Totally commercially funded "Mars Direct"...

blueyes · 2006-09-14 14:25:45

Alright folks, here I go...

I don't know if this will lead me anywhere, or if me posting here is the right thing to do, but here it goes.

I have read Zubrin's book a long time ago, and it caught my imagination. I am very much interested in space (always had been, since I was a child) and I have a wide field of interest. After reading Zubrin's book I was looking for news on any kind of Mars Direct project, but I don't have to tell you guys that it's slow in coming... Painfully slow.

So, just a few days ago somehow Mars Direct entered into my thoughts again (it was always in the back of my mind somewhere) and it sorta hit me... Mars Direct costs very little when you look at usual space costs (6 billion, according to Zubrin's last email to me) and I realized that such an amount could be covered totally through promotional tie-ins, and sponsorship of companies. Hell, they spend 100 million just for football players, and a project like this would be on an order of magnitude, and in scope, that's incomprehensible in terms of advertising.

So, I casually fired off an email to Robert (Zubrin) pointing this out to him, and he said he would be on board. Then he asked me if I know some individuals who would like to foot the bill. I answered back, that if I did, I would be doing what I love to do, instead of what I have to, and I proceeded to lay out some pointers as to how such a project should be done. I explained that the lead group that coordinates the whole project has to have all their members on the same page and there can not be a rift because of the gravity of the situation. I also mentioned that it has to be done right the first time, because there would only be ONE chance to pull off something like this. If the sponsor's faith is shaken no one will ever be able to convince them again to contribute hundreds of millions of dollars a piece to something like this. For this reason I offered that the best way to manage such a project would be to use the Toyota Production System, which is just a variation on the Total Quality Management System, but the Toyota way is much more effective, so much so that many companies around the world are studying it and are applying it. (And we all know how good the Toyota company is. If you don't, read "The Toyota Way".)

I mentioned several additional things as well... Because of the nature of the current aerospace landscape, Russia would probably play the biggest role in the project due to the fact that they need money and are more willing to assist private enterprises, than, say, NASA... just look at their space tourism "business" to the space station - Russia's.

The Russians also made a deal with ESA to cooperate in French Guiyana (Kouru) as well as on a mini shuttle. The biggest help would/could come from Russia and Europe, them being the "prime contractors". I bet they would even put up some of their own money, since the same technologies they're working on for themselves could be used for Mars Direct, and working with (or ON) Mars Direct would help them realize their own project at the same time, maximizing value for the money.

Most everything can be gotten off the shelf, like space suits (Russian), flight suits (American), space food (American), flight deck (Airbus) etc. etc.

The idea is to K.I.S.S. the whole thing (keep it simple stupid) and to go with things that already exist. Why would you invent a new electrical system when the current one they use on airliners is perfectly acceptable. Why do endless studies to find out how the body behaves and reacts in microgravity, when the practical and scientific experience is already at hand, from years being in space for extended periods of time (Russia)? Yes, you might have to adjust and tweak things, but use and integrate what you have and what has been proven.

Anyway, I don't know if Zubrin is busy right now, or he didn't hear what he wanted to, but I haven't heard from him since.

So, here goes the big question: Do you guys think that there is a way for qualified people here to start rolling the ball? I already called one of the biggest ad agencies and they were actually pretty cool about the idea. They say it could work, but there needs to be a solid business proposal that would show how the companies would benefit from their tie-ins. They DID raise a point about really thinking about, and having, all kinds of opportunities throughout the entire project, because otherwise the only point of really great exposure would be the last couple of months prior to the launch, so companies would have no reason to shell out money before that. And the point came up about the leading group having a unified front, so the project has a strong leg to stand on.

Any ideas?

blueyes

blueyes · 2006-09-14 14:59:52

Oh... I forgot a couple more points.

The contract selection process needs to be ABSOLUTELY transparent and fair, and the whole project needs to be approached super pragamatically, without ANY bias.

Politics has no place here, nor does nepotism, favoritism, or anyhting else that could effect the project. For this reason astronaut selection can go like thus: Since it's an American originated project it's safe to say that the captain of the mission will be American. NASA can be used to select him/her.

Then, since Russia, Europe and probably Japan, would play key roles, it's safe to assume that a Russian, a European and a Japanese astronaut would also be part of the mission. The Russians, the Europeans and Japanese would be allowed to choose this individual, along with 2 alternates, in case their main selection does not mesh with the rest of the crew. That's 4 people. If we take a 6 person crew into account, that leaves 2 additional seats open. If we want this to be an International mission (and why not, since that would help the world focus on something positive, and would distract from the current geopolitical mess) then we would probably include an additional person from South Africa, and another from Latin America. A person from, or representing, the Middle East would go a long way, but I don't know how that could be solved.

To avoid being a hostage to any host nation, or government (including our own)mission control would need to be located in the US, probably using Kouru as the heart of the operation. The unmanned cargo could be launched from Kouru and the crew could be launched from Russia, or Kouru if a new heavy lift launcher could be developed, or Energia resurrected and placed in Kouru.

blueyes

GCNRevenger · 2006-09-14 15:26:11

Ummmm... first idea?

Bob Zubrin is out of his mind, or else a total swindler, maybe the biggest swindler of all time if he gets his wish.

blueyes · 2006-09-14 16:33:55

What do you mean? What are you referring to?

And any thoughts on start rolling the ball ourselves?

blueyes

noosfractal · 2006-09-14 17:07:24

And any thoughts on start rolling the ball ourselves?

Start with a reality TV show called "Mars Underground" where space boffins rave passionately about the technological, political and spiritual implications of a manned mission to Mars, with occasional drop-in appearances by NASA admin, senators, celebrities, and dot-com billionaires. End with the triumphant conclusion that it is possible with the support of the viewing public: "watch TV, send a manned mission to Mars." Proceed to the second series in which we begin the Olympian mars-o-naut selection process. No lose proposition.

blueyes · 2006-09-14 17:15:41

I take it you're being sarcastic.

I meant actually designing the project and making things happen. Setting up a site (which I could do BTW, in minutes), start analyzing variations of the Mars Direct plan to determine the right approach on how to get there and what to design, putting together the business proposal for the corporate sponsorship, and discuss the structure of the lead group, determining how it would function, and how it would manage the project and the funds, etc.etc.

blueyes

GCNRevenger · 2006-09-14 17:52:32

Bob Zubrin said MarsDirect would cost only $6Bn did he? Well, thats a big change from the $30-35Bn he listed earlier, which I think is about 50-75% too low. $35Bn is 580% more than $6Bn, and about 1000% of the more likely figure.

I seriously doubt that whatever NASA-hating delusion that Zubrin is steeped in these days, that NASA's supposed ineptitude leads to a markup of ~1000% frankly, and I think Bob is selling snake oil with that tiny figure. Mainly in the hopes that someone in Congress will catch the same fever and tell NASA to do it Bob's way or else I bet.

He's also probably a liar about the practicality of MarsDirect using chemical rocket engines, I doubt he honestly believes it can be done, and being a nuclear engineer by training I imagine he's lying until the nuclear option becomes nessesarry in order to sidestep environmental groups with power in Congress.

GCNRevenger · 2006-09-14 18:08:37

Lets see, where to begin...

~"Mars Direct costs very little when you look at usual space costs" A lie, it will cost tens of billions, totally beyond any kind of private venture.
~"I explained that the lead group that coordinates the whole project has to have all their members on the same page" Good luck with that, herding activist engineers is a bit like herding cats I bet
~"If the sponsor's faith is shaken no one will ever be able to convince them again" With a project of this magnetude, their faith is shaken by default
~"Russia would probably play the biggest role" Russia could probably get you around Mars for that kind of money, but never land or do anything useful.
~"The Russians also made a deal with ESA to cooperate in French Guiyana (Kouru) as well as on a mini shuttle" Yes, on the tiny Soyuz R-7 pad that can't even be used for manned launch. The mini shuttle is dead too, btw.
~"The biggest help would/could come from Russia and Europe, them being the "prime contractors"" Suuure. They don't have the will nor technology, and didn't you say you wanted to keep politics out of this?
~"Most everything can be gotten off the shelf, like space suits... flight deck" Neither of these would be suitable for a Mars mission. Standard suits are far too heavy and restrictive, and airplanes are too different from rockets
~"The idea is to K.I.S.S. the whole thing" You are going to MARS! There is no KISS with somethng that difficult!
~"when the practical and scientific experience is already at hand, from years being in space for extended periods of time (Russia)" Alot of those superlong duration Cosmonauts couldn't walk, and some never recoverd. Astronauts must be on hand to at least set up the nuclear plant and do food/bathroom/etc on landing.

Oh! And:

all kinds of opportunities throughout the entire project, because otherwise the only point of really great exposure would be the last couple of months prior to the launch

Put too many commercial stickers and tie ins and whatnot and government support could be damaged, at least due to people getting turned off by the commercialization of a "noble" goal.

You may also be ignoring a more subtle problem with crew selection... will people from such a mixed background be able to live with eachother for three years happily?

blueyes · 2006-09-14 18:28:16

All this is your opinion.

I completely disagree with most of what you write, and fully believe that most things can be solved.

All you need is will. YES it is not easy, but it is far from being as difficult as you make it sound. Sorry mein... I think you are a big doozer of a pessimist. From all you write here, you come across as someone who doesn't REALLY want this to happen.

Think about this... What do you think would happen if you just stepped back and let those who believe in a direct to Mars project make it happen? You don't lose anything, and if it really can't be done, you could have the last laugh. Why are you so adamant? 8)

blueyes

GCNRevenger · 2006-09-14 18:35:42

If you think all this can be resolved, I have to ask "how?"

I reject this notion that sheer force of will can do anything, there are lots of things that willpower can't accomplish. Convincing enough people to part with that much money for a Mars program outside mandetory government taxation for instance.

I am not a pessimist, I am being realistic; the AltSpacers' like yourself tend to need a big injection of reality it seems otherwise all your energies will be wasted and nothing really accomplished.

Even worse then that, burning of energies on a futile hope discredits us all in the eyes of the general public, which doesn't dicern between different types of space enthusiasts very well.

So do I really lose anything? Yes

blueyes · 2006-09-14 19:00:22

I never said sheer will ALWAYS accomplishes everything. I'm not stupid or naive to believe that that's ALL you need. What you fail to believe is that nothing new has to be invented, and that everything that's needed is available now.

"How?" You ask...

I already broke it down for you, and I already told you that the money would not come from individuals, but instead advertisers would foot the bill. Pepsi, Nike, HP, Apple, all kinds of companies from around the world... you name it. They pay what they think something like this would be worth to them. If they shell out 100 million to one athlete, believe me... they would shell out at least that much for a Mars mission, and surely more. And even if you have to have 90 companies or more to cover whatever the actual cost would be it's still doable.

Pessimists always say they're realists. And I don't know what you mean by "AltSpacer". I'm just an ordinary man, who happens to believe that it's possible to go to Mars now. Just like you believe what you believe.

What you believe is "futile hope" others find logical and perfectly normal. And my beliefs are just as valid as yours. That's one of the plusses to living in this country. The only way to know who is right is if you work on making it happen.

blueyes

GCNRevenger · 2006-09-14 19:28:26

But for willpower, what else do you have? Like a major corporation will fork over hundreds of millions of dollars without any kind of credibility or hope for sucessful return on investment? That $100M is a famously large sum paid to one Tiger Woods if memory serves, and is a classic example trotted out by AltSpacers' looking to use advertising money for rockets. Bluntly, Tiger is a sure thing, a private Mars venture is not. They won't shell out, because they don't believe in AltSpacer fantasies. Even if you had 90 companies willing to go in with you like Nike did Tiger, thats still only $9Bn, hardly a tenth of what a really effective and safe Mars mission would cost, and thats assuming you don't have to build NASA-like infrastructure, reasource base, and technical competance.

"AltSpace", short for Alternative Space, is the nickname put on the small legions of people who think they can "do space" an order of magnetude or more less expensive than NASA et al, or that spaceflight is "easy" in any sense of the word. Especially people who think that present spaceflight is hyper-over-complicated, and an unshakeable, dogmatic faith in simple solutions for complicated problems.

To date, no venture made by any AltSpace organization, even with millions of dollars literally granted from rich bennefactors, not one of them has ever suceeded in launching a single gram into orbit. The only one that has any chance of suceeding infact is Elon Musk's SpaceX, and he admits that he's a loooong way from Mars.

People who believe futile hopes are perfectly normal and reasonable? Crazy people think their delusions are perfectly rational too.

Edit: And come on, 90+ companies? At what point does the public simply suffer from advertising saturation? There must come a point of diminishing returns for subsequent advertisers, and they will be less and less willing to shell out.

As for assembling large numbers of engineers to work on such a project outside of a company or government agency, look and see the management disasters that big "home made" rocket projects have had, as people try to make a rocket that can reach space on their own.

SpaceNut · 2006-09-14 19:58:56

The creation of sports hero's or of auto racing yes do yield to endorsements for big money but last I checked there was nothing comperable to that in the relm of space.

There however is just one chance to maybe turn that around if the Rocket Racing League: Spreading Its Wings can get some real interest in getting things started.

It is a high flying Rocket Racing League. It is trying to push the throttle forward in the development of a new sport—a NASCAR-style racing league utilizing rocket-powered aircraft flown by pilots through a “three-dimensional track” that’s plainly sky-high.

Its a start if such sponsors as mentioned do put up so cash in the end run.

blueyes · 2006-09-14 20:03:25

Do you hear yourself...? Or, do you read what I'm writing, understanding the words for what they are?

Companies would not fork over the money to a fledgling organization, without any track record. Before any company is approached a complete plan would be devised, and commitment from manufacturers and organizations would be secured, such as NASA contractors, ESA, and Russian companies. Again, most of what's needed already exists and would be part of a simple shopping spree, after careful planning.

The whole project could be managed and coordinated by Toyota, on a contract. (Just an example.)

Companies fork over a lot more, for much more stupid things. Even by the account of the ad agency I talked to, IT IS POSSIBLE to convince companies to buy into a project like this and they would be glad to, as long as the guarantee is there that it's a project that will take off, pun intended. BTW - who are you to worry about marketing fatigue on the public. An event of such magnitude would occupy the minds and hearts of the world (if it's an international mission) and the energy would be palpable. Think of the Mars frenzy that happened with Sojourner... the entire world was caught up in it, and it was just a robotic mission. A manned mission would be many times more exciting and palpable.

I never said space is easy, or that it doesn't cost a lot of money. But, NO ONE can tell me that most of that money goes for actual missions, and related equipment and support. Government is wasteful and NASA is a dinosaur, that has no incentive to try to become lean and manage itself more efficiently. Not much anyway. Yes, there were half-hearted attempts before, but it produced half-hearted results. Regular companies, like car companies, can't get it right, and you think government agencies can? Puhleez... I can bet that NASA could be run better on at least 2/3 less money, and I'd say that that is a conservative estimate.

Finally, no one said that thousands of engineers would be working directly for the leading group. Remember... everything is contracted out.

blueyes

SpaceNut · 2006-09-14 20:04:34

Here is some more on the concept with lots of images. XPrize cup: Huge turn-out expected for futuristic space show in New Mexico Star City

It is basically a souped up plane but to the average non informed it will appear as more like a jet when the engines are active.

The article also goes into the rest of the altern x interests of obtaining sub orbital for those still trying to achieve what SpaceShipOne has allready accomplished.

GCNRevenger · 2006-09-14 20:04:54

It won't go anywhere for the same reason nobody makes movies about modern beyond-visual-range air combat: its boring, and you can't see anything. At altitude, there is no sense of speed, but flying low they would be going too fast to even see the advertisers' logos. Not that the racers would live very long if they all flew that low. Part of the alure of NASCAR is also the fierceness of the competition, which you can't have in the air because you are either too far apart, of if you aren't then you will run out of racers & planes real quick.

SpaceNut · 2006-09-14 20:20:53

Here is one effort to raise cash for going to space.
Get Your Logo or Name on a Real Space Craft!

We need your help in raising $6,000,000 to fund the first steps in sending a man into space, to the moon, and beyond without government funding!

Once Nasa has gotten the CEV/CLV and the CaLV/ LSam built one could just pay the purchase price and do your own mission with the hardware as a one way mission for that amount with enough supplies to stay.

Land in one of the deep cravases at the equator and set up shop.

GCNRevenger · 2006-09-14 20:27:07

*shakes head* another one...

Companies would not fork over the money to a fledgling organization, without any track record

And how are you going to get a track reccord without their money? I don't think you can even get a contract commitment from a major aerospace contractor without some background. All you would have is a rough plan with some preliminary numbers and vauge ideas with virtually no engineering.

And I am telling you again, much of what you need does not exist, and either reviving old projects, modifying equipment, and so on will not come cheap. But that is only half the battle! Maybe not even half, putting it all together will cost huge sums, as well as the infrastructure you need to launch the thing either through purchasing NASA/Russian services or making your own.

The whole project could be managed and coordinated by Toyota, on a contract

Ha, uh huh, a car maker... rockets to Mars. Right. See AltSpace'er definition.

Companies fork over a lot more, for much more stupid things. Even by the account of the ad agency I talked to, IT IS POSSIBLE to convince companies to buy into a project like this and they would be glad to

Do they? For instance? Giving nine-figure sums to a bunch of rocket radicals without any notion of what they are getting themselves into, who thump The Case for Mars like a Baptist preacher sounds like a pretty dumb idea to me.

And the ad agency, sure they would love to, but I pretty much think you'll never be able to meet their caveat about "guarantee." The business about "captivating the whole world!!!" also faces a chicken and egg problem, that you'd need the kind of money brought in by such a phenominon to get the project going, but until the project is going advertisers would balk. But even worse then that, after the first mission or three, the "frenzy" would die, and so would any hope for a long-term presence on Mars. Killed by the mad, blind rush to get there at any cost, just like Bob Zubrin is feverish to do.

I never said space is easy, or that it doesn't cost a lot of money. But

Sorry, your credibility died at "BUT"

Government is wasteful and NASA is a dinosaur, that has no incentive to try to become lean and manage itself more efficiently... I can bet that NASA could be run better on at least 2/3 less money, and I'd say that that is a conservative estimate.

Then you are a fool, another one of the deluded AltSpace faithful.

Finally, no one said that thousands of engineers would be working directly for the leading group. Remember... everything is contracted out.

If you hire out other contractors, like existing aerospace contractors, then how will you save any money? Did you know that about 80% of NASA's spaceflight staff are contractors? If you hire them, why do you expect they will work for 30% as much?

blueyes · 2006-09-14 20:39:19

Dude... You never gonna get it! 8)

Just go! Believe what you must. It won't change anything from where I'm sitting.

I should just go for it and make it happen just to see you sqirm.

blueyes

Martin_Tristar · 2006-09-15 23:34:01

blueyes,

The issue for commercial payment for the venture would be -- What commercial companies to fund the project -- Private or Public ? 1) Private companies are generally smaller and you would require alot to build a consortium to create the Mars Direct Project. 2) Public Companies are larger but have alot of regulations and shareholder expectations on the return of capital.

You would need a detailed defined goal on the planet to have investors reasons to invest money into the project, such as Survey Probe with defined mineral deposits and worl towards mining and extraction of minerals for use on the surface for development. Then you could have many billions of dollars released for mineral exploration and infrastructure development for the planet.

kaci_m · 2006-09-16 23:07:52

Although I agree corporate sponsoring can raise a chunk of the cash for a Mars mission, there just isn't enough worldwide interest to have corporate sponsors take up the whole $6-, $35, or however many billions for a private Mars trip.

My premiere comes from the Olympics; It's an event watched by the majority of affluent countries in the world, providing spectators with the deep psycological need to watch one's country beat another country's butt. Countries and companies clamor over being allowed to cater to the Olympic games and the athletes in it. According to the official Olympics website (link below), corporate sponsorships made up about a third of the $4 billion dollars in collected revenue between 2001-2004, which comes out to $1.34 billion over that time period.

(source: http://www.olympic.org/uk/organisation/ … dex_uk.asp viewed on 9/16/06)

A Mars mission, while exciting for us, will not be as large a spectacle as the Olympics. There will be worldwide excitement when the spacecraft launches, but for as far as anyone knows, the rest of the trip could very well be rather boring... no competition, maybe no new Earth-shattering discoveries, and hopefully no drama or serious injuries. And then the astronauts will come back safely, and then who will sponsor the second Mars mission?

Companies like to sponsor events that will get their company noticed, and thusly give them a large return on their investment. Again, I and a lot of other people would be thrilled at a Mars mission, but that's not enough people to have corporate sponsors cover the whole cost of a Mars mission. However, it could still provide a nice little chunk of support, and I support any efforts to make a Mars program happen

-------------------------------
Other recent postings by kaci_m: SpaceSet.org - a good idea for outreach?

=VT= · 2006-09-17 05:19:10

A Mars mission, while exciting for us, will not be as large a spectacle as the Olympics. There will be worldwide excitement when the spacecraft launches, but for as far as anyone knows, the rest of the trip could very well be rather boring... no competition, maybe no new Earth-shattering discoveries, and hopefully no drama or serious injuries. And then the astronauts will come back safely, and then who will sponsor the second Mars mission?

I couldn't have said it better.

GCNRevenger · 2006-09-17 05:37:19

I would even think that corporate sponsorship would be a bad thing, since it would reduce the chances of sucessive missions.

Martin_Tristar · 2006-09-18 00:38:06

Commercial Development of Space will only occur when the same rules apply from earth activities to the lunar surface, Mars and beyond including property ownership and mineral resource management practices. Therefore we need to develop a framework for property sales, mineral leases and royalty agreements to expand the lunar settlements and Mars settlements in the short, medium and long term basis.

Developing the Framework :

ICANN was created to oversee the internet with several supporting organization groups and Advisory committees including a committee representing the general public / users of the Internet.

Creation of an International body with membership by all current space races and signatories to the various space treaties , them form the body and oversee the creation of two new UN members to the united nations ( Mars Seat ) and the ( Lunar Seat ) with all rights to a full member of the UN.

Secondly the International Body with the Mars and Lunar UN Embassies then commence the development of the business and goverment framework to expand the bodies with commercial infrastructure including mining, transport and settlements. These core frameworks will provide the legal framewok for corporations to commence investment in space and the financial expansion into an interplanetary economy.

BUT ............!!!!!

Nothing will expand , growth, develop , if the framework for investment and ownership are not setdown.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-09-18 08:29:24

That is true Martin_Tristar, what we need is an investment environment conducive to investment where the investor is allowed to realize a return on his investment.
What we basically need is a framework for drafting a Martian and Lunar Constitution, I think the constitutions themselves must be agreed to by the people present on those bodies at the time of the signing. What needs to be agreed to on Earth is the requirements required on Mars to allow the convention to go forward and gain international acceptance by the major spacefaring powers, I don't mean everybody, I just mean the major spacefaring powers, the sooner talks commence the easier it will be to agree to something. The best time for developing the agreement is when the thought of extraterrestrial colonization seems like "pie in the sky", because then the members aren't really seeming to give up anything. The agreement should be rather simple and technical, basically how many people need to be sent to Mars and for how long before a constitution can be ratified, until such time the various manned missions will be controlled by the sponsoring space-faring powers. Space-faring powers could be either nations or corporations. Maybe the number should be something like 100 rather than 10, that means that the constitution won't be solely decided by the first nation that manages to put down footprints on the red soil. I think 80% of the total inhabitants of the Moon and Mars must be available to make quarum to comence the Constitutional convention, and then the delgate/astronauts will decide on the constitution. Most likely the constitution will already be written up on Earth and brought over to Mars for the delegate/astronauts to sign, as their proffession will be in exploring Mars, not deciding on these legal matters, but there's will be the signatures on the document. I say 80% of the planet's inhabitants, because I forsee the possibility that some space faring powers may not wish for their to be a constitution, so they will send some astronauts there who will not participate in the constitution to deny quarum and the legal force of the meeting. The major powers can then send even more astronauts until the get the 80% they need to override the holdouts and commemce the meeting.

The challenge then becomes to get the right people over to Mars that will sign the right kind of constitution that will allow for private investment and development of Mars so as to allow a financial return to investors, and if the technical requirements of just getting there are met, then a group of like-minded people will be sent their to agree on a prewritten constitution and those sent will simply sign it and then get on to exploring and inhabiting Mars. I find that better than endless discussions and compromises at the UN by member states that do not even travel in space, and by various competing ideologies. Basically each power will write his own constitution for Mars, and whoever gets enough people over to Mars to sign their constitution will get that constitution enacted as the law of the land. Very simply Endless compromises with minor powers at the UN may result in an unworkable and ineffective document, much like the UN is an unworkable and ineffective organization. A winner take all system, where the society most capable of sending people to Mars determines how the planet is governed will most likely result in a strong capable governing system rather than the weak incapable symbolic world organization that is the UN, that is how I see it. the best thing to agree to on Earth is how to enact the Martian constitution rather than to the particulars and politics of that constition here, and technical competance will decide whose ideas win out, not politics. I think the Capitalist powers are the most technically competant, so I think their ideas will win out as they will be capable of sending the most people to Mars.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2006-09-14 14:25:45

Re: Totally commercially funded "Mars Direct"...

#2 2006-09-14 14:59:52

Re: Totally commercially funded "Mars Direct"...

#3 2006-09-14 15:26:11

Re: Totally commercially funded "Mars Direct"...

#4 2006-09-14 16:33:55

Re: Totally commercially funded "Mars Direct"...

#5 2006-09-14 17:07:24

Re: Totally commercially funded "Mars Direct"...

#6 2006-09-14 17:15:41

Re: Totally commercially funded "Mars Direct"...

#7 2006-09-14 17:52:32

Re: Totally commercially funded "Mars Direct"...

#8 2006-09-14 18:08:37

Re: Totally commercially funded "Mars Direct"...

#9 2006-09-14 18:28:16

Re: Totally commercially funded "Mars Direct"...

#10 2006-09-14 18:35:42

Re: Totally commercially funded "Mars Direct"...

#11 2006-09-14 19:00:22

Re: Totally commercially funded "Mars Direct"...

#12 2006-09-14 19:28:26

Re: Totally commercially funded "Mars Direct"...

#13 2006-09-14 19:58:56

Re: Totally commercially funded "Mars Direct"...

#14 2006-09-14 20:03:25

Re: Totally commercially funded "Mars Direct"...

#15 2006-09-14 20:04:34

Re: Totally commercially funded "Mars Direct"...

#16 2006-09-14 20:04:54

Re: Totally commercially funded "Mars Direct"...

#17 2006-09-14 20:20:53

Re: Totally commercially funded "Mars Direct"...

#18 2006-09-14 20:27:07

Re: Totally commercially funded "Mars Direct"...

#19 2006-09-14 20:39:19

Re: Totally commercially funded "Mars Direct"...

#20 2006-09-15 23:34:01

Re: Totally commercially funded "Mars Direct"...

#21 2006-09-16 23:07:52

Re: Totally commercially funded "Mars Direct"...

#22 2006-09-17 05:19:10

Re: Totally commercially funded "Mars Direct"...

#23 2006-09-17 05:37:19

Re: Totally commercially funded "Mars Direct"...

#24 2006-09-18 00:38:06

Re: Totally commercially funded "Mars Direct"...

#25 2006-09-18 08:29:24

Re: Totally commercially funded "Mars Direct"...

Board footer