concept.

Robert Zubrin, president of Pioneer Astronautics and founder of the Mars Society has called for the mobilization of Mars exploration proponents to write their representatives on the future of post-Columbia NASA. From his announcement: 'This debate will play out over the next six months, and the result could determine the future of the American space program in our generation. Now is the time when anyone who cherishes hopes for a spacefaring future for humanity must step forward and speak up.'

This is happening alongside the recent testimony Zubrin gave to the full Senate Commerce Committee on Oct 29th (audio files here and the .pdf) and the proposed Bill from Congressman Nick Lampson TX to restore Mars as a goal and put NASA on a schedule. Here are a few sample letters if you want to write your congressman.

Mars is where we need to go. I agree that NASA does need some goal if they are ever going to do anything useful again but if they're going to set a goal, it should at least set a potentially habitable planet as a goal with the Moon as a sub goal or a proof of concept.

Robert Zubrin, president of Pioneer Astronautics and founder of the Mars Society has called for the mobilization of Mars exploration proponents to write their representatives on the future of post-Columbia NASA. From his announcement: 'This debate will play out over the next six months, and the result could determine the future of the American space program in our generation. Now is the time when anyone who cherishes hopes for a spacefaring future for humanity must step forward and speak up.'

This is happening alongside the recent testimony Zubrin gave to the full Senate Commerce Committee on Oct 29th (audio files here and the .pdf) and the proposed Bill from Congressman Nick Lampson TX to restore Mars as a goal and put NASA on a schedule. Here are a few sample letters if you want to write your congressman.

Mars is where we need to go. I agree that NASA does need some goal if they are ever going to do anything useful again but if they're going to set a goal, it should at least set a potentially habitable planet as a goal with the Moon as a sub goal or a proof of concept.

Robert Zubrin, president of Pioneer Astronautics and founder of the Mars Society has called for the mobilization of Mars exploration proponents to write their representatives on the future of post-Columbia NASA. From his announcement: 'This debate will play out over the next six months, and the result could determine the future of the American space program in our generation. Now is the time when anyone who cherishes hopes for a spacefaring future for humanity must step forward and speak up.'

This is happening alongside the recent testimony Zubrin gave to the full Senate Commerce Committee on Oct 29th (audio files here and the .pdf) and the proposed Bill from Congressman Nick Lampson TX to restore Mars as a goal and put NASA on a schedule. Here are a few sample letters if you want to write your congressman.

Mars is where we need to go. I agree that NASA does need some goal if they are ever going to do anything useful again but if they're going to set a goal, it should at least set a potentially habitable planet as a goal with the Moon as a sub goal or a proof of concept.

Robert Zubrin, president of Pioneer Astronautics and founder of the Mars Society has called for the mobilization of Mars exploration proponents to write their representatives on the future of post-Columbia NASA. From his announcement: 'This debate will play out over the next six months, and the result could determine the future of the American space program in our generation. Now is the time when anyone who cherishes hopes for a spacefaring future for humanity must step forward and speak up.'

This is happening alongside the recent testimony Zubrin gave to the full Senate Commerce Committee on Oct 29th (audio files here and the .pdf) and the proposed Bill from Congressman Nick Lampson TX to restore Mars as a goal and put NASA on a schedule. Here are a few sample letters if you want to write your congressman.

On the one hand, I mostly agree with all of you that this may finally get those lazy you-know-whats at NASA off their sofas and back to work...Then I remember that we have a true nincompoop running NASA.

It's time we put ENGINEERS back in charge of NASA instead of appointing politicians and, more recently, a bean-counter as its administrator.

Case in point: On Sep 10, Congress cross-examined said bonehead about an intriguing idea that a Joe Ordinary engineer published in an op-ed which can be read here. It's breif, very well-versed and I definitely recommend reading it, but the ghist of it is instead of completely scrapping the shuttle (referred to as STS) and all of its infrastructure and personnel, that it is technologically and financially (read as cheaper) possible to take those people and task them to refitting existing shuttle hardware to go to Mars. Jobs are saved, progress is made, and all for cheap--irresistable, right?

Not to our resident killjoy administrator Sean O'Keefe. At the hearings, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) entered the full text of the op-ed into the Congressional Record, and then asked NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe what he thought of it. Mr. O'Keefe responded defending NASA's current approach, saying that the ideas in the op-ed represented "wrong headed thinking."

It would seem, ironically enough, that NASA is behaving the way we would expect a communist regime to--CYA tactics. We saw this same behavior prior to the Soviet Union's fall (cheer): shunning innovation and new ideas in a desperate bid for self-preservation. To complete the irony, China is doing the opposite in their design for their spacecraft, going with the new school of thought in space travel: Using inexpensive off-the-shelf technology and using unconventional engineering and logistics. The former, make fun of it all you want, but the Soyuz is a tried and tested spacecraft. It beats spending billions on dollars of money wrenched from the hands of peasants to make a new bigger craft when a Soyuz is all you need for the job.

By the latter, I refer to this detachable portion obviously meant for space station construction. This sort of approach has been called for by several engineers recently, most notably Dr. Robert Zubrin, the author of the op-ed. A few years ago, he sent NASA his idea for a Mars mission involving sending a return vehicle to Mars FIRST and have it make propellant from the chemicals in the atmosphere, and have the crew arrive in a separate "hab" craft. At the conclusion of the mission, they ditch the craft and leave in the return vehicle. Repeat several times, then can hook those unused habs together and--PRESTO! Instant Martian base! And all for the same cost as the shuttle.

NASA didn't take too kindly to having someone challenge their plan, which involved huge orbital stations, orbiting shipyards, a lunar refueling base, and everything else logistically necessary to support it all. Price tag: $450 billion. It would seem though, that this sort of idea has found a new home with China, who are willing to adapt and accept new ideas like this.

I certainly do hope that this will start a new space race that will end with the US on top, but I have my doubts. It's sort of a shame, we have everything we need to make, say, a mission to Mars possible.

It's time we put ENGINEERS back in charge of NASA instead of appointing politicians and, more recently, a bean-counter as its administrator.

Not to our resident killjoy administrator Sean O'Keefe. At the hearings, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) entered the full text of the op-ed into the Congressional Record, and then asked NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe what he thought of it. Mr. O'Keefe responded defending NASA's current approach, saying that the ideas in the op-ed represented "wrong headed thinking."

To complete the irony, China is doing the opposite in their design for their spacecraft, going with the new school of thought in space travel: Using inexpensive off-the-shelf technology and using unconventional engineering and logistics. The former, make fun of it all you want, but the Soyuz is a tried and tested spacecraft. It beats spending billions on dollars of money wrenched from the hands of peasants to make a new bigger craft when a Soyuz is all you need for the job.

NASA didn't take too kindly to having someone challenge their plan, which involved huge orbital stations, orbiting shipyards, a lunar refueling base, and everything else logistically necessary to support it all. Price tag: $450 billion. It would seem though, that this sort of idea has found a new home with China, who are willing to adapt and accept new ideas like this.

--Our economy is recovering.

--This incident I mentioned, plus this Congressional hearing Thursday suggests that our COngress will back a renewed space program.

If you've read this far, thank you for tolerating my ranting. This is my first time posting on Slashdot, and I consider myself very passionate about our future in space. As we space nuts say, "Ad astra!"

For a bunch of papers on what it's all about, look at the Mars Direct page, or read Zubrin's book The Case For Mars.

We're talking $20 billion gov't money or about $6 billion if privately funded to put 4 people on mars for 18 months...then just a billion or two a year to maintain a constant human presence (cycling new people through) and start building a base that can self-sustain, not counting imports of high-tech goods.

It's not a minor amount of money, but we could colonize Mars for a lot less money that we're spending to colonize Iraq, and we probably won't even get to keep Iraq.

Lets give the credit where it is due:

Robert Zubrin (The Mars Direct mission profile)

and his cohorts The Mars Society

Well this book itself does not. However the author, who presented last month at the Mars Scoiety Convention does know how to do it. Primarily because he read this book The Case for Mars . You will too after you read it.

>before we wind up with another Apollo-loike boondoggle.

Well I never thought of Apollo as a boondoggle. The shuttle is IMO, but not Apollo. Apollo inspired a whole generation of us to become engineers and scientists. The payoff for civilization on that one was huge.

You are right about seeing more things done around earth(LEO). But the key part of your phrase is commercial ventures. NASA was founded to do the big stuff - like Mars. And we can do it within NASA's current budget. See the Mars Society for more information.

Yes, NASA has said the trip to Mars will cost $200-400 billion. It was published in what has become known as "The 90 Day Report". The truth is that for a sustanable program of Mars exploration the inital outlay is actually more on the order of $20-30 billion. And we can do it NOW.

Over five years this is only a fraction of NASA's yearly budget, which is less than 1% of the overall federal budget. Compared to medical research and defense spending the ammount we spend on space is inconsequential and imminently affordable when you consider the payoff at the end in terms of the future.

For more information and to find out how you can help see: The Mars Society

I see other problems with the report as well, but I'll stop for now.

Indeed, why don't they just ask these guys?

... isn't even worthy of the title "junk science." It's been debunked thoroughly.

Wouldn't it make sense to spin off a portion of the FAA and make it (just an example) the Federal Space Administration?

I think that this is a great idea, but good luck getting anyone to fund it. What, exactly, would this agency do right now? We have no shuttle flights (nor do we have any planned for the near future), Mars continues to be a pipe dream, and the ISS is serviced by Russian craft. There's not much to regulate right now. I agree that we'll need one in the future, it's just that the future seems an awfully long way away right now.

I think that the only real chance we have for space exploration, at least until China starts kicking our asses in the race to Mars, is commercial. How about a lottery where a couple of people get a ticket to Mars? Zubrin proposes a $30 billion long term Mars program. At $1000 a ticket, that means we have to sell 30 million tickets (assuming absolutely 0 investment, 0 government aid, and 0 commercial sponsorship (The Pepsi Landing Module, anyone?)). I'm just a poor college student, but you can be damn sure I'd scrape up the cash. Many of the rich and famous would by several tickets, I'd bet. Maybe we couldn't sell 30 million tickets here. Our population is about 280 million, so that's about one person in 9 buying tickets. Pretty unlikely. Our chances get better, however, when we open the lottery up world-wide.

So, before I get modded off-topic, I guess what I'm trying to say is that the space exploration of the future needs to be a cooperative effort.

The government needs to deregulate. Anyone who tries to make space something other than the Wild West is a bit delusional. By stepping back and letting explorers take over their doing nothing that we didn't already do in Tennessee, or Montana, or California.

Commercial ventures need to come up with the money. With all of the MBAs pouring out of Harvard alone you figure that someone could come up with a viable business model. Keep the lottery idea in mind, it's a quick way to make the cash roll in.

Citizens need, at the very least, to vote for Pro-Space Exploration congressmen. How are you going to get Joe Sixpack to vote at all, let alone for such a seemingly trivial issue? Make it exciting again. We need imminent, impressive goals. Mars doesn't count. Even now a landing is 15 years away.

What can we do to:
A) Help the plight of commercial space programs bogged down in bureaucracy?
B) Increase funding to government space programs?
C) Let congress know that there are people interested in space exploration?

Why, I'm glad you asked. Write your congressman. The Mars Society has a well developed lobbying system, including mailing lists and meeting reports. Don't know whether your congressman stands on this issue? Get their report card.

Books in a similar vein which tend to be better-respected by engineers are Entering Space: Creating a Spacefaring Civilization and The Case for Mars by Robert Zubrin. He's also the founder, IIRC, of The Mars Society.

This further discourages players from engaging in PVP combat, but it does help real life's rapidly growing player population from getting too out of hand (though eventually there will be a need for additional servers).

Some players insist that additional servers already exist, and that it is the players' responsibility to explore and "settle" them in order to guard against catastrophe and ensure that there are sufficient resources for new players. Skeptics point to extreme lag between the existing server and the suggested new host: ping times are measured in minutes, and player transfer could take months.

Why is NASA still putzing around in low earth orbit with the space shuttle? NASA (and the rest of us) need to aspire higher and undertake a project that will serve to inspire the current generation in the same way that the Apollo project did in the 60s.

I'm a big fan of Robert Zubrin's Case for Mars proposal to send astronauts to Mars using current technology. For those of you who aren't familiar with this, read the book or visit the Mars Society website for more information.

The other thing to consider is the economic value of a manned mission to Mars. Read Greg Benford's The Martian Race some time. It's a very plausible situation (and a good story).

Actuallly, each of these "problems" (weightlessness, radiation, trip time, lag time) are solvable with current technology, and sending teams to Mars can be done for as little as $20 billion within 10 years.

There's an entire book written specifically to debunk these myths and present real solutions, and an active society devoted to making manned missions to Mars happen.

Don't knock it until you have all the facts!

The Associated Press yesterday issued a wire article claiming that "the radiation on the surface of Mars is so intense that it could endanger astronauts sent to explore the Red Planet." The AP claimed that these were the findings of the MARIE instrument currently operating on the Mars Odyssey spacecraft, and ascribed the view that such radiation doses were too high to allow human explorers to Dr. Cary Zeitlin of the National Space Biomedical Institute in Houston. Dr. Zeitlin is the Principal Investigator for the MARIE radiation detection instrument.

In fact, however, the MARIE data, which is publicly available at the MARIE website at marie.jsc.nasa.gov/Results.html, show exactly the opposite. Currently posted data for January 2003 show radiation levels in low Mars orbit of 25 millirads/day, or 9 rads/year. While this level is slightly less than twice the regulatory dose for persons employed in the nuclear industry, it represents no significant threat. According the conservative "linear hypothesis" for dealing with low doses accepted in the radiation health physics community, a dose of 13 rads delivered over a 1.5 year Mars mission surface stay would represent a statistical increase in likelihood of cancer (at some point later in life) of about one quarter of one percent. In contrast, the average American smoker receives a 20 percent increase in cancer risk. The Mars radiation risk is thus only about 1/100th as dangerous as smoking.

If you're interested in Mars-Exploration, but "NASA estimated 300 billion dollars to do it" got you thinking, you might want to read these, as they come to a quite different estimate:
- The Mars-Society...
- ...and its german branch
- Robert Zubrin & Mars Direct
- Robert Zubrin's "The Case for Mars", a book I can absolutely recommend
- The german link again (I'm a german, so please bear with me, ok? :-)
I hope these may be of help...

PS: At least I wouldn't be wondering if Europe and Russia were to cooperate on this, but I sure don't hope for another "space race"... Would be one hell of sight though... Europe/Russia vs. China vs. USA? :-)

Check it out, it's rather cool (still pretty geeky though).

The Flasline Mars Arctic Research Station

The Mars Desert Research Station

If you get a chance to go to one of these, take it.

Check it out, it's rather cool (still pretty geeky though).

The Flasline Mars Arctic Research Station

The Mars Desert Research Station

If you get a chance to go to one of these, take it.

visit MarsSociety
and sign the petition

and Sign the petition

MarsSociety

Why isn't NASA interested in sending people to Mars?

NASA has plenty of stuff on the Mars menu as it is. Personally I hope they take a pass on sending humans, there's just so little point to it. Odds are Europe will come to the same conclusion. On the other hand, if they want to pay for it, go for it!

Send the robots, you don't even have to pay them and they can be programmed to say historic things like, "This is one small step for [a] man-bot, one giant leap for man-bot-kind." I just don't think it's cost-effective to send humans with all their frailties -- and send enough extra stuff to get them back.

These folks disagree and these guys are already colonizing Mars/Utah. Certainly the idea captures the imagination.

In the meantime, part of Mars has been conveniently discovered in Canada.

The STS is a 100 tonne to LEO launch vehicle.

How can that be? Well, if you take off that 90 tonne waste-of-space 70s technology monster that is the frickin' orbiter we could get some real lifting done around here! Has this "radical" design been actually engineered? of course it has. It's called the Ares booster.

Now if only NASA would get over their bad case of NIH we could do things, like, oh, I don't know, throw the ISS to orbit in 3 shots, go to Mars (2 shots), go back to the moon (1 shot)? And that's just three off the top of my head. In 6 launches. Sigh.

Where's Robert Zubrin when you need him? :/

Fortunately, astronauts can find the protection they need indoors (from solar storms) ; shelter walls made of lightweight materials provide adequate shielding.

For those needing more on this, go find what you need here or, for something a little more cautious and "NASA" here.

Now only if we can get people to stop running about waving their arms and shouting "The Radiation! The Radiation!" we might get something productive done... Heh! No chance of that I guess, might as well join them...

*waves hands over head, runs about, starts screaming "The Radiation!" and giggling*

Cool hack if ever I have seen one! Build-your-own Mars Base in one of the most Mars-Like places on Earth, and do real research on how to operate said base when (not if) we get to Mars.

If you keep up with the web traffic on this project, NASA's position seems to be basically "Great work guys!" and "Can we send our best people?" to which request the Mars Society seems to graciously and intelligently accede.

Another good book that bears on this subject is Robert Zubrin's Entering Space: Creating a Spacefaring Civilization. He discusses the atomic bomb drive as well as other postulated ideas for interstellar craft, such as solar wings and some trick with laser and mirrors (IIRC).

Even better, for slashdot folks, is that Zubrin takes this stuff seriously in a scientific sense. He discusses the energy needs and expected capabilities of the various craft, and in general covers a lot of "practical" ground. This is the same guy who is behind The Mars Society, which actively works to enable and encourage mannned missions to Mars.

Slashdot has covered Zubrin and Mars Society before; see this and that. He also has a mars-specific book titled The Case for Mars: The Plan to Settle the Red Planet and Why We Must. I recommend both his books to anyone who thinks we need to get off this rock.

I'm assuming most of us geeks could live pereptually inside now, we should start pestering the mars society to get on this.

He argued that since bacteria are so radiation resistant, and that impacts would have thrown rocks away from Earth, after any sterilization Earth would have been reseeded by bacteria thrown out by asteroid impacts! There should have been serious selection for rad tolerance among bacteria in the early solar system...

Also, he argued, with gravity sling effects from the big planets of the solar systems, rocks containing bacteria could have reached other solar systems before being sterilized... If other solar systems had relevant planets, Earth's bacteria could have infected/colonized the whole galaxy!

But, almost certainly, if so -- then Earth was itself seeded from bacteria from other stars. DNA might be standardized across the whole or most of the galaxy. (-: Pity future exo-biochemists -- what a boring universe! :-)

Or go to this site.

It's all been costed. You CANNOT compare the shuttle. But if you want to, the Shuttle is a 100 tonne launch platform, that brings 90 tonnes back in the shape of the orbiter. It's stupidly inefficient. You could launch the whole ISS with ONE Saturn V. Now do your maths based on 100 tonnes to LEO. Better still, do your math on the 140 tonne to LEO booster you could get if you stripped the Shuttle off the STS and re-configured it slightly.

Bottom Line: $20 billion is real. The numbers have been done by experts, not back of the napkin stuff like the ISS. And $20 Billion buys you a ten year program with 3 shots to Mars, crew of four each shot, total of 18 Man-Years on the surface. Woohoo! Let's go!

To which I would add - and they are all working at cost plus. Which means zero incentive for reducing launch costs. Add the Shuttle to that mix, and NASA has been discouraging work on "big boosters" for 30 years, because they would compete. I mean, come on Carbon Unit! Do some reading on launch hardware and aerospace politics before you call Carmack a crack head! He's actually exactly correct. And I can't see anywhere in his comments where he thinks he's the only one seeing this; he isn't. People from Robert Zubrin to ex-NASA administrators are saying the same thing?

Or was that your point? Still, why the abuse? (Shrug)

No kidding! I remember mucho crappola in the 60's from both the Brits and US "theoriticians" on what may happen going to the moon. Too bad all they had to do was go over to NASA and get all of the details they wanted. You know, depict the boxy aluminum LEM instead of the slick Hollywood/Pinewood LEM, etc.

Maybe these guys should checkout the Mars Society. Forgot what sort of return fuel they were planning on, but it was not obtained by cracking H20, it was something completely different.

The crew of a Mars mission will be 50-somethings who will die of natural causes before they have a chance to develop cancer from radiation exposure during a Mars trip. Send somebody in their late 20s or early 30s like Apollo/Shuttle and they are going to have some obvious and serious health problems from the trip before they live out their lives. Most people don'r realize how serious radiation in space is. The biggest problems are cosmic rays and solar flares. During the Apollo program there was an August 1972 flare which could have subjected an astronaut to 20,000 REM in 14 hours - 20 to 40 times the lethal dose. Luckily Apollo 16 was back and Apollo 17 was still on the pad. On a Mars mission there won't be any such luck. It lasts YEARS instead of a week and radiation exposure is UNAVOIDABLE. Once you get outside the Earth's protective magnetosphere, you are literally on your own in the unknown...

There are several designs out there already, in fact one is being tested right now in the desert. Go check it out.

Arranging the tanks and compartments that carry such stuff to provide a solar storm safety shelter in the center of your "tin can" is a trivial design exercise. A meter or two of water between you and the radiation is pretty much all you need. The ambient radiation is a problem, although only in percentage terms (it slightly increases your chance of getting cancer sometime later in your life). The point has been made that you could recruit the crew from smokers; they couldn't smoke on the mission; and you would actually decrease their chance of getting cancer during their lives by sending them to Mars!

Many, many design studies have been done utilising exactly the design I mentioned above, and it works. Read about it in this book or at this website.

I have to say I disagree that the logistics are unreasonable. We made it to the moon 33 years ago - a third of a century - before we even had modern computers. Getting to and from mars is simply a matter of scale... it takes longer and takes more thrust to get back off the surface. But that doesn't remotely mean it can't be done. The distance is phenomenal, yes, but in space distance just becomes time. Possibly the biggest logistical problem is medicine ... in the apollo program there was a maximum return time of about 4 days... if someone gets sick you can get them home to go to a doctor. For Mars, that's not an option because you're 6 months away with limited opportunities for orbital transition. But there are a *lot* of people working on this very problem, even while NASA hasn't yet made concrete plans for a mars mission.

Take a look at some of the plans invented by groups outside of NASA, most notably Robert Zubrin's Mars Direct concept. I'll spare you going into detail but this plan has so many fail-safes it's ridiculous. The entire thing uses more-or-less existing technology.

Meanwhile, there are two experiments already running to study the difficulties of having people live isolated on Mars for an extended mission (many months until the next launch window floats around). Check out the Mars Arctic Research Station and the Mars Desert Research Station (site temporarily down?). All this research and work is already being done, independantly of NASA. (usually marssociety.org is a great reference... at the moment it seems to be undergoing maintenance or something. Bad timing.)

Technologically, it can be done; I think there's little question about that. As for the policital will and the money, that's a different issue. But maybe this bill shows that there is some interest after all.

Personally, I put my money on commercialization of space being the primary driving force in the next 20 years. The profit motives and the opportunities of space tourism and potentially near-earth asteroid mining will outstrip anything the US government will deliver in the near future.

For more information about The Mars Society's Mars Desert Research Station, I suggest you have a look at the MDRS Website.

For more information about The Mars Society's Mars Desert Research Station, I suggest you have a look at the MDRS Website.