Critical time (Mars Society defense)

--- In spacesettlers@y..., "John Frazer" wrote:
> From: Mark Collins
> >> Support of a sustained continuous presence on Mars is going to
be
> very expensive. What do you expect to achieve at the end of it? The
> best you can hope for is an independent Martian colony. Do you
> honestly expect the tax payers of any country to provide billions
> over many decades to produce an independent colony that will never
> return any benefit to themselves?
>
> Ditto for space colonies. Every word. Granted, a space colony
could
> probably produce profit sooner than a Mars base, but this is still
> not within the range of returns that the attention-defecit public
or
> politicians want.

1. A Mars base will never return a profit to Earth. (Bit strong -
maybe very unlikely is fairer)

2. If you've read some of my other posts I suggested the priority was
to build SPS's before a fully blown space colony for the very reason
you give.

>
> Mike C wrote:
> > Zubrin said forget private industry; it's not going to open the
> frontier for us. Well, for these reasons I don't see a national
> program doing it either, and can't see a 3rd alternative.
>
> Conspiracy.
> As unlikely as it seems, a collaboration of the space cadet groups
> towards a common agreement. (dreaming!) I have been in a few
combined
> efforts between the local Mars Society & NSS chapters. I get the
> usual crap about "they dillute our message", etc. None of it
matters.
> If we get to do the presentations, then we all win. If we don't
> collaborate, then we don't do the events, so we all lose.
> If we collaborate, we get into space. If we don't then we'll sit
> here & watch the oil wars, and get nowhere.
>

I agree that some collaboration on a joint effort would give us much
more clout.

> >> I say the idea of a Mars colony being the way forward into space
> is the enemy. O'Neill's arguments were based on realism, sound
> engineering and feasible economics.
>
> And on getting congress to agree to pay for a program which throws
> their campaign contributors out in the cold, not to mention makes
all
> their oil & coal company stocks so much scrap paper.
>
> >> This is not so for the proponents of Mars Direct.
> >
> > Eh... let's say for the proponents of the mass settlement of Mars
> (and more so for proponents of the terraformation of Mars). Mars
> Direct is fairly near-term and is probably pretty doable (given a
> government in the same frame of mind as the US in the days of
> Apollo).
>
> So you think that it will necessarily take a government effort to
do
> a Mars Direct? Any chance a private mission could be done for
around
> $5 billion?
> No way a private mission could do it with advertising/"survivor"
> reality TV/ public/private donations/subscriptions, etc? What do
you
> think of permanent.com "first private mission"
> http://permanent.com/mission1.htm
> What if it were combined with the profit potential of a Diemos
> mine/base?

It would be nice - but I couldn't see us raising in the order of $5
billion in this way.

>
> > The O'Neill viewpoint is based on hard facts and not any
emotional
> bias- he just looked at the best and most economical way of doing
> things.
>
> I see plenty of emotional content in all the pretty pictures of
> idyllic colony settings -families at the beach in Bernal Spheres,
> etc.
> I saw far too few referrences to asteroids and their resources.
> Do you really think it's realistic to think of congress-critters
> bought into office by entrenched big industries voting for these
> things?
>

I admit some of the imagery is a bit idyllic - but he's just trying
to sell his case.

The point is the whole basis of the HF concept and particularly SPS's
is based on sound econimics and engineering. So he's embellished it
with a few pretty pictures to help sell it. This is unlike Mars
Missions whose objectives are 'exploration' or 'we'll go there
because it's there'. It's time we based space development on sound
logic instead of the forfillment of boyhood dreams dtarted by dated
science fiction.

If you read the NASA-AMES sponsored studies SP-413 and SP-428 you
will see the nitty gritty of this concept and how - in the end it
will make money. These studies were done back in the 70's just after
Apollo had finished and so the emphasis was on the colonies. Now we
are more finacially constrained the emphasis is on the SPSs

As for the asteroids, back in the 70's there were very few NEA's
known so the Moon seemd preferable, howevere there is extensive study
of processing of asteroidal material in SP-428

> >> Because Mars Direct does not involve any space infra-structure
it
> parodies the Apollo methodology of let's get there as fast as
> possible without any thought for the future.
>
> You're going too far in the opposite direction from the rabid
> Zubrinites, here.

> Have you actually read "the Case for Mars"?
> Zubrin says that the SEI of 1989 failed because it was another
> feeding frenzy of big-government aerospace/defense contractors. The
> purpose of a Mars mission is to take a few astronauts & their gear
> from Earth, set them down on Mars, and then bring them back to
Earth.

Can't say I have - but I get the feeling it would be somewhat biased.
Are there any papers available to read on the Mars-Direct concept?

> The purpose is not to build up NASA centers around the country,
> provide jobs & facilities for contractors, and pay for all their
> budget problems for 20+ years, and allow all the heart felt wishes
of
> all these NASA centers & contractors to come true with all sorts of
> revolutionary new things attached to the mission.
> If you look at the problem of Exploring another planet, we don't
> need to pay for a Lunar mine, a huge space transportation
> infrastructure, and 30+ years of operations and R&D at the
overpriced
> ISS.
> If you say we'll wait to do Mars until we can do it this way, then
> the Martians have a right to be incensed. How would you feel if you
> couldn't set human foot back on the Moon until 30+ years & hundreds
> of billion$ have been spent?

I would feel that a great opportunity of reaping benefit for the
whole human race had been missed and a chance to start colonisation
of the rest of the Solar system. Unlike the Zubrinites who would have
missed the chance of an expensive and unproductive series of
exploratory trips.

Who's to say 30 years plus? The very first manufacturing facilities
in space could build a ship to go to Mars at the same time as SPSs
and that wouldn't be thirty years away.
>
> Despite all this, he most certainly does put in place an
> infrastructure for the future. It was all on the surface of Mars,
> which is fine for suporting the further exploration of that planet.
> (I've heard much criticism of that mission itself, when I say that
it
> is very robust & capable, and as safe as we can reasonably make it.
> All these same safety factors make for a strong exploration
mission.

Exactly - Mars,Mars,Mars - it's a big Universe you know there is more
than just Earth and Mars in it.

The HF concept addresses problems down on Earth (With SPS) as well as
opening up exploration and colonisation of the whole Solar System -
Mars included - and eventually even the Stars.

That's what annoys me about Mars proponents - to them Mars is the
centre of the Universe. They haven't got time for any other concept
or place.

> Of these criticisms, I haven't heard any good debate on specific
> issues. Unfortunately, there isn't much you can do to upgrade the
> mission, without completely redesigning it, like the NASA baseline
> mission or Semi-Direct. I say go with it as is.)
> Go a bit beyond an infrastructure only being useful for exploring
> Mars, and you can keep all these narrow minded martians happy, and
> still get what the rest of us want.
> Diemos.
>

That's the trouble - I can't see obtaining material from the Martian
Moons as being economical in any way. The only major Market we have
is on the Earth, Phobos and Diemos are just too far away. It would be
expensive enough to obtain materials from a NEA or the Moon
initially, without going all the way to Mars.

> >> Maybe I am being a bit judgemental here as I only corresponded
> with a few people, I have recently corresponded with a Mars
supporter
> who was much more supportive of a joint effort.
> >
> > I'd say that your experiences were in no way atypical. They
match
> up with mine, and those of other HF supporters that I've heard from.
>
> Ditto. I've been on the Mars Society message boards, and been
through
> all of this. In general, the ones who are the most closed-minded
have
> no other information than Zubrin's writings. When faced with
superior
> facts (space settlments, asteroid mining, etc) they drop out &
don't
> come back, unless it's by simply ignoring you or using circular
> arguments.
> Note that I get much the same response from those who favor living
> on the Moon. They've never heard of mining rocks for fuel, or
living
> in spinning cans.
>
> > The Mars enthusiasts, at their most generous, can only seem to
come
> as far as saying, "Let us have everything that we want first, then
> you can have what you want later."
>
> Hence, my proposal for a few Mars Direct missions to get things
> started, but then we put a few loads onto Diemos, so we get water &
> other ices back to LEO, to build the HEEO-Lunar mine/base.
> The martians get their superiority from being the _First Big
Thing_
> which happens, but within a decade, we've got a Lunar mine, a HEEO
> factory, and more that makes a few biogeochemists kicking rocks
> around Mars seem small.

Obtaining materials from Deimos to LEO? Can't see it working myself.
Maybe from the Moon, but not Mars.