Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

Dayton3 · 2004-01-14 23:00:11

I like Dr. Robert Zubrin. I received one of the first copies of "The Case For Mars" on election day 1996 and it helped me get over the horror of Bill Clintons reelection.

That said, I've seen Dr. Zubrin many times on television and I would have to say that he makes a rather poor spokesperson for Mars Direct.

Its mainly physical. His voice is high pitched, his head bobs too much, and worst of all, his eyes blink way too much.

Blinking is considered by image and political consultants to be a very weak expression. They treasure politicians who can go a full 30 seconds without blinking a single time.

Like I said, I adore Dr. Zubrin. His Mars Direct Plan should be adopted in total and the first permanent settlement on Mars should be named in his honor.

But Mars Direct needs a more telegenic spokesman and advocate.

realmacaw · 2004-01-15 01:40:08

Does Dr. Zubrin want to be one of the astronauts to go to Mars?

If he does, we as humans owe him that. Anyone with that much passion for something who has helped so much deserves it. I think he deserves it more than any other human. I wish he was the director of NASA. How can we make that happen?

Brian.

jadeheart · 2004-01-15 16:36:12

But Mars Direct needs a more telegenic spokesman and advocate.

I disagree. Sure Dr. Z doesn't have Hollywood-level poise and may not be telegenic, and has (even recently) made some less-than-diplomatic statements. But he's the one person who is most familiar with the plan-- he came up with it, he knows the numbers for it inside out. When it comes to the facts, some telegenic mannequin would not have acquitted him/herself nearly as well in front of McCain's congressional hearing. He's the best person right now to fight for the plan and be able to counter criticism and answer in-depth questions. Right now it's congress that needs convincing, and that will be done with facts. Zubrin knows the facts second-nature.

Adrian · 2004-01-15 16:42:52

I agree. Zubrin is not a perfect spokesman, and he has his faults like everyone, but as jadeheart says, there isn't a better person for the job than him. I haven't seen Zubrin much on TV - just on a few documentaries when he's wearing his cap - but I have seen him several times in real life, and I can vouch for the fact that he is one of the most charismatic, persuasive and powerful speakers I have ever seen. This includes a whole bunch of Nobel prizewinners and 'captains of industry' at other conferences.

On a related note, the International Herald Tribune wrote [http://iht.com/cgi-bin/generic.cgi?temp … eId=125148]an article advocating Mars Direct. They didn't mention the Mars Society or Zubrin, but I did find it heartening that the plan has its supporters and is gaining more visibility. No doubt Zubrin will be seen in DC a bit more often in the coming months and years.

jadeheart · 2004-01-15 17:19:19

Unfortunately, Bush's election-year vision of where to take America's space program is muddled. It's true that his plan proposes finally taking human beings out of low Earth orbit - as Hoppa and many others, including myself, would like. But when a single, decisive, dramatic goal would seem to be crucially necessary, Bush wants to have things various ways. Decades after the public's declining interest in lunar exploration helped force NASA to cut the Apollo program short of its full complement of planned missions, Bush argues that we should return to the moon.

Amen.

It's important, however, that neither of these visions of where to take crewed spaceflight drains more cash from NASA's highly successful, but woefully under-funded, robotic program - the only part of NASA that has actually been exploring the solar system for the past three decades. But it's hard to imagine the dogmatic Bush team re-examining the substance of its new initiative, particularly since, given its hazy timetable and lack of real funding, it runs the risk of appearing largely an election-year exercise. So it may take a change of administrations, and a more streamlined and realistic - and therefore truly ambitious - plan to respond to the siren song of deep space.
On the face of it, that might sound like a challenge to the Democratic candidates to come up with a bit of the old "vision thing."

This guy is talking a lot of sense... I've been harping on the threat to the robotic program for the past week.

And I sure would like to see a Democratic candidate try to do Bush one better on the space issue. If one of them at least could offer a counter-proposal...

Rxke · 2004-01-16 04:28:19

Dr. Zubrin *is* Mars Direct. It's in his blood. It's in his bones, nobody can replace him.
In fact, I think his 'strange scientist' imago is actually a good thing...
imagine Dr. Zubrin as he is but with the looks and the talks of a perfect potential politician...
A lot of the higher-ups would see him as a threath to their own career and do everything they can to ridicule his plans.
Now they feel safe, he's a scientist, and won't bother going into politics. He does the sciency stuff, they (assuming here they support him) reap the political benefits if he pulls it off.
Zubrin is 'harmless' for their career, for he won't interfere with trying to become major,senator etc blahblahblah and 'good' to bring the science dough, things a typical politician can't come up with himself.
So they can safely 'use' him for their own career.
(assuming again they support him)
The politicians can come up with a 'dumbed-down' plan to present to other politicians, reporters etc, Dr. Zubrin will always be referred to to fill in on the *real* details (and those details will only be asked by other scientist that don't mind bad-hair-days...)

And saying he's not fit for TV... I'd disagree. At least he's genuily excited about his stuff, it's not a dusted-off sales pitch. Joe Schmoe might be put off by his rapid-fire talking etc. but Joe Schmoe won't be interested by a smiling politician talking science either, so that's no big loss. Dr. Zubrin might elicit a giggle initially, but after a very short while people tend to sit up, and *listen* because he has interesting things to say. (As was the case in the hearings...)
And i prefer giggling people above people that would otherwise (when you'd use a filmstar-stand-in Mars Direct salesperson) say he's too self-assured, a fake etc... and ignore him.

And why the giggle? I guess that's simple: we're not used anymore to see genuine people on T.V. it's so unexpected, we laugh....

Zubrin is Mars Direct.

dickbill · 2004-01-20 10:34:20

quote from the New York Times today:

"....In his speech, Mr. Bush suggested that the eventual trip to Mars would start at the Moon, saying, "Spacecraft assembled and provisioned on the Moon could escape its far lower gravity using far less energy, and thus, far less cost."

Dr. Robert Zubrin, president of the Mars Society, who has been pushing for a goal of sending astronauts to Mars within 10 years, said the idea of building a spacecraft on the Moon was "technically nonsense."...."

Who has accused Zubrin to be undiplomatic and rude ? I think he is very polite, gentle and moderate in his comments, though maybe un-patriotic in today's america conservative standards.

original article in:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/20/scien … 0SPAC.html]http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/20/scien … 0SPAC.html
registration needed.

Palomar · 2004-01-20 10:48:47

Dr. Robert Zubrin, president of the Mars Society, who has been pushing for a goal of sending astronauts to Mars within 10 years, said the idea of building a spacecraft on the Moon was "technically nonsense."...."
Who has accused Zubrin to be undiplomatic and rude ? I think he is very polite, gentle and moderate in his comments,

*Well, you know how it goes: Take a stand for something which goes "against the grain (perceived majority)" and get labelled "rude" or "a lunatic" or "a troublemaker." This, in a society which allegedly touts "do your own thing/be your own person (read: conform, conform, CONFORM or we will mercilessly pound you into submission)."

Yes it's just best to keep quiet, go with the flow, lick boot, roll over and play dead, etc. (sarcasm).

It seems Zubrin won't be held on a choke-chain or short leash by the Feds, or upstaged by dimwit Dubya (what does he know about space exploration?). Kudos to Zubrin for having a backbone -and- a brain (a rare combination these days).

--Cindy

clark · 2004-01-20 10:59:09

Can someone please explain to me why we need to go to Mars right now?

I honestly don't understand (okay, I do, but the obstinance in this matter is baffling) why Bush's space plan is a bad idea.

We're going back to the moon, for good. We haven't been there in well over thirty years. There is a lot good science we can do there. Not to mention that by going to the moon, NASA will develop the technology base necessary to make Mars feasible, and practical.

The greatest problem with the whole Mars Direct 'plan' is that it accepts an uncomfortably high level of risk, and assumes that any necessary technology can be developed and perfected within an artificial time frame. It accepts the adverse health affects of zero-g as acceptable, when it would actually push the envelope of safety limits. It assumes that the level of radiation is manageable, even though it is at the high end of safety levels. It assumes that fuel and oxygen can and will be produced ahead of time, with devices yet to be built and tested, and not to mention landed on Mars. Given that our unmanned probes fair poorly in landing on Mars, we may want to get a bit more practice in.

The Moon, and Bush's space policy is not Mars Direct. It is a rationale approach to space exploration that doesn't place all our eggs in one basket. Yes, it is conservative. Yes, it sacrifices other scientific avenues for moon and man related research. Yet for all of this, this plan is the best chance we will have to see people on Mars, and throughout the solar system, within 50 years.

We will develop spaceships that can go beyond LEO. The basic design and research poured into this endeavor directly relates to any future mars missions. We will develop methods to acquire and process raw material in space. We will learn more about pinpoint landings on other planetary bodies. We can practice aero-captures from the Moon to Earth. We can send probes, at a fraction of the cost, from the Moon to Mars. Hell, we can send probes for a fraction of the cost ANYWHERE in the solar system.

Don't you understand the profound possibilities that this will allow?

We're talking about having an astronaut corps that actually explores. They won't be sitting in a tin can over the Earth.

We will learn how to deal with radiation in one of the worst environments ever- the Moon. If we can do it there, we can do it anywhere.

We will learn to counter-act the effects of zero-g, and micro-g- again, preparing the way for Mars.

The moon may be impractical for launching a Mars mission. But the moon is much more practical for learning how to survive on the way to Mars, and back. That's the point.

Rxke · 2004-01-20 11:01:45

Hey, it just *is* technically nonsense... Assembling on Luna? You got to be kidding? In that case if you really want to assemble, do it in LEO, assembling on the moon is decades off.

What's wrong with calling things what they are?

Oh, i get it, it's techically *unfeasible*, right? (Yawn)

Rxke · 2004-01-20 11:07:16

Clark, agreed, but i think the fear is that the moon will prove to be a dead-end, in the near future.
Every little setback will lead to delays upon delays etc. Penny-pinchers will go for the minimal system that's barely sufficient to land on the moon and call it a day.

(I'll stop discussing these things: what do i know, what does *anybody* knows, there are no real plans, scenario's yet...)

Hey, and we need a presence on the moon IMO, if only to keep things going... But it should not be the end of exploration.

Palomar · 2004-01-20 11:10:46

*Hey! I know! Let's set sail from Spain, cross the Atlantic, and re-discover America! Woo-hoooo!

Or no, wait: Let's re-do the Lewis & Clarke expedition. Yeah!

No, no -- scratch that. Let's ooooo and aaaah over the next successful scaling of Mt. Everest!

"Been there, done that" rules!!

--Cindy

P.S.: New MARS, MARS Society...MARS. See the connection? :laugh:

Actually, 3/5 of all Americans are opposed to Bush's plans (moon or Mars), so nay-sayers (alleged or otherwise...gee, I wonder why the song "Games People Play" suddenly came to mind??) needn't get too worried.

clark · 2004-01-20 11:27:37

P.S.: New MARS, MARS Society...MARS. See the connection?

Of course.

Now, what was thoughtfully neglected was 'MARS Direct'. There's more than one way to get to Mars, no?

Every step into space is one more step closer to Mars.

I enjoyed your clowning Cindy. A very hearty laugh indeed. :laugh:

dickbill · 2004-01-20 12:11:37

Can someone please explain to me why we need to go to Mars right now?

I guess because "we", hmm, the american people at least, can and also because it's easyer than to STAY on Mars, than to STAY on the moon, because of in situ resources and easyer environnment. However, it's easyer to go on the moon than to Mars, no doubt.
Clark, your question is wrongly posed, you should ask :"why we need to go to Mars rather than the moon ?"

I honestly don't understand (okay, I do, but the obstinance in this matter is baffling) why Bush's space plan is a bad idea.

When Bush talks about assembling a spaceship on The moon, you really need to be space-uneducated or badly advised to say that. But i like the idea to go in space, just that Mars has my preference over the moon, from far.

We're going back to the moon, for good. We haven't been there in well over thirty years. There is a lot good science we can do there.

true, geology, astronomy, helium3 extraction (maybe, and for the future) but a permanent base ? why. Single missions should be enough. I am also afraid that this permament base could be a black hole for NASA's money, like was the ISS and nothing is left for Mars.

Not to mention that by going to the moon, NASA will develop the technology base necessary to make Mars feasible, and practical.

No, I disagree, technologies to stay on MArs are far more accessible and easy to set up than for the moon.

The greatest problem with the whole Mars Direct 'plan' is that it accepts an uncomfortably high level of risk, and assumes that any necessary technology can be developed and perfected within an artificial time frame.

I disagree again. The level of risk is NOT unaceptable for volunteers, for a first mission. The systems redundancy of Mars direct is high enough that this mission can be aborted without being life threatening.

It accepts the adverse health affects of zero-g as acceptable, when it would actually push the envelope of safety limits.

Russians aboard MIR stayed 1 year in zero g and returned alive. ISS astronauts also stay in zero g for a time equivalent to a MArs trip, then returned on re-entry submitted to a high g load, then escaped their russian capsule BY walking THEMSELF without help , even under the huge 1g earth gravity ! it would then have been less stress on 0.38g actually.

It assumes that the level of radiation is manageable, even though it is at the high end of safety levels.

it is high, but comparable to ISS level and manageable with diverse methods and protection (you have 15 minutes to protect yourself from a solar flare on Mars, you have atmosphere, you have regolith, you have caves). On the moon, that problem, plus the constant micrometeoritic rain, could be a nightmare.

It assumes that fuel and oxygen can and will be produced ahead of time, with devices yet to be built and tested, and not to mention landed on Mars.

Zubrin not just described, but built a sabatier reactor for the in situ propellant production, this coupled with an electrolyzer, that's all you need. and believe me "We know for sure that there is a lot of CO2 in Mars atmosphere and ice in the ground" that's all we need to produce methane and O2 propellant, oxygen to breath, and water to drink. IT IS THERE, we don't need to bring with us.
About landing on Mars, I think JPL proved how well, how excellent, how good they are to understand and do the spatial navigation to reach MArs and land on MArs, several times.
Hey, even the europeans, french and german, have reached Mars successfully with MArs express. SO it's possible.

The Moon, and Bush's space policy is not Mars Direct. It is a rationale approach to space exploration that doesn't place all our eggs in one basket. Yes, it is conservative. Yes, it sacrifices other scientific avenues for moon and man related research. Yet for all of this, this plan is the best chance we will have to see people on Mars, and throughout the solar system, within 50 years.

cough ! cough ! 50 years, damn ! Zubrin is right, 10 years, that's all you need to go to MArs.

We will learn how to deal with radiation in one of the worst environments ever- the Moon. If we can do it there, we can do it anywhere.
We will learn to counter-act the effects of zero-g, and micro-g- again, preparing the way for Mars.

that's true, for sure. What doesn't kill you make you stronger.
But there is a drawback:
What happen if the radiation level on the moon is not manageable and one astronaut is killed by a micrometeorit impact ?
Does it prove that you cannot settle on MArs ?

What happen if we "cannot assemble and launch a spaceship to Mars" (ahahahah) from the moon ?
Does it prove that we cannot reach MArs ?

What happen if we CANNOT do anything that Bush says we are supposed to do on the moon, after spending billions $ ?
Does it prove that you cannot do it on MArs with the same amount of money ?

So again, going to the moon for scientific missions is a nice idea, but the moon is not a testbed for a settlement on Mars.

Bill White · 2004-01-20 12:15:15

Hi, clark!

Can someone please explain to me why we need to go to Mars right now?

We don't.

The problem is that the Bush plan makes it harder to go to Mars in 2020 or 2030 by destroying the infrastructure that makes it easier. Yes you can design a Mars mission around Delta IV but since the cost per pound to LEO is far higher than with an HLLV the Bush plan will make an eventual Mars mission more expensive.

I honestly don't understand (okay, I do, but the obstinance in this matter is baffling) why Bush's space plan is a bad idea.

Because there are too many reasons to believe Bush doesn't really mean the pretty words he is saying.

Because the CEV may be nothing but vaporware. Offer some details and prove the critics wrong. I want to be wrong, on this, really I do.

We're going back to the moon, for good.

I don't believe you. In a nutshell.

The Bush plan doesn't have the oomph to do what he promises. Last week, the President's speech wrote some big fat checks and he hasn't yet given NASA the means to cash those checks. Prove the check will clear, give reassurance Bush will "close escrow" on the lunar base (other than a campaign speech) and maybe we can all jump on board the bandwagon.

We haven't been there in well over thirty years. There is a lot good science we can do there. Not to mention that by going to the moon, NASA will develop the technology base necessary to make Mars feasible, and practical.

True enough to be okay with me =IF= the moon plan are serious. And robust enough to actually test anything.

The greatest problem with the whole Mars Direct 'plan' is that it accepts an uncomfortably high level of risk, and assumes that any necessary technology can be developed and perfected within an artificial time frame. It accepts the adverse health affects of zero-g as acceptable, when it would actually push the envelope of safety limits. It assumes that the level of radiation is manageable, even though it is at the high end of safety levels. It assumes that fuel and oxygen can and will be produced ahead of time, with devices yet to be built and tested, and not to mention landed on Mars. Given that our unmanned probes fair poorly in landing on Mars, we may want to get a bit more practice in.

Where is the Bush money to test these legitimate concerns?

How much would it cost to spin a TransHab and find out whether centripetal acceleration can substitute for gravity?

Where is the Buish money for ANYTHING except a vaporware capsule OSP?

The Moon, and Bush's space policy is not Mars Direct. It is a rationale approach to space exploration that doesn't place all our eggs in one basket. Yes, it is conservative. Yes, it sacrifices other scientific avenues for moon and man related research. Yet for all of this, this plan is the best chance we will have to see people on Mars, and throughout the solar system, within 50 years.

I agree in two ways. First, the goal to leave LEO is now accetped as a legitmate target. Big win. Second, the shuttle will be cancelled, a necessary win to leave LEO. Beyond that "Where's the beef"

I see hat but no cattle, I smell sizzle but no steak.

We will develop spaceships that can go beyond LEO. The basic design and research poured into this endeavor directly relates to any future mars missions. We will develop methods to acquire and process raw material in space.

Huh? Where? Got links?

The CEV will be either warmed over OSP or a vaporware fantsay craft. There is no money for anything else.

We will learn more about pinpoint landings on other planetary bodies. We can practice aero-captures from the Moon to Earth. We can send probes, at a fraction of the cost, from the Moon to Mars. Hell, we can send probes for a fraction of the cost ANYWHERE in the solar system.

Show me the budget line item, not flowery rhetoric.

Don't you understand the profound possibilities that this will allow?

Dude, I said show me the budget line items. . .

We're talking about having an astronaut corps that actually explores. They won't be sitting in a tin can over the Earth.

Starting in 2014 they will orbit the Earth. Betwen 2015 and 2020 they will stand on the Moon. All we will be doing between now and 2010 is waiting for shuttle to expire, a lame duck program consuming two thirds of the NASA budget.

And we get a prototype CEV that won't be man rated. What happens between 2008 and 2014. Explain that delay?

We will learn how to deal with radiation in one of the worst environments ever- the Moon. If we can do it there, we can do it anywhere.

We know how do deal with radiation. Surround astronauts with electon shells and boron. Don't use aluminium to build human space habs. Hydrogen rich plastics and water make terrific radiation shields.

If President Bush were serious about his vision, we would add a TransHab module to ISS as crew quarters and SpaceHab would be asked to start building one, TODAY, for addition to the ISS once STS goes back on-line.

The need to research is essential. I agree. So are you calling for adding a TransHab crew quarters to ISS? Maybe made from new materials that block radiation. Why can't we fund that TODAY?

We will learn to counter-act the effects of zero-g, and micro-g- again, preparing the way for Mars.

Progress/Soyuz test spins. Its an inexpensive test. If it doesn't work, whats the harm or expense?

If we don't do stuff like this I grow suspicious about the "true" intentions behind the vision.

clark, if we actually started DOING some of the inexpensive tests needed to answer the legitimate question you raise, the President would gain credibility.

The Bush vision on those points? "We'll get back to you. Tomorrow, or maybe not."

The moon may be impractical for launching a Mars mission. But the moon is much more practical for learning how to survive on the way to Mars, and back. That's the point.

Boron doped polyethylene radiation shields are heavy. Water bladders to protect a lunar base from radiation will be heavy.

Using Delta IV prices to lift that stuff will cause that research lab to be very much more expensive come 2020 and therefore more vulnerable to future cancellation.

Promise the Moon and deliver, what?

Whew! Time for lunch. . .

Bill White · 2004-01-20 12:51:08

Water is the most versatile radiation shield we know of. Its also the most important resoure for sustaining life. Mars has water (we are pretty sure). The Moon has very, very little water (it appears).

Water management on Luna will be are more diffiuclt than on Mars because on Mars we can (probably) extract water from the regolith fairly easily.

That said, if we find a giant glacier buried on the Moon then my Artemis Society check will be in the mail the next day.

= = =

But again, show me line item funding to support a genuine radiation safe habitat and CELSS life support and I will stand and cheer. Even a single million dollars will go a long way to advance this type of research.

Tell me those details will not be shared, until 2012, and can you blame my skepticism?

clark · 2004-01-20 12:53:01

Dickbill, Bill, thank you for giving me something to sink my teeth into. If I miss something important, remind me. :;):

The problem is that the Bush plan makes it harder to go to Mars in 2020 or 2030 by destroying the infrastructure that makes it easier. Yes you can design a Mars mission around Delta IV but since the cost per pound to LEO is far higher than with an HLLV the Bush plan will make an eventual Mars mission more expensive.

Really, this is about retiring the Shuttle without a Shuttle equivelant HLLV to replace it, right? You agree that the Shuttle needs to go, but you set the precondition that we retain the same capability to allow more options at a later date.

So if we take a cue from your other posted musings, in essence, it's about retaining capability becuase you do not believe that Bush is serious about his Space policy. Feel free to disagree if I am mistaken.

Lack of information is the problem, right? What the hell is going on. Okay, time to put the turban on...

Bush did exactly what he was supposed to do, what every space advocate that ever was has clamored for since JFK. The President of the United States of America outlined a 'vision' for NASA. he President didn't say how we would do it precisely, no, he laid out general guidelines with broad strokes.

He said: We will build something to take us yo ISS. We will build this thing to take us beyond ISS. We will retire the Shuttle. We will go to the moon. We will figure out how to make space a safer environment for people. We will then go beyond the moon, starting with Mars.

And, as a good executive does, he commisioned a Committee that will work out the details, evaluate the technology, and come up with solutions to meet the broad outlines he set. Bush said nothing about the Shuttle, other than it will be retired. The Committee will evaluate the options for heavy lift successors to the Shuttle. The Committee will decide on the best option for a CEV design. The Committee is to report back to Bush on their progress 4 months from their first meeting. So sometime this summer, we, the public, get a report. We get details.

Because the CEV may be nothing but vaporware. Offer some details and prove the critics wrong. I want to be wrong, on this, really I do.

The OSP was slated to cost 12 billion dollars. The CEV is budgeted exactly the same amount. The CEV is not vaporware. If nothing else, we need it for the ISS. We need it to retain options and flexibility for national security reasons.

Personaly, i find the belief that we are not serious about a replacement for human transport into space to be misguided. I ask you for evidence that bolsters your assumptions.

The Bush plan doesn't have the oomph to do what he promises. Last week, the President's speech wrote some big fat checks and he hasn't yet given NASA the means to cash those checks. Prove the check will clear, give reassurance Bush will "close escrow" on the lunar base (other than a campaign speech) and maybe we can all jump on board the bandwagon.

What oomph is missing? It seems your worries are entirely predicated on the lack of a spelled out replacement for HLLV! Bush didn't have to go with a CEV. He could have continued the OSP. He could have continued the Shuttle by implementing the CAIB reccomendations for continued flight. He could have not redirected NASA research to work exsclusively on aeronautics and human's in space. He could have not supported Project Prometheus. He could have not gotten O'Keefe to turn the agency around financially so it would have credibility with Congress.

pardon my french boys, but what the f-ck do you need?

Where is the Bush money to test these legitimate concerns?

After the Shuttle is retired, and we have a CEV to take us to the moon. With the CEV, we shouldn't have to spend billions just 'maintaining' them.

How much would it cost to spin a TransHab and find out whether centripetal acceleration can substitute for gravity?

Now there will be money to find out. Research into human sciences was given short shrift. Why do research into that area if people are only staying a few months? Does redirecting NASA to refocus its science research priorities fall on deaf ears?

And we get a prototype CEV that won't be man rated. What happens between 2008 and 2014. Explain that delay?

A nuclear reactor and nuclear propulsion is what happens. :laugh: How do you think we are getting to the moon without the Saturn?

Imagine a nuclear propulsion module that attaches to the CEV. Imagine that it stays in space, looping around the moon, or Earth- constant flybys. Regular travel to the moon, and all you do is attach the CEV, or cargo modules for delivery.

Come on, put it together. I can't be the only one that knows.

Huh? Where? Got links?

[http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/20/scien … 0SPAC.html]http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/20/scien … 0SPAC.html

NYTimes has an article today, read it while you can!

If President Bush were serious about his vision, we would add a TransHab module to ISS as crew quarters and SpaceHab would be asked to start building one, TODAY, for addition to the ISS once STS goes back on-line.

Wait for the reccomendations of the Committee headed by Aldridge. We need more people in space to get a better baseline on the effects of gravity on humans. Transab is an obvious answer.

If we don't do stuff like this I grow suspicious about the "true" intentions behind the vision.

See, you want details. The details will be forthcoming from a board of scientific and industry leaders. Bush, thankfully, isn't on his ranch drawing up designs himself. The people with the know how will work out how to make the vision happen.

What happen if we CANNOT do anything that Bush says we are supposed to do on the moon, after spending billions $ ?
Does it prove that you cannot do it on MArs with the same amount of money ?

No, but it means we need to go back to the drawing board. If we can't deal with micro-g, zero-g, and space radiation, then we're not ready to be a spacefaring species.

You don't swim in the deepend till you've mastered the shallow end. unless of course you want to drown.

Bill White · 2004-01-20 13:09:47

Sounds good, unless [http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshir … 200859.asp]this guy prevails and NASA leaves the humans in space business altogether.

Sounds good, if it plays out the way clark predicts. If the committee follows through with genuine programs to make it safer to live in space then you may be proven right.

All I am really saying is we have some nice promises, but lets keep our eyes on the follow through because a 2008 course correction is possible that would take all permanent civilian presence in space "off the table" for many decades to come.

= = =

Immediately fund TransHab and CELSS research and then all may well end up okay, IMHO.

The CEV carried lunar explorers just shouldn't live in aluminium cans as it is just too unsafe because of the radiation. Besides aluminium radiates heat out into space. That is why the ISS is cold. A TransHab module on the Moon makes great sense. No reason not to stick one on the ISS in late 2005 and start working on it now.

Will our CEV carried lunar explorers carry all their drinking water or re-cycle CELSS style? Watch that point also.

These softer sciences are also far cheaper the rocket science stuff so it will be easy to tell whether President Bush means what he says about the human space program. If clark is right, then all will be well.

I still prefer an HLLV yet the TransHab and CELSS stuff is another point where the rubber meets the road on whether the Bush vision is truly about exploration or merely rhetoric to mask another agenda altogether.

dickbill · 2004-01-20 13:33:20

Dickbill, Bill, thank you for giving me something to sink my teeth into. If I miss something important, remind me. :;):

Bush did exactly what he was supposed to do, what every space advocate that ever was has clamored for since JFK. The President of the United States of America outlined a 'vision' for NASA. he President didn't say how we would do it precisely, no, he laid out general guidelines with broad strokes.

Then, he should have stayed very general, keeping with a "return to the moon and beyond" and that's it. But he added that idea of a permanent moon base, why ? I guess that, in his will to JUSTIFY a return to the moon, he enumerated some false preconceived ideas, like a testbed for Mars etc.

My only point Clark, I think that many in this forum agree with that, is that Mars is a much safer place than the Moon. Only longer to reach.
I am afraid that a failure on the Moon, whether it involves a death by accident, a gross underestimation of the cost and a poor return per money spend, will have a disastrous effect on further exploration on Mars.
The public will think, as you said, "if they cannot do it on the moon, forget Mars! "
mistake mistake mistake.
It is safer and easyer to settle and run an enclosed ecosystem, a biosphere if you want, on Mars than on the moon.

No need to use the moon to test it. I suggest, again, to use the highest submits on earth, higher than 8000m, as test bed for these biosphere. It is cold, high uv and low pressure. and low cost.

clark · 2004-01-20 13:45:35

Here is the cold hard calculation about the Moon, if someone died on it, we would still be there.

We had people die in the attempt, it only strengthend our resolve.

We lost the Challenger, and returned to space with the ISS.

We lost Columbia, and now we are returning to the Moon.

It wasn't long ago that Columbia happened, I remarked that this was a *good* thing. The beauty of the human mind is that it looks to make sense of chaos. Death is chaos. There is something in us that needs to give it meaning, that needs to give others sacrifice meaning.

Someone will eventually die in space. Their death though will more than likely mark the moment when we decide to stay permanently in space though.

"We can't leave becuase Frank would have wanted us to stay."

But he added that idea of a permanent moon base, why ? I guess that, in his will to JUSTIFY a return to the moon, he enumerated some false preconceived ideas, like a testbed for Mars etc.

No, he stated we are going to the moon to stay becuase otherwise it would be Apollo redux. There needs to be a purpose AFTER the first step on the Moon. JFk, it was just about getting to the Moon, first. Now, we have to say why.

And to speak honestly, Mars Direct may be possible, but it is not feasible. Remember, most of the barriers to space is convincing the people who don't quite see it your way that space is doable, and worthwhile. The environment is just something you have to learn to get around. We'll always have the people.

Now, we're going to the moon to learn how to live in space. To learn how to work in space. Really, how to work in a very hostile environment. All of these lessons can be applied to Mars, which means when we go, we will stay. This actually reduces the chances of a flag and footprints scenerio for Mars. This establishes the begining of an economic argument for Mars. This is simply putting the horse before the cart.

Bill White · 2004-01-20 15:49:26

Hi again, clark.

I went to lunch and it dawned on me that you took me good a few posts up. Nice head fake, some razzle dazzle. Man, you got game.

Nicely done.

= = =

Big picture, the Bush plan IS excellent. Nothing space nuts can't work with, except for some tweaks here and there, and this one big sticking point, at least for me:

Between now and 2010 (2004 through 2010 inclusive is seven years) we will spend about $75 billion on the space shuttle.

And all we will get for our $75 billion is ISS completion. Thats it, space fans.

$75 billion and we get a lousy space station everyone already thinks is a dumb idea and which we intend to walk away from a few years after that anyways. Why? To keep those Euro-weenies happy, and fulfill some promises, right?

Simply put, I want more for my $75 billion than that. And we can do it if we stand down the orbiter today.

Stand down the orbiter today? Never fly it again? Oh the poor ISS! What about Hubble? (nevermind about that last point).

I hear the whines already.

Okay, so do some diplomacy. Go to our ISS partners and say:

"Lets make a deal. Agree to accept a delay in finishing the ISS and then the ESA can attach a module or two to the US moonbase. You guys can't run the show, we won't make you equity partners but if you pay your own way you can add an ancillary structure or two and we will sell you passage to Luna to get it there. Japan, we will transport some of your astronauts to the Moon, on one of our missions."

"But first, cut us some slack on this ISS completion thing."

Now, Colin Powell does his diplo thing and the ISS partners say "Okay" - - Shuttle is now grounded never to fly again.

That frees up $75 billion to spend between now and 2010.

Repeat after me:

That frees up $75 billion to spend between now and 2010.

Okay, chucks of that are tied up in shuttle infrastructure. True. So leverage that with shuttle B or C. Not Ares, too complex to design/deploy in a few years. I like shuttle B because of the RS-68s but now thats getting too technical.

Design the payloads to mimic orbiter mass distributions to minimize engineering changes. Rand Simberg recently opinined that an SDV might cost "a billion or three" - - okay somebody keep track and doublecheck all the math.

But remember we are not paying to return the orbiter to flight status. So shuttle B development costs can be charged against that.

The CEV program proceeds exactly as President Bush proposed. No changes. Remember, shuttle B is funded ONLY with money that would have been spent flying the orbiter so that is already lost money.

I might suggest the CEV be designed to fly Delta IV =OR= shuttle B for flexibility.

Once shuttle B is ready (2008, 2009 at the latest?) fly a high operational tempo to finish ISS. Without tiles to refurbish between flights, without needing to pamper the orbiter I believe flight operations can go much faster. Plus, each shuttle B launch can lift far more than the orbiter. Carry TWO orbiter payload manifests per launch since shuttle B can carry at least twice the payload at a lower cost per mission.

Okay, so we will also need a technology to rendevouz unmanned ISS components with the station, but won't we need that for CEV modular operations anyways?

Finish the station by 2010 and have a robust launcher capable of throwing a CEV to the Moon by 2011 or 2012, if its man-rated by then. Attach a CEV + landing module + upper stage booster to a shuttle B and we are at the moon. By 2012 or 2013, not 2015 through 2020.

Can we leverage the existing shuttle infrastructure to design/deploy shuttle B in time to finish the ISS by 2010 within a budget of $75 billion? Is Sean O'Keefe's NASA up to such a challenge?

= = =

Here is my bottom line. We will spend $75 billion between now and 2010 on the shuttle orbiter. When 2010 arrives, I want more for the taxpayers $75 billion than completion the Euro-weenie ISS and some photographs from the scrapped STS launch system. I want more for $75 billion that a T-shirt and some aggravated memories.

If the goal is to finish the ISS (and politically it probably must be) I believe we can finish it for less than $75 billion and we can spend part of that $75 billion on assets that will remain useful after 2010.

dickbill · 2004-01-20 15:54:05

Now, we're going to the moon to learn how to live in space. To learn how to work in space. Really, how to work in a very hostile environment. All of these lessons can be applied to Mars, which means when we go, we will stay. This actually reduces the chances of a flag and footprints scenerio for Mars. This establishes the begining of an economic argument for Mars. This is simply putting the horse before the cart.

that's so true, moon = space = vacuum.
Mars is no vacuum, it's a planet and as such, learning how to live in space and how to live on MArs are two different things.

Also, the low moon gravity which supposedly allows to launch spaceships at low costs to Mars. That has been said a long time ago on that forum: if you consider the distance in terms of energy spent or gravity well to escape, then Phobos and Deimos are the closest objects to earth, not the Moon.

So Clark, I disagree when you said that going to Mars before the moon would be like putting the horse before the cart.
It's two different issues. Bill White explained very well the launcher issues and I hope that you agree with me with the settlement/permanent base issues : in short, it's easyer to survive on Mars than on the moon.

Now you're right, there is no emergency to go, if you like to procrastinate: always do tomorow what you can do today.

clark · 2004-01-20 16:13:28

Bill, I'm not worthy! [prostate bowing to Bill on the ground]

Dude, what did you have for lunch? I need to have two of those just to get in your ballpark!

So, Bill, after that excellent analysis, what do you have to say for yourself?

Don't bother, I'll say it for you: You are 100% correct in your conclusions, and it looks to be the most sensible course of action. Right?

Well, if retiring the Shuttle today makes so much sense, why wouldn't, or why didn't Bush say that? Hmmmmm....

Put on my favorite hat, the imagination hat...

Imagine the United States President declaring that we will no longer fly the Shuttle, as of today. Sure, some would cheer, but no one would hear them over the news media soundbites and large print, all saying, "BUSH KILLS SPACE EXPLORATION".

Not exactly the best way to get your "space policy" heard, now is it?

So then what should the President do? Exactly what he did. (This is why I hate and love Karl Rove). He declared that the Shuttle would be retired by 2010. He said that the ISS would be completed by 2010. Think about what he said, and what he didn't say.

Also note that the President is forming a Committee that will make reccomendations to achieve the goals set out by President Bush. What were they again?

Yes, that's right, to retire the Shuttle by 2010. To complete the ISS by 2010. The Committee will make reccomendations on how best to do that.

Now think about that for just a moment. Then think about your arm-chair quarterbacking.

For the slow ones following this discussion, what we have here is the perfect 'plausible deniablity'. O'Keefe didn't kill the Shuttle. Bush didn't kill the Shuttle. The Republican party didn't kill the Shuttle.

The Committee might make a reccomendation that we retire the Shuttle and develop a follow-up variant such as Shuttle C to complete ISS by 2010. Retiring the Shuttle will provide the funds neccessary to develop the alternative that can build the ISS in less time, thereby meeting the 2010 requirement.

I told you this plan was beautiful.

Dickbill,

Mars is no vacuum, it's a planet and as such, learning how to live in space and how to live on MArs are two different things.

Just answer this Dickbill, if we can live on the Moon, can we live on Mars? If something is built to survive on the Moon, it will survive on Mars. That's the point people are ignoring. Why, i have no idea.

Also, the low moon gravity which supposedly allows to launch spaceships at low costs to Mars. That has been said a long time ago on that forum: if you consider the distance in terms of energy spent or gravity well to escape, then Phobos and Deimos are the closest objects to earth, not the Moon.

Perhaps, but this is based on our current propulsion methods and space infrastructure. All of which is about to change. I say it's up for grabs.

It's two different issues. Bill White explained very well the launcher issues and I hope that you agree with me with the settlement/permanent base issues : in short, it's easyer to survive on Mars than on the moon.

I will be the first to agree. It is easier to live on Mars than the Moon. However, it is easier to get to the Moon than to get to Mars. And if we learn to live on the Moon, we know we can live on Mars, or just about anywhere.

Palomar · 2004-01-20 16:17:54

*I agree with dickbill.

My main concern boils down to this:

The majority of U.S. taxpayers are already pulling at the bit and dragging their heels about going back to the moon. What does this tell us?

Imagine trying to sell a vacation package to hard-working U.S. taxpayers: "Yes, you've been to Camp Deadrock 7 times already and could go further to visit RussetRock Park for the first time ever...but you really want to go back to Camp Deadrock, right? C'mon, you know you do!"

Hello? Yeah, that's going to go down like a lead balloon.

Maybe the U.S. taxpayers would be dragging their heels about simply going on to Mars as well...but it does have that old lure of "never been there before -- a new and fresh challenge" which the moon does not have. But of course the moon and Mars are tied up together now, thanks to Bush's plan, so it's difficult to determine how the public would react to a "Mars only" plan.

I don't buy the shtick that we "have to" develop technology ON OR NEAR the moon BEFORE we can go to Mars. Maybe I'm wrong on that, but I've read a lot of posts (pro and con) and I'm not convinced it's necessary.

And who knows what China may or may not do. Why wait around for them?

As for the question: Why do we have to go to Mars right away? Why NOT go to Mars "right away"? I don't consider possibly having to wait another 20 to 30 years "right away" by any means. How much longer are we "supposed" to wait?

Of course, person(s) who do not genuinely care about the issue one way or the other need not respond.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-20 16:18:16

Here is my bottom line. We will spend $75 billion between now and 2010 on the shuttle orbiter. When 2010 arrives, I want more for the taxpayers $75 billion than completion the Euro-weenie ISS and some photographs from the scrapped STS launch system. I want more for $75 billion that a T-shirt and some aggravated memories.
If the goal is to finish the ISS (and politically it probably must be) I believe we can finish it for less than $75 billion and we can spend part of that $75 billion on assets that will remain useful after 2010.

Well said Bill.

You should go ask your favorite presidential candidate for a job as the head of NASA.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-01-14 23:00:11

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#2 2004-01-15 01:40:08

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#3 2004-01-15 16:36:12

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#4 2004-01-15 16:42:52

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#5 2004-01-15 17:19:19

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#6 2004-01-16 04:28:19

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#7 2004-01-20 10:34:20

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#8 2004-01-20 10:48:47

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#9 2004-01-20 10:59:09

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#10 2004-01-20 11:01:45

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#11 2004-01-20 11:07:16

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#12 2004-01-20 11:10:46

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#13 2004-01-20 11:27:37

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#14 2004-01-20 12:11:37

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#15 2004-01-20 12:15:15

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#16 2004-01-20 12:51:08

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#17 2004-01-20 12:53:01

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#18 2004-01-20 13:09:47

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#19 2004-01-20 13:33:20

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#20 2004-01-20 13:45:35

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#21 2004-01-20 15:49:26

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#22 2004-01-20 15:54:05

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#23 2004-01-20 16:13:28

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#24 2004-01-20 16:17:54

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#25 2004-01-20 16:18:16

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

Board footer