You are not logged in.
I hear that New Scientist has run a feature on the FMARS in Devon Island - I haven't read it myself but I've been told that the overall tone is rather critical of the scientific value of the Station. A friend who has read the article commented:
"Comments [in the article] about the hab resembling a student dorm and journalists whinging about having to wait for simulated airlock cycling and acclimatization before getting their photo opportunities were unnecessary."
Has anyone else read this article? It isn't available on their website until next week (I'll post a link when it's there). I should point out that in general, New Scientist probably doesn't have a high opinion of space research in general - this might be justified or it might not be, but that's how it goes.
Editor of [url=http://www.newmars.com]New Mars[/url]
Offline
It?s unfortunate that many people don?t share our enthusiasm about space research. Rather then dismiss the opinions as not well thought ought I believe that the space community should take on the responsibility turning these opinions around. Our efforts should be to fold. The first is to educate people about the value of space research. The second and more important is to focus on improving the value of space research. Instead of ignoring critisizim we should embrace it and see how we can use it to increase the benefit of space research in general. In my opinion FMARS was a good first project, many didn?t think so. Some saw it only as a publicity stunt to promote Zubrin?s book.
But what is research if we don?t learn from our mistakes. Perhaps the critizim is part of what we learn from the research. In our next Simulation Habitat we can learn from this and do better. Good luck to Terry Kook, in his efforts to make CELSS (Closed Ecological Life Support Sytem) a reality for earth and mars. Good luck to others who are taking on there own projects that are unrelated to FMARS. (For example, Robert Dykes efforts to develop a low cost ION engine, the group who is working on the mars suit design, the chapter that proposed the balloon mission, the simulation task force.)
People are inspired and they are working to go to mars. They will go not because of gornermnet but despite government. Last but not least let me wish best of luck in the efforts of people who are working on projects related to FMARS such as the two Mars Rover teams.
Dig into the [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/2006/12/political-grab-bag.html]political grab bag[/url] at [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/]Child Civilization[/url]
Offline
Having still not read the article, I can't comment on the content reliably. However, I imagine that New Scientist's criticisms are probably based on the apparent 'lack of professionalism' that they might perceive at F-MARS; they talk about the hab being like a student dorm (e.g. not like what it'd be on Mars; not organised). They will probably also pick at the lack of standards, protocols and other NASA-like features that the media associates with 'good' space research.
I think the problem here is that there is a bit of a misunderstanding on NS' part of exactly what FMARS is here for. As I understand it, it isn't supposed to simulate a Martian expedition, as such, but merely to test technologies and procedures.
Editor of [url=http://www.newmars.com]New Mars[/url]
Offline