Slashdot Mirror

Anyone interested in reading about Bob Zubrin's plans for Mars, and about all of the plans that people are building around them, so forth and so on, should visit www.marssociety.org, you'll find lots of links to good books on Mars, interviews, video, news, and more.

He's also been working on a Mars mini-series based on Kim Stanley Robinson's seminal Red Mars trilogy. Both projects have Robert Zubrin, author of The Case for Mars, and the founder of the Mars Society, as a consultant.

There used to be information about this on the Mars Society homepage, but it appears to have gone now.

There is no technical reason that we could not establish permanent bases on the moon, Mars, or on an asteroid. The fact that we could send manned missions to the moon with less than 10 years lead time (from the idea being first proposed) suggests that we can develop the technology.

It is unlikely that NASA would be able to execute such a mission. Unfortunately, the space agency is no longer the can do group it was in the 1960's. Instead, it has grown into another Bureaucratic monster, more concerned with maintaining its funding that searching out new, expansive goals.

We can expect privately funded space launch services such as Rotary Rocket or Cerulean Freight Forwarding Company within the next five years. With these and other companies providing access to low earth orbit, there will be a ten fold decrease in the cost off access to space. This will allow more activity in space, which in turn will encourage more launchers to provide access. It is quite likely that Space Vacations will be available for the affluent inside the next ten years, with costs as low as $100,000 per person for a two week stay in a space.

There are groups who want to move permanently into space. Eventually, we will be going to the moon, Mars, the Asteroids, and elsewhere. If you are interested in promoting space, I recommend that you join one or more of these organizations.

IMHO, we should first have a permanent base on the moon, before we can even start thinking of going to Mars. The moon is relatively close, so if anything goes wrong, the astronauts are back in a few days.

Yes, the moon is a few days away versus 18 months away, but how many scenarios are there that would make that difference important?

Explosive decompression?

"This is Houston, could you all hold your breath for a few days"

Other than the loss of food or water, I think the Moon would be just as inaccessible as Mars would be, practically speaking.

Plus I think Mars has better resources for getting back than the moon, ie. refining O2 out of the atmosphere and making methane with hydrogen shipped with the landing party.

Check out the Mars Society, they'll explain it better.

George

Well, the Mars Society, is all about Mars exploration and one of thier prime activists is Robert Zubrin, an engineer for Lockheed Martin who has written The Case for Mars, a book which outlines his ideas on Mars exploration. He makes a pretty convincing case, in my layman's opinion. I don't know if NASA is buying it, but its gotten a lot of grass roots support, as these things go.

The Mars Society even appears to have some corporate sponsors, which dispells some of my initial thoughts that this could be some random group.

How about Rob Zubrin creator of the Mars Direct plan and founder of the Mars Society. When we get to Mars it will be thanks to the work of this man definetly worth the title of geek.

If you really want to know why we should go to Mars, read James Cameron's speech to the Mars Society:

http://www.marssociety.org/cameron_one.a sp

It's long, but I don't think it could be stated much better.

-m@

AtariDatacenter said:
>Can't wait until fifty years from now when there's a colony on the moon or something. Heck, I'd trademark Linux, Pepsi-Cola,
>the letter "X", and the number "3aF". No prior use on the moon would be great.

Well, under the 1979 UN Moon Treaty (applying to all bodies outside the Earth), individual nations retain sovereignty and legal jurisdiction over their vehicles and bases. Thus, an American colony would be governed by US law. At this point, a sovereign moon colony is not permitted.

Correct.

If you haven't already, check out Robert Zubrin's ideas on "Mars Direct." He has written a book, called The Case for Mars. He has given a *bunch* of talks on his plan and is involved in the Mars Arctic Research Station, which will test in-situ fuel generation for return trips back to Earth.

Check out The Mars Society for all kinds of Mars info.

Of course, the point can be made that our best defense, as a species, is to get off this rock. To that end support Mars Direct and the Arctic Research Station.

Kim Stanley Robinson. Great author. And also member of the board of the Mars Society - an organization to promote manned missions to Mars. If you like the premises of the books, you should consider joining :)

As Arthur C. Clarke also demonstrated in his classic 2001, you can easily synthesize gravity using a rotating spacecraft. If you do this, justifying further fruitless research into microgravity is just putting people's health in jeopardy.

In his excellent book, The Case For Mars, Robert Zubrin advocates a well-researched and complete plan for the exploration of Mars. It avoids extended travel through microgravity, does not require any on-orbit assembly, and could be launched with a slightly modified shuttle or even by starting up the Saturn V production line again! For not much more than we are going to waste on the space station, we could go to Mars within 10 years.

Check out Mars Direct for more information on Robert Zubrin's excellent arguments, and The Mars Society to get involved.

At one point, that would have been "Western Hemisphere exploration ... why?"

Most initial exploration (Columbus, Magellan, Lewis & Clark) has been underwritten by governments who foresaw the day when the benefits would outweigh the costs. It's an investment in our future -- in this case, mankind's future. I believe that if we wish to ensure the survival of the human race it is essential to expand beyond one planet (and eventually, one solar system).

The economic arguments are also persuasive, although the return-on-investment ratios are horrible to start and only get better a long, long time down the road. Mars and the asteroids have metals and minerals that human civilization will eventually require (once conservation, recycling, and substitution run their courses). Mars is an excellent headquarters for exploiting the asteroids.

The technological advances that we will gain by challenging ourselves will also be invaluable. We don't know what those may be, of course, but previous experience shows us that the most important advances aren't random: they are developed in response to a challenging need. Just like a high-jumper only improves by raising the bar, mankind needs to constantly find new challenges.

Finally, Mars will eventually be a cultural outlet for those hemmed in by human society on Earth, which will become increasingly urban, regulated, and lacking in personal space, privacy, and freedom. The first colonists on Mars may be sponsored by one or more governments ... or they may be religious refugees, like many of the people who colonized the Americas wearing only the clothes on their back.

More information may be found at the Mars Society website.

Join the Mars Society.

Tons of reasons. Check out: http://www.marssociety.org

Or read 'The Case for Mars' by Dr. Robert Zubrin.

The Mars Society was mentioned in this article. Check out it's website at www.marssociety.org.
KaOs