The illogic of Mars (was Re; New Member)

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "victoriatangoman"
wrote:
>
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Richard" wrote:
>
> > Why cotton? Why not synthetics?
>
> Forest for the trees. OK. Do you think Nylon would be easier? If so,
> where do you get the adipic acid and the hexamethylene diamine?
>
> http://www.psrc.usm.edu/macrog/nysyn.htm
>
> Where do you get the reaction vessels? The filament machinery? The
> high pressure air jet, lubricants, yarn twisting machinery, cones, and
> other equipment that you need to transform a lump of nylon into
> material suitable for clothes?
>
> This hand waving, just so, response is not really an alternative.
>

Well, it is nice of you to admit it.

Incidentally, nylon is not the only synthetic.

> Is it simpler to send all of this machinery to Mars so that clothes
> can be made there or better to just send the clothes for the XX number
> of people if XX is less than the amortization of the equipment and
> transportation cost of the machinery with a useful life of YY years.
>
> > > Seeing how these researchers are sent up there on the taxpayer's
> > > dime don't you think that there would be Earthside clamoring from
> > > other scientists who also want a go at a Mars mission. For some
> > > scientists to stay there for their whole lives would foreclose
> the > > opportunity for other, and perhaps younger, scientists.
>
> > Scientist have to eat. They need transportation. Not to mention
> > clothes, housing, etc. You are forgotting all the support
> > personnel.
>
> First off, I don't see how your response addresses the point above. Or
> are you saying that the younger scientists could go to Mars to be
> truck drivers in support of the scientists who got there first? I'm
> not getting it. Also, I'm not sure why it would make economic sense to
> send a cook all the way to Mars in order for the scientists to have
> catered meals. The cost of transporting and supporting that cook seems
> quite outrageous. How come ISS or Skylab didn't have cooks - they
> surely would have freed the astronauts to do more astronauty work.
>

Mars is an entire world. Do you think that tens or even hundreds of
thousands of scientists are going to drive trucks in their spare time?

> > > Darn, the oldsters got there first, when I was still in grade
> > > school and couldn't compete for a slot. Now it's 20 years later
> > > and I'm a promising young researcher and I need to be on Mars
> to > > test my hypothesis, but they want me to write a research plan
> and > > radio it to the scientists on Mars to conduct. Those old
> fossils, > > and I don't mean the indiginous variety either, are still
> on Mars > > and with them there doing the work, they don't need me. I
> better > > call my Congressman or UN delegate or whatever, and
complain.
>
> > Now Tangoman. Take three deep breaths and try to compose yourself.
> > Don't want you going off the deep end again.
>
> See, it's comments like this that make me wonder, are you being
> purposely obtuse or do you have trouble understanding the scenario
> protraying a frustrated young researcher dealing with the implications
> of your scheme. That's not my voice

I should not remark on whose voice it is. I have enough trouble
taking you seriously.

I do not undstand your scenario at all. I feel we'd have trouble
getting enough scientists there to do the job.

>
> I'm sure I'm not the only one who reacts to purposely ignorant comments.

I've tried not to, but sometimes temptation gets the better of me.
>
> > > > By the time Mars is totally checked out, it will probably have a
> > > > permenant population.
>
> > > This I don't see, unless that research population grows to such a
> > > size, that some beancounters decide that it'll make more sense to
> > > ship up a cotton mill, steel foundry, and other industrial
> > > equipment, rather than simply provide the supplies.
>
> > This depends on costs. It may be cheaper tp ship stuff from the
> > Asteroid Belt or Luna.
>
> I just don't get this style of thinking. You never respond with any
> reasoning, but let conditional statements suffice as your response. It
> depends on this or it depends on that, well, all that does is simply
> deflect the original question into the ether.
>

At present, the only real answer is that we do not know. How long
before we start examining Mars. Fifty years? More? I am not God. I
cannot predict where we'll be in fifty years.

I doubt anybody can.

My style of thiniking is based on our speculating on event that we
know very little about. We talk of build space habitats. What have
we built in space? A few additions to structures taken out there.

I cannot make any but conditional statements at present.

To be blunt, nobody knows enough about what we are discussing.

If you do, you would be doing us a service by convincing businessmen
to invest in space habitats.

> Where will the Asteroid Belt or a Lunar base get the industrial
> equipment? You need an industrial infrasturcture of a fairly
> sophisticated nature, and a supply chain of diverse sources, to
> produce equipment that you seem to be taking for granted. Same too
> with the Zubrin folks.
>
> Do you have any idea how many steps there are between holding a lump
> of iron ore in your hand to making a fork? I'm sure you can imagine
> it, so why not apply that thought to the outfitting of a Mars base?
>
Or a space habitat. Both are not possible at present.

> To transform your research base into a civilization on Mars will
> require that the population expand beyond just the research
> requirement. The rationale for all of those people going to Mars is
> difficult to devise. All people on Mars will require some basic
> necessities. Those necessities, for a small coterie of scientists,
> will be expensive to ship from Earth, but far less expensive than
> shipping multiple orders of magnitude of machining to fabricate those
> necessities.

Ditto for a space habitat.
>
> For a civilization to take root it will have to start making it's own
> goods and relying less on supply from Earth. Right there you have a
> drastic reduction in lifestyle. No one seems able to offer a reason
> why Earth should subsidize 10,000+ people on Mars to start the this
> autarkic process. Where is the self-interest?
>
Oh dear, you seem to shot down colonizing Mars and putting up space
habitats.

> Sure, you write that people will be needed to support the scientists.
> OK, let's say that Earth is willing to subsidize those researchers for
> the public good that their research produces, but where do the capital
> and wages for the nylon plant and operators come from? Who are they
> selling to?
>
What nylon plant?

> I would jump with joy if some Mars Advocate had some answers to these
> types of questions.
>
> > > > Incidentally while we cannot build a beanstalk from the Earth's
> > > > surface to geosynchonous orbit today, I've read that one could
> > > > be built on Mars using current strength of materials.
>
> > > Yes, the engineering is definitely more plausible, but *why* would
> > > we want to?
>
> > You talk about supplying the material for an in-depth survey of an
> > entire world. Just think of all the rocket fuel it would take. A
> > Beanstalk would save a lot of money.
>
> Oh, I get it now. You mean magic. That beanstalk magically appears and
> isn't included in the cost calculations like rocket fuel would be.
>
> Where will the material for the beanstalk come from? Mars or Earth? If
> Mars, how is it made? Where does all of the fabrication equipment come
> from? All of the raw materials? Even on Mars, building a beanstalk
> will be a hugely complicated endeavor. If you're in a city somewhere,
> go find a multi-story building and, while I'm sure you've seen these
> being built time and again, now pay particular attention to the whole
> complex sequence of construction, the materials used, and the
> processes involved. Then backtrack a bit. All of those products are
> also the result of a complex supply chain.
>
We'll get all these items from space habitats that magically appear in
the asteroid belt.

> Can you really advocate the construction, from whole cloth, of an
> entire industrial infrastructure only in order to aid some researchers
> on Mars?
>
No. But you seem to ignore how many researchers it will take to
examine an entire planet with about the surface area of Earth (no
oceans on Mars, remember). Even more, you ignore all the support
staff it will take.

> > > > Mars being closer than most asteroids, would mean that it
could
> > > > supply material (even ores) as cheaply as the asteroid belt.
>
> > > > Rick Brooks
>
> > > Closer how, in kilometers, or in delta-v? Delta-v is the metric we
> > > need to look at. Your statement also doesn't account for access to
> > > NEOs that are closer in, in both km and delta-v, than Mars.
> > >
> > > TangoMan
>
> > Delta-v is what counts here.
>
> I know that. I asked it because you keep writing "closer" in a way
> that leads the reader to conclude that you're thinking in distance
terms.
>
> You know, Mike Combs has been like Sisyphus and his boulder, he's been
> trying to explain the whole Mars fallacy for years but I wonder if he
> ever gets that boulder to the top of the hill, IOW, does he convert
> anyone. He's got the facts and reasoning down pat.
>
> Look here for his answer to your supply post scenario:
> http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/case_spc.htm#A_Staging_Post
>
> > Are there really that many NEOs?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Mars many also be a useful stepping stone to colonizing the Asteroid
> > Belt. And suppling material for the same.
>
> You present a completely false dichotomy: if there is to be a
> colonization of the Asteroid Belt it will have to be supplied either
> from Mars or from Earth. Of course, all else being equal, Mars will
> win hands down because it has a lower escape velocity than Earth.
>
> The "all else being equal" clause is the place where others would say
> magic is being invoked. Why would Mars have the same infrastucture as
> Earth? Why would the asteroid belt lack resources and what does Mars
> have that they couldn't supply on their own? And of course, I'm not
> even addressing the assumption that we need to be on Mars before the
> belt or what we'd be doing in the belt (though the threshold for the
> belt is far lower than for Mars because low thrust/high ISp drives are
> fine and raw materials will be easier to find (no gravity and no deep
> ores) and to ship than anything from Mars.)
>
> TangoMan

We have not been there yet. How can we tell what is there? And you
talk of magic.

Seems to me that all your logic of showing how hopeless Mars is, has
also shown how hopeless space habitats are.

If I took you seriously, I'd be mighty depressed about our getting
anywhere in space.

You might as well entitle your essay "The illogic of space."

Rick Brooks