# 1074 bysmasters@... on March 21, 2001, 1:46 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
I recently got Robert Zubrin's `The Case for Mars'. The first quarter
of the book is little more then a giant argument why we should go to
mars. I think a little discussion in our group of what our goals
should be would be very health so I propose THE GREAT DEPATE (ver
1.0).
Where should we go/start?
Should we:
-go to Mars
-go to the Moon
-go for space colonies (O'Neils and the like)
-start with sea-based colonies
-forget all this space crap, it is a waste of time, technology is not
advanced enough
-(if I have left a destination/goal out, please feel free to add)
THE RULES:
Each message either contains
an argument FOR one of the above goals
a rebuttal AGAINST a previous post
Please follow this subject line format - (TGD 1.0) Moon argument
Simple enough? Should generate lots of good chatter!
Sean Masters
# 1075 byshinryuu64@... on March 21, 2001, 4:10 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
You forgot asteroids (presumably NEAs).
> I recently got Robert Zubrin's `The Case for Mars'. The first
quarter
> of the book is little more then a giant argument why we should go
to
> mars. I think a little discussion in our group of what our goals
> should be would be very health so I propose THE GREAT DEPATE (ver
> 1.0).
>
> TOPIC
> Where should we go/start?
> Should we:
> -go to Mars
> -go to the Moon
> -go for space colonies (O'Neils and the like)
> -start with sea-based colonies
> -forget all this space crap, it is a waste of time, technology is
not
# 1076 bymikecombs@... on March 21, 2001, 5:01 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
From: smasters@... [mailto:smasters@...]
of the book is little more then a giant argument why we should go to
mars.
And I think some of the arguments he makes against O'Neill's concepts are
simply wrong. If anybody's interested in looking at my criticisms of his
criticisms, have a look at
http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/case_spc.htm#Robert_Zubrin
and
http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/spacsetl.htm#zubrin
.
"Entering Space", while an otherwise fine book, spends even more pages
attempting to debunk O'Neill.
Where should we go/start?
Should we:
-go to Mars
I say if anybody thinks they could get a national government into the same
frame of mind the US was in when committing to Apollo, more power to them.
Unless they go the Zubrin route, such a Government effort might leave some
space infrastructure that could find other uses later.
But I think it's an error to assume that missions to Mars will inevitably
lead to permanent human settlements there, or that tremendous economic
opportunities will exist on the surface of Mars.
-go to the Moon
Yes, in that it is a nearby source of raw materials outside of the steepest
part of the Earth's gravity well.
-go for space colonies (O'Neils and the like)
Yes. I consider all of the arguments O'Neill made for orbital locations
over planetary ones to be just as compelling now as before. I think it's an
error in thinking to assume that simply because most of this work was done
in the 1970's that it's obviously not as correct as research done in the
80's or 90's if the more recent work happened to proceed from a planetary
prejudice.
-start with sea-based colonies
To me that's more debatable. Sea colonies might be worth doing for their
own reasons, but I don't see them leading inevitably to space colonies the
way Savage seems to.
-forget all this space crap, it is a waste of time, technology is not
advanced enough
Some say wait for nanotechnology or some such. I say that we already know
all the physics we need, and the technology is on the shelf. The
operational systems are certainly not in place yet, but we won't start
building those until we make the decision to go. I say let's go.
Regards,
Mike Combs
From:
smasters@... [mailto:smasters@...]
I recently got Robert Zubrin's `The Case for Mars'. The first quarter
of the book is little more then a giant argument why we should go to
mars.
And I think some of the arguments he makes against O'Neill's concepts are simply wrong. If anybody's interested in looking at my criticisms of his criticisms, have a look at
http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/case_spc.htm#Robert_Zubrin
and
http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/spacsetl.htm#zubrin
.
"Entering Space", while an otherwise fine book, spends even more pages attempting to debunk O'Neill.
Where should we go/start?
Should we:
-go to Mars
I say if anybody thinks they could get a national government into the same frame of mind the US was in when committing to Apollo, more power to them. Unless they go the Zubrin route, such a Government effort might leave some space infrastructure that could find other uses later.
But I think it's an error to assume that missions to Mars will inevitably lead to permanent human settlements there, or that tremendous economic opportunities will exist on the surface of Mars.
-go to the Moon
Yes, in that it is a nearby source of raw materials outside of the steepest part of the Earth's gravity well.
-go for space colonies (O'Neils and the like)
Yes. I consider all of the arguments O'Neill made for orbital locations over planetary ones to be just as compelling now as before. I think it's an error in thinking to assume that simply because most of this work was done in the 1970's that it's obviously not as correct as research done in the 80's or 90's if the more recent work happened to proceed from a planetary prejudice.
-start with sea-based colonies
To me that's more debatable. Sea colonies might be worth doing for their own reasons, but I don't see them leading inevitably to space colonies the way Savage seems to.
-forget all this space crap, it is a waste of time, technology is not
advanced enough
Some say wait for nanotechnology or some such. I say that we already know all the physics we need, and the technology is on the shelf. The operational systems are certainly not in place yet, but we won't start building those until we make the decision to go. I say let's go.
Regards,
Mike Combs
# 1077 byshinryuu64@... on March 21, 2001, 5:09 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
To me, this argument is moot, (but I still plan to participate soon)
because it is possible that we will do all at once. For one thing,
NASA isn't going to do it. It will be done by a non-governmental
organization. I say that we should do all, and not concentrate just
on one thing. There are people who want to go to Mars, such as the
Mars Society. And other people will want to build giant space
colonies, such as the Space Studies Institute. I say let each group
go their own way.
> From: smasters@g... [mailto:smasters@g...]
>
> I recently got Robert Zubrin's `The Case for Mars'. The first
quarter
> of the book is little more then a giant argument why we should go
to
> mars.
>
> And I think some of the arguments he makes against O'Neill's
concepts are
> simply wrong. If anybody's interested in looking at my criticisms
of his
> criticisms, have a look at
> http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/case_spc.htm#Robert_Zubrin
> and
> http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/spacsetl.htm#zubrin
> .
>
> "Entering Space", while an otherwise fine book, spends even more
pages
> attempting to debunk O'Neill.
>
> Where should we go/start?
> Should we:
> -go to Mars
>
> I say if anybody thinks they could get a national government into
the same
> frame of mind the US was in when committing to Apollo, more power
to them.
> Unless they go the Zubrin route, such a Government effort might
leave some
> space infrastructure that could find other uses later.
>
> But I think it's an error to assume that missions to Mars will
inevitably
> lead to permanent human settlements there, or that tremendous
economic
> opportunities will exist on the surface of Mars.
>
> -go to the Moon
>
> Yes, in that it is a nearby source of raw materials outside of the
steepest
> part of the Earth's gravity well.
>
> -go for space colonies (O'Neils and the like)
>
> Yes. I consider all of the arguments O'Neill made for orbital
locations
> over planetary ones to be just as compelling now as before. I
think it's an
> error in thinking to assume that simply because most of this work
was done
> in the 1970's that it's obviously not as correct as research done
in the
> 80's or 90's if the more recent work happened to proceed from a
planetary
> prejudice.
>
> -start with sea-based colonies
>
> To me that's more debatable. Sea colonies might be worth doing for
their
> own reasons, but I don't see them leading inevitably to space
colonies the
> way Savage seems to.
>
> -forget all this space crap, it is a waste of time, technology is
not
> advanced enough
>
> Some say wait for nanotechnology or some such. I say that we
already know
> all the physics we need, and the technology is on the shelf. The
> operational systems are certainly not in place yet, but we won't
start
# 1078 byqwerty172@... on March 21, 2001, 6:33 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
> -forget all this space crap, it is a waste of time, technology is
not
> advanced enough
>
> Some say wait for nanotechnology or some such. I say that we
already know
> all the physics we need, and the technology is on the shelf. The
> operational systems are certainly not in place yet, but we won't
start
> building those until we make the decision to go. I say let's go.
>
One can argue that the technology required for the project won't be
developed until there is a commitment. Last I looked no one is
building better nuclear reactors because there is no cimmitment to the
technology.
# 1079 bymikecombs@... on March 21, 2001, 8:52 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
From: Bill [mailto:qwerty172@...]
developed until there is a commitment.
I think that's spot on. We didn't go to the moon after we developed the
technology to do so. We went after we made the commitment, and then
developed the technology needed to do the job.
In the same fashion I don't think it's correct to say we shouldn't discuss
space settlement because we don't have the technology needed for the task.
It doesn't require new physics or new materials. So why not talk about it?
Regards,
Mike Combs
From:
Bill [mailto:qwerty172@...]
One can argue that the technology required for the project won't be
developed until there is a commitment.
I think that's spot on. We didn't go to the moon after we developed the technology to do so. We went after we made the commitment, and then developed the technology needed to do the job.
In the same fashion I don't think it's correct to say we shouldn't discuss space settlement because we don't have the technology needed for the task. It doesn't require new physics or new materials. So why not talk about it?
Regards,
Mike Combs
# 1080 byaglobus@... on March 23, 2001, 6:13 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
smasters@... wrote:
> Where should we go/start?
> Should we:
> -go to Mars
There is a very important scientific question that may be addressed on Mars:
is their life outside of Earth? Otherwise, Mars is a lousy place to
colonize. It's not very big, it's a long ways away, the gravity is low, and
everything about living there is a lot worse than Siberia or Antarctica, both
of which are very sparsely populated.
Not very big: it's less than the size of Earth. Orbital space colonies
promise thousands of times the surface area of earth in livable space.
It's a long ways away: current rockets take six months or so to get there.
Orbital colonies could be reached within a day or so.
Mars is cold, you can't breathe the air, there's terrible dust storms, I'd
rather live in northern Alaska. It would be easier, there's plenty of room,
and it would be a lot nicer. Orbital colonies have many serious problems, but
you do get microgravity recreation, absolutely fantastic views (important in
any real estate market), and something resembling earth-normal gravity. This
last issue is pretty important. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be
willing to be the first to raise a child in low-gravity. Without children,
you have no colonization.
>
> -go to the Moon
It's closer than Mars, but otherwise shares the same problems and has fewer
resources.
>
> -go for space colonies (O'Neils and the like)
yes. See http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/.
>
> -start with sea-based colonies
sea-based colonies are great, but I don't see how they necessarily lead to
orbital colonies
>
> -forget all this space crap, it is a waste of time, technology is not
> advanced enough
Until we get better launch vehicles, space colonization is effectively
impossible. But better launch vehicles are probably only a few decades and
several hundred billion dollars away :-).
Al Globus
aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
The dinosaurs weren't spacefaring. We are. I don't think that's an accident.
Maybe we are life's taxi to the stars.
I think we should:
1. Devote half of NASA's budget ($7 billion) to reaching NASA's 2020 goal of
reducing launch costs to Low-Earth-Orbit to $220/kg with a 0.01% failure
rate.
This should enable space tourism. The resulting orbital hotels will need to
develop efficient orbital life support and other necessary technologies.
2. Build orbital space colonies. The materials in the largest asteroid are
sufficient for orbital colonies with a combined surface area about 500 times
greater than Earth's. Eros alone could make over ten thousand space colonies,
each with about about 10 square kilometers of 1g living area.
3. After a few generations of orbital living, people won't need their colony
to be near Sol. Then small groups of colonies with populations in the
tens-of-thousands can set out on multi-decade journeys to nearby stars.
Except the launch goals, none of this is even a little bit official.
# 1081 byaglobus@... on March 23, 2001, 8:06 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Note that we had a big push to the Moon, got there, and haven't been
back for 30 years with no human mission to the Moon in sight. A plant
the flag mission to Mars can be reasonably expected to have the same
follow up.
> But I think it's an error to assume that missions to Mars will
> inevitably lead to permanent human settlements there, or that
> tremendous economic opportunities will exist on the surface of Mars.
>
Al Globus
aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
The dinosaurs weren't spacefaring. We are. I don't think that's an
accident.
Maybe we are life's taxi to the stars.
I think we should:
1. Devote half of NASA's budget ($7 billion) to reaching NASA's 2020
goal of
reducing launch costs to Low-Earth-Orbit to $220/kg with a 0.01% failure
rate.
This should enable space tourism. The resulting orbital hotels will need
to
develop efficient orbital life support and other necessary technologies.
2. Build orbital space colonies. The materials in the largest asteroid
are
sufficient for orbital colonies with a combined surface area about 500
times
greater than Earth's. Eros alone could make over ten thousand space
colonies,
each with about about 10 square kilometers of 1g living area.
3. After a few generations of orbital living, people won't need their
colony
to be near Sol. Then small groups of colonies with populations in the
tens-of-thousands can set out on multi-decade journeys to nearby stars.
Except the launch goals, none of this is even a little bit official.
# 1082 byian.woollard@... on March 24, 2001, 4:02 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Combs, Mike wrote:
> *From:* smasters@... [mailto:smasters@...]
>
> I recently got Robert Zubrin's `The Case for Mars'. The first quarter
> of the book is little more then a giant argument why we should go to
> mars.
>
> And I think some of the arguments he makes against O'Neill's concepts
> are simply wrong. If anybody's interested in looking at my criticisms
> of his criticisms, have a look
> at http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/case_spc.htm#Robert_Zubrin and
> http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/spacsetl.htm#zubrin.
Oh wow. I just read this. What a doofus Zubrin is.
Mirrors? Hard to make? Zubrin is on drugs.
Making mirrors in space is so unbelievably trivial. I've done it.
Well, not in space. I used a vacuum pump. All you need is a hot piece
of aluminium (typically heated using tungsten filament) and a flat
piece of something, glass, plastic anything really. And a vacuum.
Has to be a good, hard vacuum.
The aluminium vapourises and sticks to the glass. Not exactly rocket
science.
Actually, we made a half silvered mirror. To make a full silvered mirror
you like, leave it longer. Real high tech. Takes a minute maybe.
It's routinely done for telescope mirrors, there the only difficulty is
making the vacuum. Oh, I see what Zubrin means, I mean where would you
find a vacuum in space, it's just all too difficult for Zubrin!
> Regards,
>
> Mike Combs
--
- Ian Woollard (ian.woollard@...)
"Is a planetary surface the right place for an expanding technological
civilization?"
- Gerard O'Neill
# 1083 byqwerty172@... on March 25, 2001, 3:56 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
> > at http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/case_spc.htm#Robert_Zubrin
and
> > http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/spacsetl.htm#zubrin.
>
> Oh wow. I just read this. What a doofus Zubrin is.
>
> Mirrors? Hard to make? Zubrin is on drugs.
>
> science.
>
Congrats yopu have just discovered the method used to make aluminum
mylar.
Quick get to the patent office before someone opens up another bag of
potato chips.
Bill