New Mars Forums

Well, yes, Robert, both you and I favor an interplanetary transit vehicle. As for prepositioning a large pressurized rover, that is better than no pressurized rover at all, but it does not solve a problem with Mars Direct: that the Hab might not land near an ERV and you need a vehicle to drive over to it.

As for starting with a base on the first mission: dream on. Congress won't approve that kind of funding. Besides, Mars exploration is more likely to work if it is incremental; you start with a few 18-month missions, settle on a place for a "Mars McMurdo," have some crew stay through two oppositions, begin to build up a central base, etc.

           -- RobS

The problem is that there is not yet an efficient type of reactor to process helium 3. It is currently being done mostly as a laboratory experiment. Right now at the rate which it (research) is proceeding it will take another 30 years,"

I knew it would be in there somewhere.  :laugh:

Caches of supplies are simpler to launch than an Earth Return Vehicle.  Mining and construction equipment is simpler to launch than an Earth Return Vehicle.  Additional housing is simpler to launch than an Earth Return Vehicle.  Almost anything is simpler to launch than an Earth Return Vehicle.  Safer, too, I'll bet.

If the world hasn't ended from all the American, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Chinese, Indian, Israeli, and other launches over these years, then adding a few more launches a year for a Lunar or Martian program isn't going to hurt the environment.

Anyway, as far as the "eeeevil chemicals!" bit, take a look around... Aluminum and iron oxides are a major componet of the soil, the carbon composit parts will burn up into carbon dioxide and a little soot, which leaves... Not much. The risk of environmental damage posed by a relativly small increase in rocket launches is small enough that it can simply be ignored.

If we obey the Precautionary Principle or get sucked in to "proving" we aren't doing any harm, then spaceflight will end... There is no way you can prove beyond all doubt, so the irrational, regressionist, man-hating environmentalists will never be satisfied.

First up, uncompensated tech support followed by a long drive to dinner and heated debate with liberal relatives. 

In my opinion an unpressurized mars exploration vehicle is not a serious attempt at exploration.  The crew would have to wear pressure suits the entire time and I can't imagine a mission being more than 8 hours tops so how far can you go in that amount of time?

As for the weight/mass issue.  Yes mars has 1/3 the gravity but the problem is not the vehicles weight on mars but it's launch weight from the earth.  Once it gets there who cares?

From the profound and thought-provoking, back to the political and shallow. (Sorry, MarsDog!)

Like I said, American policy in Iraq is "Mao-ist" - - follow the theory not the facts.

When the terrain doesn't correspond to the map, follow the map! Well, isn't that the very defining point of Leftism?
:;):

Dickbill is absolutely right about probability in my opinion. There is a  worldview called Monism that I find rather appealing, whose big name is Ernst Haeckel: "Die Welträtsel" (1899), very 19th century stuff. It deals with the basic sameness of the spiritual and material while denying neither. Given the factitude of enthropy, for life to arise, maybe there is some active, self-complicating principle at work within matter itself? Maybe the ongoing stellar generational enrichment and creation of heavy elements could be seen as an aspect of that vital principle at work? Why not?

Indeed, we don't have infinite time. Just take a look at this starsystem. It's been around for 4.68 billion years. That's a whole lot if the universe is only 13 billion years old and it's pretty fast for mere "coincidence and probability".

We are lavishly well supplied with metallicity if you compare with most starsystems around us. How come? A big factor seems to be age as translated in supernova metamorphosis of constituent elements. Not that many starsystem can have a higher or equal amount of heavy (read: complicated) elements than Sol and be considerably older (there are many exceptions of course. Alpha Centauri has both been around for longer and has slightly higher metallicity). Thus, it wouldn't surprise me at all if we are among the first generations of intelligent beings in the galaxy.

The universe is coming to life right now as a consequence of the inherent quality of being to complicate itself.
:;):

Dook, last paragraphs of your latest post were very good. You echo my thoughts and feelings when I'm out and contemplating nature. Though personally, I see no sentient "intention" in nature, neither do I suppose the existence of God.

Ahh, as far as I can tell, it's not actually a bug, just the fact that IkonBoard "Advances" members when they increase their post count. You guys were being "Advanced" back to "Member" status.

Pretty neat feature... although a bit evil and risky. Shouldn't be a problem now.

I'm looking for one more moderator.

Rxke, you are one of our most prolific posters, and I'm happy to have you part of New Mars, your english is just fine by me (you should see my spanish!). If I didn't nominate Bill, it would've been you.

Let me play the cattepillar in your buttermilk...

Let's buy into your premise. What does getting there first really mean when there are very real constraints on how quickly you can grow the population? It's going to cost a lot time and resources and energy to keep kids alive in space.

Native American's had a decisive population advantage when colonists first arrived. Fat lot of good it did them.