THE GREAT DEBATE (ver 1.0)

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

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