You are not logged in.
I think I brought this up before, but nobody could make much sense of it, but anyways, I was just finishing rereading Zubrin's moon and mars chapters in his 'Entering Space.', and i find it hard to believe a government is going to fund the creation of a new independent country while it(the original funding country) gets turned into the third world country down here on earth; i guess you could sell the mars direct program as an exotic 'get away' program from the growing chaos down here on earth.
But, it seems to me that unless you can find a way of doing this privately, your not likely going to entice some country to set up another one at its expence and demise.
Offline
Like button can go here
Zubrin's politics aside, I think the government is going to go Mars-direct style. Zubrins arguments rest on the idea of being on Mars, once we get there, essentially, we can get other private industries to get there. In my humblest of opinions, the US government is going to go Mars-direct style (look at the new Shuttle derived configurations), only it won't happen for another 20 years or so, because somehow the Moon takes presedence...
Unless private individuals do it themselves, we won't be on Mars before I'm an old geezer, and it seems it can be done for a few billion, so it's not that far fetched.
Some useful links while MER are active. [url=http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html]Offical site[/url] [url=http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Web.html]NASA TV[/url] [url=http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/]JPL MER2004[/url] [url=http://www.spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/statustextonly.html]Text feed[/url]
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.
Offline
Like button can go here
The notion "one nation won't found another and be replaced" makes a series of assumptions:
1. A nation will be founded on Mars some day
2. That Martian nation or nations will be more important than the USA.
These are the assumptions of a few sci-fi enthusiasts and maybe a few futurists. They have nothing to do with the funding a manned landing on Mars. There may be a "nation" on the moon some day as well; who knows. But that was never an argument against Apollo.
I don't think anyone funding a Mars mission will think it's a bad idea because mars might be important some day.
That argument never stopped Britain, France, and Spain in exploring the Americas either.
-- RobS
Offline
Like button can go here
Mind you, a Mars-direct style mission does not have in it the capablity of self-sustainablity. So there would still be state-control on those who went to Mars under their nation.
Some useful links while MER are active. [url=http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html]Offical site[/url] [url=http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Web.html]NASA TV[/url] [url=http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/]JPL MER2004[/url] [url=http://www.spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/statustextonly.html]Text feed[/url]
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.
Offline
Like button can go here
I'm not sure what Zubrin writing you are referring to but I can't see us ever sending humans and all the equipment and supplies necessary for a mars colony unless mars can be terraformed.
Scientists, sure. I can see them but average people? Settlers? No way. Why would we do that? The cost and risk would be incredible. There is nothing there that can make a profit.
Now if mars can be terraformed it opens up a world of possibilities...
I know many people feel Zubrin's MD was lacking in size but it was intended to be a series of sustained landings of habitats and in-situ resource earth return vehicles. The habitats would be close together, or moved after landing, to create a base.
Offline
Like button can go here
I can see one day people living on Mars, terraforming or not, just for the value of of living away from the rest of the hussle/bussle of Earth... I'm sure there are various colonies or Siberian towns or whatnot that exsist for that reason. People are programmed to expand, and for some that directive is pretty strong.
Mars is the only place in the solar system besides Earth that we can, with a high degree of certainty, really thrive without an economy-crushing expense. Such a society can only exsist without the profit motive, but for folks who aren't too interested in that, it could work.
The "threshold" is when it becomes possible to relocate to Mars at an expense not alot greater then the worth of the life savings and Earthly assets of an average colonist family. I think that this can be done with savvy investing of said assets, a pre-exsisting base to expand from, and some sort of high-performance nuclear propulsion (GCNR, NSWR, VASIMR). A space elevator sure wouldn't hurt either...
As far as MarsDirect though, its cost far exceeds what is possible to achieve privately. MD relies on a 120MT class launch vehicle, and if it carries much less then it just isn't going to work. Thats beyond even Energia, so you are going to need NASA's big rocket. Bob's estimate for how much it would cost, and what each mission is capable of doing is also pretty low too I believe, just like how he underestimates how much the ships will probobly weigh. Even the big 125MT SuperMagnum probobly can't pull off MarsDirect.
Oh, and before I forget, let me reiterate that a bunch of worn out habs with spent reactors do not make a base.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
While we could put average people on mars just to get them away from the rest of us it still doesn't answer why we should.
A number of habitats, in-situ resource units, pressurized exploration vehicles, a couple small trucks, a few reactors, a solar panel farm, and a few greenhouses may not be much of a base to you but it's a good start. Whatever plan you use to get there it really doesn't differ much from this on the surface. You still need a hab with life support, energy source, food supply, and a return rocket.
Spare parts (to fix the 'worn out' habs), food, could easily take the place of mars habitats and in-situ units on the rockets once we have enough mars habs on the surface.
Offline
Like button can go here
Well I would consider myself to be an "average person" whatever that means, and I for one would love to go to Mars. A recent book signing I went to for Steve Squyres of MER fame had over 400 people in the crowd and they were absolutely enthralled by his presentation. The comments I heard afterwards confirmed to me that ignoring public interest will keep us grounded. People wanted to go to countries of the new world for many different reasons, and so it is with settlements on Mars or elsewhere in space. Scientific bases are needed but the general public who's tax dollars are being used for this will not support it indefinitely without there being some end result for them of the possibility of moving there. The signs of this are already there with groups of "anti-space advocates" being formed already. Make no mistake, there will always be a mass of people wanting to settle in space. Whoever makes this a reality will also reap the rewards.
welcome to [url=http://www.marsdrive.net]www.marsdrive.net[/url]
Offline
Like button can go here