>From Mike C
> Unless they go the Zubrin route, such a Government
>effort might leave some space infrastructure that
>could find other uses later.

You say that if they go the Zubrin route, they will not leave
infrastruture which may be useful?

>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.

Aside from my own doubts about continuing a vigorous exploration
program without profits (as Zubrin seems to advocate), I don't
understand this.
Does not the Mars Society explicitly claim to be interested solely in
long term habitation off-Earth? Do they not talk about leaving behind
bases & equipment? (for exploration, as opposed to resource use for
insudtry & sale)
Whatever you may think of their particular plan, don't their
intentions count? (Next, we knock them over the head, and get them to
see the profit potential for space resource use)

Continuing my earlier ideas about joint activism, leading towards an
inclusive space effort, I say again, I like Mars as a first, visible
target.
I seriously doubt that you'll ever get the gov't interested in
onening the frontier. Any such talk to them is just noise. Given that
the average pol has the same intelligence & attention span as the
general public who elects them (= plankton), you'll never get them
interested.
Further, I have reason to doubt that you'll get a politician
interested in profitable space ventures. Despite reason & sense, the
gov't has not shown any interest -quite the reverse; they seem to have
taken every possible step away from it. All they want is to look good,
and to bolster the oil & coal burning military industrial complex to
fight over the oil. (Take the 'solution' to the many & various "energy
crises"; give tax breaks to oil & coal companies)

We can make use of their perpetual desire to look good, by appealing
to their vanity. "You will be the one in the future history books as
the one who started it all".
Use Mars as a target for their short attention spans. (Do not even
think about using exclusively tax money, or letting NASA do the work &
make the decisions.)
How about a private foundation, with investors working through a
coalition of space activist groups, universities maybe a few small
start-up companies, etc. Get a precedent for buying HLV parts from the
manufacturers as a private group. If we avoid the
big-gov't/aerospace/defense contractor relationships, we've got cheap
enough access to space to start.
Shuttle-C,Z, ET station volumes all will follow. (You don't need CATS
for any of this, if you can use what works, for a reasonable
(non-gov't contractor) cost, and make profits from space resources.)

Fly a few Mars Direct missions (having developed Shuttle-Z), and
while they are ongoing, put up an LEO station. Instead of a 'base' on
Mars made out of tuna cans thrown by expendable boosters, put a few
hundred tons onto Diemos. This gives a water source as close to HEEO
as Luna, and a strong Mars exploration base.
Start a telerobotic Lunar mine, and by the time Diemos chemicals are
coming back (which are needed to process the Lunar ores) We've
bootstrapped a HEEO station/base.

From: John Frazer [mailto:johnf4303@...]

>From Mike C
> Unless they go the Zubrin route, such a Government
>effort might leave some space infrastructure that
>could find other uses later.

You say that if they go the Zubrin route, they will not leave
infrastruture which may be useful?

Note that I specifically said "space" infrastructure. I was referring to
the fact that Zubrin says the best way to go to Mars doesn't require a space
station, any kind of interorbital tug, or use of space resources.

>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.

Aside from my own doubts about continuing a vigorous exploration
program without profits (as Zubrin seems to advocate), I don't
understand this.
Does not the Mars Society explicitly claim to be interested solely in
long term habitation off-Earth? Do they not talk about leaving behind
bases & equipment?

What the Mars Society would like to do and what they may get to do (even in
a world where humans have set foot on Mars) may not be the same thing. Like
you, I'm doubtful things can progress very far without economic returns, and
I'd consider that to have more to do with how permanent our presence on Mars
becomes that any particular equipment or even technical capability.

I seriously doubt that you'll ever get the gov't interested in
onening the frontier. Any such talk to them is just noise. Given that
the average pol has the same intelligence & attention span as the
general public who elects them (= plankton), you'll never get them
interested.

Furthermore, why should any government work toward the creation of a new,
independent political body? One it may have very limited control over?

How about a private foundation, with investors working through a
coalition of space activist groups,

The problem there is that space cadets such as you and I are too small a
percentage of the population to fund any of this stuff, even when we
assemble into foundations.

Fly a few Mars Direct missions (having developed Shuttle-Z), and
while they are ongoing, put up an LEO station. Instead of a 'base' on
Mars made out of tuna cans thrown by expendable boosters, put a few
hundred tons onto Diemos. This gives a water source as close to HEEO
as Luna, and a strong Mars exploration base.
Start a telerobotic Lunar mine, and by the time Diemos chemicals are
coming back (which are needed to process the Lunar ores) We've
bootstrapped a HEEO station/base.

This is fairly sensible, although I'd expect NEAs would be a better source
for volatiles needed in HEO than Deimos, which does after all circle within
a planetary gravity well. The only advantage of going the Deimos route
instead of the NEA route is, as you say, at the same time you're helping to
support human Mars exploration, if it should happen that the government is
spending money on that at the time.

Regards,

Mike Combs

From:
John Frazer [mailto:johnf4303@...]
From Mike C
> Unless they go the Zubrin route, such a Government
>effort might leave some space infrastructure that
>could find other uses later.
You say that if they go the Zubrin route, they will not leave
infrastruture which may be useful?

Note that I specifically said "space" infrastructure. I was referring to the fact that Zubrin says the best way to go to Mars doesn't require a space station, any kind of interorbital tug, or use of space resources.
>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.
Aside from my own doubts about continuing a vigorous exploration
program without profits (as Zubrin seems to advocate), I don't
understand this.
Does not the Mars Society explicitly claim to be interested solely in
long term habitation off-Earth? Do they not talk about leaving behind
bases & equipment?

What the Mars Society would like to do and what they may get to do (even in a world where humans have set foot on Mars) may not be the same thing. Like you, I'm doubtful things can progress very far without economic returns, and I'd consider that to have more to do with how permanent our presence on Mars becomes that any particular equipment or even technical capability.
I seriously doubt that you'll ever get the gov't interested in
onening the frontier. Any such talk to them is just noise. Given that
the average pol has the same intelligence & attention span as the
general public who elects them (= plankton), you'll never get them
interested.

Furthermore, why should any government work toward the creation of a new, independent political body? One it may have very limited control over?
How about a private foundation, with investors working through a
coalition of space activist groups,

The problem there is that space cadets such as you and I are too small a percentage of the population to fund any of this stuff, even when we assemble into foundations.
Fly a few Mars Direct missions (having developed Shuttle-Z), and
while they are ongoing, put up an LEO station. Instead of a 'base' on
Mars made out of tuna cans thrown by expendable boosters, put a few
hundred tons onto Diemos. This gives a water source as close to HEEO
as Luna, and a strong Mars exploration base.
Start a telerobotic Lunar mine, and by the time Diemos chemicals are
coming back (which are needed to process the Lunar ores) We've
bootstrapped a HEEO station/base.

This
is fairly sensible, although I'd expect NEAs would be a better source for volatiles needed in HEO than Deimos, which does after all circle within a planetary gravity well. The only advantage of going the Deimos route instead of the NEA route is, as you say, at the same time you're helping to support human Mars exploration, if it should happen that the government is spending money on that at the time.
Regards,
Mike Combs