Interesting, Rand. I actually imagined that you might be kind of like him (no offense intended), since I haven’t heard you speak of know what you look like. I guess one does project funny ideas onto people one has never met, but only read.
That second sentence should read “I haven’t heard you speak *or* know what you look like”.
From the article:
“Zubrin spoke to humanity’s curiosity and intrepidness and ingenuity. He understood our need to be inspired, especially at a time when inspiration is in short supply.”
All the wrong reasons for basing a campaign for manned exploration, in my opinion. Those things are necessary but not sufficient.
Sufficiency is gained by having at least one other ingredient:
profit.
Zubrin’s heart is in the right place. But he has to give up the dream of a government-funded space program and try a different approach.
The article that everyone who is interested in space should read is Freeman Dyson’s “Pilgrims, Saints, and Spacemen” article, which is in the August 1979 issue of L5 News.
Zubrin continues to make a negative impression on me. First, what if humans can’t live on Mars? It is a very different place — gravity, atmosphere, radiation, etc. Second, what does Mars offer humans who do not share Zubrin’s fanaticism? An interesting case can be made that the Moon can supply raw materials for a solar power satellite and other things along similar lines. Mars? What besides bragging rights? Finally, I have heard that Zubrin was involved with the Larouche bunch of nuts for some years when Zubrin was in his 20s. OK, he was young. I was young once and did some off the wall things — but not nearly that nutty.
You can always catch Rand in the Space Show archives.
C’mon, Bob’s a pussycat.
Of course, Dan Goldin was, too…
Rand is indulging in polite understatement. (Rand, by the way, is very low-key in person. The only time you need raingear to talk to Rand is when you’re talking to him outside and it’s raining.) (Which, since Rand has no issues he’s so totally focused on that he forgets to come in out of the rain, is never.) (That’s a good thing.)
Bob Zubrin, well, if you want to maintain personal space talking to Bob, you either need a lot of room to backpedal in, or a yard-long cattle prod aimed at the center of his chest. (Make sure the battery has a full charge, you’ll need it more than once. Oh, and did I mention raingear?)
Bob does a lot more good than harm, mind. But he can be a bit startling one on one, at least once the word “Mars” is mentioned. He changes then… Bless his enthusiastic soul!
Zubrin has a “take no prisoners” attitude. For what he’s doing, its required. This doesn’t make him particularly likable. Even to those who may share his goals.
Driven.
@David and Wodun: Here is the MP3 of the Space Show on April 29, 2011. Rand is the guest. 🙂
That should get rid of those that aren’t willing to hear an answer. Nobody shares Zubrin’s fanaticism, so the question becomes…
What does Mars offer humans?
See ninth amendment to the constitution. Hmmm… too esoteric?
It has everything humans need in one place. It offers independence that no space station ever could. It’s the closest earth analogy in this solar system. If we found an extra-solar world like mars we’d consider we’d hit the jackpot. It’s not a satellite of earth providing some relief from domination.
Freedom on mars is within walking distance. Everything industry needs to grow is within walking distance. 144 million sq. km. of real estate. An atmosphere that has valuable uses. Water. Day and night similar to earth. Best natural gravity other than Venus. Best radiation environment outside of earth.
For what he’s doing, its required.
What do you mean by what he’s doing? Running the Mars Society? Running an SBIR shop?
I only know the man from reading his words and from the few times I’ve seen him on the tube over the years. LONG before I started reading here, or saw anyone’s opinion, I thought he was intense too.
But I spelled it a-r-r-o-g-a-n-t.
Zubrin has a plan to send two to mars on Dragons (great link Trent.) That’s zeal (and a bad idea in my opinion.) Today there is just one missing link for a mars mission. I think we should build the mars SSTO lander ASAP and have pilot training going between LEO and the lunar surface (along with mars flight simulators) having enough methane for the round trip and producing LOX on the moon’s surface (which is much harder than doing it on mars.)
Then send two BA330 based ships tethered together to mars with a dozen crew. Those ships remain in mars orbit. The party starts when the crews reunite on mars. The landers should be able to take six to the martian surface (but no less than three, four removes one trip.) We need to send enough people to do ISRU research. Too few extends everything by decades.
I just heard him shoot down Phobos as a destination. He called it stupid 😉 He might be arrogant, but he supports his position with facts.
Ken, I’m sure Armadillo Aerospace could provide some really good reasons to stay away from Phobos, like the Phobos Anomally that unleashed all those demons in Doom. Phobos. Just don’t go there!
He’s also now picking a fight with Franklin Chang-Diaz because he thinks VASIMR is keeping NASA from going straight to Mars.
NASA hasn’t even decided if it’s going to fund VASIMR yet and he’s already setting Ad Astra up as some sort of bogeyman. It’s absurd and a waste of energy.
What do you mean by what he’s doing
He’s America’s evangelist for getting HSF to Mars.
1. I’ve met Bob Zubrin and found him to be articulate and entertaining. He is direct and, ok, sometimes sarcastic … but then, I’m sarcastic as well so that doesn’t bother me in the least.
2. As for VASIMR, do you want him to wait until after NASA decides to fund it before attacking it? Of course he’s attacking it before NASA decides to fund it … That’s the time to attack a project!
I think he’s correct to point out that VASIMR needs a lightweight nuclear power generator, that doesn’t exist nor is under development, to achieve a transit time faster than convention chemical rockets.
Zubrin’s premise is basically this … We don’t need VASIMR, nuclear propulsion, the NAUTILUS-X, fuel depots, or various other things BEFORE we can go to Mars. If we want to go to Mars, then let’s go to Mars.
He is a ‘git ‘er done type of guy. He often points out the foolishness of naysayers. But he does seem to be wearing blinders (for focus no doubt.)
Whenever we do go to mars, Zubrin’s name will be linked to it. He’s a one man think tank. That doesn’t mean he hits the target dead center every time.
Whatever he has, i hope its not contagious.
A git-er-dun type guy either has to work with others or have the personal resources to accomplish his personal goals. Fail.
Ken,
You are not listening. Mars is the closest to an Earth environment of any other place in the Solar System. It isn’t very much like Earth. Freedom? Just a walk away? Not if it is difficult to impossible to live there. Not if you have to make huge changes in your life to simply exist there.
Antarctica, being part of Earth, is much more like Earth than Mars. We now have some bases there that are occupied year round. We now have adventure tourists going there. That’s it.
9th Amendment? I get the reference. You’re coming off as a libertarian who avoids other threats to liberty than government.
Personally, I still O’Neill colonies are far more likely than Mars colonies. Such colonies are a very long way off.
Lobo, he should at least get his facts straight, then. Zubrin is claiming that NASA has already chosen to fund VASIMR and that’s what’s standing in the way of going to Mars now.
That is simply not true. NASA has made no such decision and Congress has shown no indication they are willing to pay for Zubrin’s plan to do it using current rocket technology.
Just to be clear, Zubrin is correct that it’s both possible and affordable (IE within amounts Congress currently provides NASA for space) to go to Mars with current rocket technology. (Arduous and hazardous, yes, but possible.)
What he tends to miss is that it’s very much NOT possible with NASA’s current organization, which tends to raise space system costs to ten or more times commercial equivalents. 17,000 civil servants, 40,000 contractors, and fifty years of accumulated bureaucratic inertia is a LOT of organizational overhead to burden any project with.
Current NASA couldn’t even manage a simple booster/crew capsule development despite what by any other standards was lavish funding – they spent $10 billion on Ares/Orion with nothing to show for it. (If you dug into the detailed accounting, I expect you’d find that most of that went to organizational overhead.)
Some combination of both NASA and the technology getting more efficient is necessary before any practical US Mars initiative is possible. (Leave aside for now the eventual possibility of costs dropping to where private initiatives become possible.)
VASIMIR is a red herring. The real argument is over whether NASA will see the reforms and redirection it needs to become halfway useful in a few years. Part of that necessarily is a refocus by NASA on more new technology. But Bob tends to have no patience for anything other than Mars, Right Now. Never mind how disastrous the attempt would be if made with the organization that would inevitably get the job Right Now.
He established a new company, Ad Astra Rocket Company (AARC), with offices in Texas and Chang-Diaz’s native Costa Rica, to continue development of the propulsion concept with a mix of private and government support. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1690/1
There is some gov’t money from somewhere …
You are not listening.
To what specifically?
Mars is the closest to an Earth environment of any other place in the Solar System.
Out of over 300 known planets it’s the closest in the universe. If we can’t make it there, we can’t make it on any planet.
difficult to impossible
This appears to be a lack of imagination. I see an industrial mars with wonders we can not yet imagine.
Freedom would be the result of having to be self sufficient. If property is the foundation of their rights and they don’t allow government false justifications to steal those rights. They could have freedom not found anywhere on earth.
Antarctica???
I think we’ve discussed how bad an analogy that is on this blog before.
avoids other threats to liberty than government.
I’m sorry Chuck. You do have an imagination. What else am I thinking or not?
O’Neill colonies
We’ll have them as well, but mars pays off financially right now.
Zubrin may not be as successful as some demand, but he is successful to a great extent. He’s very good at pointing out things that take away from his goal of populating mars. Others with that same goal, whether they like Zubrin or not, have had to accept some of the truth he’s presented. He’s not always right. Sending two people to mars because it’s possible would be a mistake in my opinion. The first people going to mars have a lot of work to do. They need to learn how to survive ISRU. That may take twenty years to learn or two. But colonization can’t begin until that’s done.
If Zubrin’s 50m hobby farms can be made to work they will have a shirtsleeve garden environment which will be psychologically beneficial. They will have free fuel from the air to power vehicles to explore their surroundings. They will have robots to use for exploration as well providing real time information. If they send four dozen researchers as I propose (a billion dollars a year minimum required to support them before ISRU kicks in) they will have a social group to prevent isolation and plenty of hands to get required work done faster.
Unlike space-settlement-institute (dot org) I think it’s a mistake to allow Alaska sized claims because it centralizes power. Give everybody a one sq. km. claim and you promote free enterprise (and give them something to sell to someone that does want an Alaska sized property.)
Over time they will build an industrial society. Living on mars will then seem normal to martians and no more difficult than living anywhere. The key to freedom is ownership without government theft. Only off earth is that a possibility, but only if it’s established precedent before technology allows earth governments to dominate the solar system.
O’Neill colonies are also a dead end until you put propulsion systems turning them into Asimov Habitats. Then you have the entire Solar System open for development. Mars as a settlement goal is 20th Century idea that makes little sense in terms of 21st Century technology and knowledge of Mars.
Did Thomas just agree with me? Stop the planet. It’s spinning.
Oh, perhaps you don’t agree with me that once on mars 19th century technology would be sufficient? Do you really think another 89 years of technology will not be?
Before going to Mars we should go to Mercury, for several reasons, not the least of which is irritating Bob Zubrin. ^_^
It’s a shorter flight time (about 3 months on a Hohmann transfer).
Solar cells will be put out much more power, with sunlight at approximately 9,000 W/m^2 on average, with a peak that’s far higher due to Mercury’s highly elliptical orbit. In contrast, Mars only offers about 500 W/m^2, so for a given power output a Mars solar panel has to be almost 20 times larger than it would on Mercury. Mercury is awash in easy energy.
Growing plants on Mercury is likewise much easier, with 88 days of constant sunlight so intense that each meter of window can provide enough light for about 10 square meters of plants on a 16 hours on/8 hours off cycle.
The surface gravity is 0.38 G’s, making it an ideal place to enjoy Mars gravity without going to Mars, (and who would want to go there?) and with no atmosphere any lander we build for Mercury would be useful for moon missions, in case we wimp out on the program.
Mercury’s temperature varies widely, making it easy to select a landing site near enough to the poles or in the morning to provide a comfortable environment for several weeks, if not months. Mars is going to be cold everywhere.
Mercury is extremely rich in metals, and the high peak surface temperature and solar flux would make it easy for concentrating solar collectors to run smelters. You load the smelters up in the morning, let it run for a couple months, and then collect the refined metals in the evening or the next morning, after a long night of cooling.
It’s the smallest planet, and starting small is logical.
It’s the first planet, and starting at the first planet is also logical.
It’s off the beaten path, so it won’t be overrun with freakin’ Mars tourists.
Mars is the god of war (bad), whereas Mercury is the messenger, and our information economy, the Internet itself, is built on messenging and communications (good).
An Asimov Habitat in orbit above Mercury running a bunch of mining robots would be a great to exploit it’s resources.
..go to Mercury…irritating Bob Zubrin.
Yup, that would do it.
3 months on a Hohmann…
It’s not the flight time they’re concerned about it’s the radiation.
Mercury is awash in [higher radiation levels]
Growing plants on Mercury [sunlight] so intense
no atmosphere
…to provide some radiation protection and a useful easy source of gases.
Mercury’s temperature varies widely
Mars is going to be cold everywhere.
It’s a lot easier to raise temperature than to lower. It’s less dangerous to make minor adjustments than wildly varying adjustments.
Mercury is extremely rich in metals
A good point, but farther away from the habitable zone. We’ll exploit mercury one day, but it shouldn’t be first.
It’s the smallest planet, and starting small is logical.
Not a bad point, but not the determining issue.
It’s the first planet, and starting at the first planet is also logical.
You thought you could slip this one by, didn’tcha?
It’s off the beaten path, so it won’t be overrun with freakin’ Mars tourists.
Now you’re just getting silly. But seriously, selling real estate pays for ALL costs. Other economic activity is gravy. Only the first 144 million if we make the claims one sq. km. Nine or sixteen sq. km. might work as well. Any arguments regarding that?
Mars is the god of war (bad), whereas Mercury is the messenger, and our information economy, the Internet itself, is built on messenging and communications (good).
Low on sugar???
Ken,
Despite Dr. Zubrin’s claims pioneering Mars is not going to be like Little House on the Prairie with space suits. You are dealing with very toxic soil the becomes very that gets into everything thanks to the very high winds in a high radiation environment that makes the worst Super Fund site look like the Garden of Eden. To survive you will need to be completely isolated from that environment. To survive you will also need food product/recycling technology that is 100 percent fail safe and 100 percent effective. You are not even close that today. Indeed, getting to Mars is the easy part compared to surviving off the land once you get there.
That should be “very toxic dust”
Yes, Thomas, the environment will kill you. I used to work at a company that worked with “very toxic dust.” As a matter of fact, we had to bury a number of half a million or so dollar machines because of their toxicity rather than normal methods of disposal. The air in the factory of 300 employees was replaced every few minutes or so. It’s amazing what humans can do when we want to.
It does seem that Zubrin has destroyed VASIMIR. Another link…
@ken: If you can’t safely handle the radiaation near Merccury, which is probably more constant and intense than a trip to Mars, you can’t safely handle radiation events that you will encounter during a trip to Mars. For the Mercury trip you know you’ll need adequate shielding (polyethylene trashbags or UHMW are ideal, and reduce landfill space!), but many of the Mar,s proposals skimp or entirely skip shielding and just roll the dice on the odds of a fatal radiation burst.
Growing plants on Mercury is easier than on Mars because you’ve got 20 times more solar flux. This is important because on Mars you need lots of window area, but the windows still have to be pressure rated and humans still have to enter the greenhouses. The ASME standards for a positive pressure window are quite rigid, and if you get too many windows the only thing the crew can do is conduct window inspections and yearly replacement. Most of the O’Neill colony designs fall apart on that point. For growing, the only difference between the Martian atmosphere and a hard vacuum is massive convective losses and dust accumulation.
Raising greenhouse temperatures on Mars sounds easier, except that everything is cold, the sun is dim, and solar cells don’t provide much power. Cooling on Mercury is easy by contrast, because aluminium foil can be shaped to provide and umbrella against the sun and a lower skirt to reflect heat from the surface, letting heat radiate out to the cold of space without convection or atmospheric interference.
Mercury can also support mass drivers to launch products into orbit or even directly on Earth transfer trajectories. Orbital greenhouses built on Mercury can have little tiny windows feeding 20 times the plant growth you could get in Mars orbit. To hammer home the point, how hard would it be to colonize a moon of Saturn, where a solar cell can’t even stay warm enough to function?
Mercury would create a booming industrial base, an incredible agricultural output, and an awesome nightlife. It would be the Taiawn, Singapore, Tokyo, New York, London, Paris, and LA of the solar system, while Mars will never amount to more than the Nacogdoches Texas or Mogadishu of the Solar system. Heck, the backwards folk on Mars won’t even have VASIMIR drives. People lounging on Venus will make sitcoms about them.
You make some good points George. I would agree that if you have a general purpose ship it aught to be adequately shielded to go to either mars or mercury (otherwise how could you justify calling it general purpose?)
massive convective losses
A real engineer would have to tell me what that would be for the thin martian atmosphere. I haven’t a clue (other than there would be some rate.) Dust is a problem on any surface, atmosphere or not. Not in orbit and more so in atmosphere of course.
everything is cold [on mars]
This is why we leave the envirowackos on earth and go nuclear. Nuclear power just makes so much sense on a cold world.
What about mineral diversity? I know mars has it. Mercury would have good metal deposits, but what about other elements (let me look…) It has about the same density as the earth so that’s good. Mars and mercury could probably share an SSTO lander design but fueling is trivial on mars.
ISRU research would be different for the two. Water on mercury might be a big problem but we’re finding water everywhere. Most would prefer the more earthlike day/night cycle.
I think once you colonize mars, mercury would follow close behind. Mars would have better access to the outer system which is not a big consideration this century. A healthy industrial society needs perhaps a million people which I think would happen faster on mars than mercury (more resellable real estate.)
Well Ken, convective losses probably wouldn’t amount to much on Mars, since the atmosphere is so thin, but they’d be higher than on Mercury.
I really doubt many people would want to go to Mercury, in truth. Heck, we’ve hardly bothered to send space probes there. Even Venus gets more attention, though probably as a poster child for global warming funds.
Ken,
[[[As a matter of fact, we had to bury a number of half a million or so dollar machines because of their toxicity rather than normal methods of disposal. The air in the factory of 300 employees was replaced every few minutes or so.]]]
Good strategies for Earth, but any machinery you bring to Mars will be too valuable to bury given a replacement will take at least a year to arrive. And replacing air in a Mars habitat every few minutes will be a lot more difficult then on Earth. And you won’t just be working around the dust a few hours, but 24/7 for as long as you survive, and with medical help a year away if you make ANY mistake, its likely won’t be long.
Humans will eventually tame Mars, but it won’t be by Dr. Zubrin’s Little House on the Prairie model. It will be by placing one or more Asimov Habitats in high orbit dedicated to using advanced robots and short human visits to the surface to prepare the way.
That is also the strategy behind Buzz Aldrin’s proposal to make Phobos an early goal and to establish a base on it first, before tackling the surface of Mars.
We had a poor strategy for moon dust but our short stays allowed it to work out. We will have to do better whenever we go back to the moon.
On mars we won’t have to bury the toxic machines, we will just continue to use them in the toxic environment and repair them in that toxic environment. Most machines will not be used in a toxic environment, but in a shirtsleeve environment where that toxic dust is not an issue.
replacing air in a Mars habitat every few minutes will be a lot more difficult then on Earth
So you don’t replace it, you filter it. Bubble it through water and your dust problem just went away. Your airlocks could include a footbath and sprayhoses to knock the dust off your boots. No more difficult than wearing galoshes in some parts of the country.
Although telerobots will be used to scout out landing sites first, Phobos is in the wrong orbit, better to just stay in your orbiting ships until ready to land. Asimov Habitats are just a distraction since you yourself have pointed out it will be a while before we have them.
Short stays are for wimps. We land with the purpose of research and conquering the problems. We don’t have to be 100% perfect. People may even die. I’m sure of it. That shouldn’t prevent us from going. Pioneers take the arrows. We give it our best and move forward. Or we sit here and endlessly talking about it while going in circles getting nowhere.
Ken,
I wonder what it is about Mars that turns folks like Dr. Zubrin and his followers into such zealots ignoring life science research and the data showing Mars Direct is just a very expensive form of suicide.
The good thing is no government will ever fund it while it makes no sense from an investment viewpoint.
Ken, one fairly easy solution to the dust problem is to use that spacesuit design where the back of the suit was a hatch. The suit just docks with the outside of the building, the hatch opens, and you crawl inside in your skivies. The outside of the suit stays outside.
For any dust inside just use a cyclone dust collector like you find in better woodworking shops, followed by regular particulate filters. That or just man up. I’ve never seen a Western where the cowboys are going “Ick! I’ve got dust on me!”
I think one of the biggest daily challenges will be suiting up the horses in the morning. Getting those back legs in is a bitch.
Horses are pussy cats. I think the front legs are harder, but I’ve got a solution. Have their space suit split down the spine. You can get the horse to slide up to the wall then secure the other half of the suit (which includes a feedbag… teaching them to drink from a straw might be a bit difficult.)
But seriously, that’s a good idea. Your spacesuit could fit into your vehicles the same way it fits into the outside of a building. Other emergency exits would also be needed.
Livestock would stay inside.
Suicide Thomas, really? Even Zubrin has changed his tune regarding the direct approach. You have yet to come up with anything that can’t be dealt with. You’re not going to be breathing in a dangerous level of toxic dust. You do realize that you are currently breathing in toxins right now, don’t you? Not to mention subjecting yourself to high levels of radiation, right now? Move people from Phoenix to South Dakota without any preparation and half of them wouldn’t survive the first winter.
Ken,
You haven’t clue about the surface environment on Mars do you?
Here is a report from the NAP you should track down from your local library and read to see just how dangerous the Martian environment is for humans.
Breaking news: The Pope is Catholic!
Interesting, Rand. I actually imagined that you might be kind of like him (no offense intended), since I haven’t heard you speak of know what you look like. I guess one does project funny ideas onto people one has never met, but only read.
That second sentence should read “I haven’t heard you speak *or* know what you look like”.
From the article:
“Zubrin spoke to humanity’s curiosity and intrepidness and ingenuity. He understood our need to be inspired, especially at a time when inspiration is in short supply.”
All the wrong reasons for basing a campaign for manned exploration, in my opinion. Those things are necessary but not sufficient.
Sufficiency is gained by having at least one other ingredient:
profit.
Zubrin’s heart is in the right place. But he has to give up the dream of a government-funded space program and try a different approach.
The article that everyone who is interested in space should read is Freeman Dyson’s “Pilgrims, Saints, and Spacemen” article, which is in the August 1979 issue of L5 News.
http://www.nss.org/settlement/L5news/L5news/L5news7908.pdf
Zubrin continues to make a negative impression on me. First, what if humans can’t live on Mars? It is a very different place — gravity, atmosphere, radiation, etc. Second, what does Mars offer humans who do not share Zubrin’s fanaticism? An interesting case can be made that the Moon can supply raw materials for a solar power satellite and other things along similar lines. Mars? What besides bragging rights? Finally, I have heard that Zubrin was involved with the Larouche bunch of nuts for some years when Zubrin was in his 20s. OK, he was young. I was young once and did some off the wall things — but not nearly that nutty.
You can always catch Rand in the Space Show archives.
C’mon, Bob’s a pussycat.
Of course, Dan Goldin was, too…
Rand is indulging in polite understatement. (Rand, by the way, is very low-key in person. The only time you need raingear to talk to Rand is when you’re talking to him outside and it’s raining.) (Which, since Rand has no issues he’s so totally focused on that he forgets to come in out of the rain, is never.) (That’s a good thing.)
Bob Zubrin, well, if you want to maintain personal space talking to Bob, you either need a lot of room to backpedal in, or a yard-long cattle prod aimed at the center of his chest. (Make sure the battery has a full charge, you’ll need it more than once. Oh, and did I mention raingear?)
Bob does a lot more good than harm, mind. But he can be a bit startling one on one, at least once the word “Mars” is mentioned. He changes then… Bless his enthusiastic soul!
Zubrin has a “take no prisoners” attitude. For what he’s doing, its required. This doesn’t make him particularly likable. Even to those who may share his goals.
Driven.
@David and Wodun: Here is the MP3 of the Space Show on April 29, 2011. Rand is the guest. 🙂
Most recent Zubrin interview on The Space Show http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/1583-BWB-2011-06-28.mp3
He’s decidedly mellow.
Clark says he makes a lot of “cheap shots” but I guess I’m just used to them.
What does Mars offer humans who do not share Zubrin’s fanaticism?
Nothing. We should all stay on earth. Space is just a big mistake.
‘******************************************************
That should get rid of those that aren’t willing to hear an answer. Nobody shares Zubrin’s fanaticism, so the question becomes…
What does Mars offer humans?
See ninth amendment to the constitution. Hmmm… too esoteric?
It has everything humans need in one place. It offers independence that no space station ever could. It’s the closest earth analogy in this solar system. If we found an extra-solar world like mars we’d consider we’d hit the jackpot. It’s not a satellite of earth providing some relief from domination.
Freedom on mars is within walking distance. Everything industry needs to grow is within walking distance. 144 million sq. km. of real estate. An atmosphere that has valuable uses. Water. Day and night similar to earth. Best natural gravity other than Venus. Best radiation environment outside of earth.
For what he’s doing, its required.
What do you mean by what he’s doing? Running the Mars Society? Running an SBIR shop?
I only know the man from reading his words and from the few times I’ve seen him on the tube over the years. LONG before I started reading here, or saw anyone’s opinion, I thought he was intense too.
But I spelled it a-r-r-o-g-a-n-t.
Zubrin has a plan to send two to mars on Dragons (great link Trent.) That’s zeal (and a bad idea in my opinion.) Today there is just one missing link for a mars mission. I think we should build the mars SSTO lander ASAP and have pilot training going between LEO and the lunar surface (along with mars flight simulators) having enough methane for the round trip and producing LOX on the moon’s surface (which is much harder than doing it on mars.)
Then send two BA330 based ships tethered together to mars with a dozen crew. Those ships remain in mars orbit. The party starts when the crews reunite on mars. The landers should be able to take six to the martian surface (but no less than three, four removes one trip.) We need to send enough people to do ISRU research. Too few extends everything by decades.
I just heard him shoot down Phobos as a destination. He called it stupid 😉 He might be arrogant, but he supports his position with facts.
Ken, I’m sure Armadillo Aerospace could provide some really good reasons to stay away from Phobos, like the Phobos Anomally that unleashed all those demons in Doom. Phobos. Just don’t go there!
He’s also now picking a fight with Franklin Chang-Diaz because he thinks VASIMR is keeping NASA from going straight to Mars.
NASA hasn’t even decided if it’s going to fund VASIMR yet and he’s already setting Ad Astra up as some sort of bogeyman. It’s absurd and a waste of energy.
What do you mean by what he’s doing
He’s America’s evangelist for getting HSF to Mars.
Phuckin’ Phobos…
On the gripping hand, though…
1. I’ve met Bob Zubrin and found him to be articulate and entertaining. He is direct and, ok, sometimes sarcastic … but then, I’m sarcastic as well so that doesn’t bother me in the least.
2. As for VASIMR, do you want him to wait until after NASA decides to fund it before attacking it? Of course he’s attacking it before NASA decides to fund it … That’s the time to attack a project!
I think he’s correct to point out that VASIMR needs a lightweight nuclear power generator, that doesn’t exist nor is under development, to achieve a transit time faster than convention chemical rockets.
Zubrin’s premise is basically this … We don’t need VASIMR, nuclear propulsion, the NAUTILUS-X, fuel depots, or various other things BEFORE we can go to Mars. If we want to go to Mars, then let’s go to Mars.
He is a ‘git ‘er done type of guy. He often points out the foolishness of naysayers. But he does seem to be wearing blinders (for focus no doubt.)
Whenever we do go to mars, Zubrin’s name will be linked to it. He’s a one man think tank. That doesn’t mean he hits the target dead center every time.
Whatever he has, i hope its not contagious.
A git-er-dun type guy either has to work with others or have the personal resources to accomplish his personal goals. Fail.
Ken,
You are not listening. Mars is the closest to an Earth environment of any other place in the Solar System. It isn’t very much like Earth. Freedom? Just a walk away? Not if it is difficult to impossible to live there. Not if you have to make huge changes in your life to simply exist there.
Antarctica, being part of Earth, is much more like Earth than Mars. We now have some bases there that are occupied year round. We now have adventure tourists going there. That’s it.
9th Amendment? I get the reference. You’re coming off as a libertarian who avoids other threats to liberty than government.
Personally, I still O’Neill colonies are far more likely than Mars colonies. Such colonies are a very long way off.
Lobo, he should at least get his facts straight, then. Zubrin is claiming that NASA has already chosen to fund VASIMR and that’s what’s standing in the way of going to Mars now.
That is simply not true. NASA has made no such decision and Congress has shown no indication they are willing to pay for Zubrin’s plan to do it using current rocket technology.
Just to be clear, Zubrin is correct that it’s both possible and affordable (IE within amounts Congress currently provides NASA for space) to go to Mars with current rocket technology. (Arduous and hazardous, yes, but possible.)
What he tends to miss is that it’s very much NOT possible with NASA’s current organization, which tends to raise space system costs to ten or more times commercial equivalents. 17,000 civil servants, 40,000 contractors, and fifty years of accumulated bureaucratic inertia is a LOT of organizational overhead to burden any project with.
Current NASA couldn’t even manage a simple booster/crew capsule development despite what by any other standards was lavish funding – they spent $10 billion on Ares/Orion with nothing to show for it. (If you dug into the detailed accounting, I expect you’d find that most of that went to organizational overhead.)
Some combination of both NASA and the technology getting more efficient is necessary before any practical US Mars initiative is possible. (Leave aside for now the eventual possibility of costs dropping to where private initiatives become possible.)
VASIMIR is a red herring. The real argument is over whether NASA will see the reforms and redirection it needs to become halfway useful in a few years. Part of that necessarily is a refocus by NASA on more new technology. But Bob tends to have no patience for anything other than Mars, Right Now. Never mind how disastrous the attempt would be if made with the organization that would inevitably get the job Right Now.
He established a new company, Ad Astra Rocket Company (AARC), with offices in Texas and Chang-Diaz’s native Costa Rica, to continue development of the propulsion concept with a mix of private and government support. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1690/1
There is some gov’t money from somewhere …
You are not listening.
To what specifically?
Mars is the closest to an Earth environment of any other place in the Solar System.
Out of over 300 known planets it’s the closest in the universe. If we can’t make it there, we can’t make it on any planet.
difficult to impossible
This appears to be a lack of imagination. I see an industrial mars with wonders we can not yet imagine.
Freedom would be the result of having to be self sufficient. If property is the foundation of their rights and they don’t allow government false justifications to steal those rights. They could have freedom not found anywhere on earth.
Antarctica???
I think we’ve discussed how bad an analogy that is on this blog before.
avoids other threats to liberty than government.
I’m sorry Chuck. You do have an imagination. What else am I thinking or not?
O’Neill colonies
We’ll have them as well, but mars pays off financially right now.
Zubrin may not be as successful as some demand, but he is successful to a great extent. He’s very good at pointing out things that take away from his goal of populating mars. Others with that same goal, whether they like Zubrin or not, have had to accept some of the truth he’s presented. He’s not always right. Sending two people to mars because it’s possible would be a mistake in my opinion. The first people going to mars have a lot of work to do. They need to learn how to survive ISRU. That may take twenty years to learn or two. But colonization can’t begin until that’s done.
Zubrin challenges Diaz to debate it.
http://www.marssociety.org/home/press/announcements/zubrinchallengeschangdiaztodebatevasimr
Freedom? Just a walk away? I need to respond.
If Zubrin’s 50m hobby farms can be made to work they will have a shirtsleeve garden environment which will be psychologically beneficial. They will have free fuel from the air to power vehicles to explore their surroundings. They will have robots to use for exploration as well providing real time information. If they send four dozen researchers as I propose (a billion dollars a year minimum required to support them before ISRU kicks in) they will have a social group to prevent isolation and plenty of hands to get required work done faster.
Unlike space-settlement-institute (dot org) I think it’s a mistake to allow Alaska sized claims because it centralizes power. Give everybody a one sq. km. claim and you promote free enterprise (and give them something to sell to someone that does want an Alaska sized property.)
Over time they will build an industrial society. Living on mars will then seem normal to martians and no more difficult than living anywhere. The key to freedom is ownership without government theft. Only off earth is that a possibility, but only if it’s established precedent before technology allows earth governments to dominate the solar system.
O’Neill colonies are also a dead end until you put propulsion systems turning them into Asimov Habitats. Then you have the entire Solar System open for development. Mars as a settlement goal is 20th Century idea that makes little sense in terms of 21st Century technology and knowledge of Mars.
Did Thomas just agree with me? Stop the planet. It’s spinning.
Oh, perhaps you don’t agree with me that once on mars 19th century technology would be sufficient? Do you really think another 89 years of technology will not be?
Before going to Mars we should go to Mercury, for several reasons, not the least of which is irritating Bob Zubrin. ^_^
It’s a shorter flight time (about 3 months on a Hohmann transfer).
Solar cells will be put out much more power, with sunlight at approximately 9,000 W/m^2 on average, with a peak that’s far higher due to Mercury’s highly elliptical orbit. In contrast, Mars only offers about 500 W/m^2, so for a given power output a Mars solar panel has to be almost 20 times larger than it would on Mercury. Mercury is awash in easy energy.
Growing plants on Mercury is likewise much easier, with 88 days of constant sunlight so intense that each meter of window can provide enough light for about 10 square meters of plants on a 16 hours on/8 hours off cycle.
The surface gravity is 0.38 G’s, making it an ideal place to enjoy Mars gravity without going to Mars, (and who would want to go there?) and with no atmosphere any lander we build for Mercury would be useful for moon missions, in case we wimp out on the program.
Mercury’s temperature varies widely, making it easy to select a landing site near enough to the poles or in the morning to provide a comfortable environment for several weeks, if not months. Mars is going to be cold everywhere.
Mercury is extremely rich in metals, and the high peak surface temperature and solar flux would make it easy for concentrating solar collectors to run smelters. You load the smelters up in the morning, let it run for a couple months, and then collect the refined metals in the evening or the next morning, after a long night of cooling.
It’s the smallest planet, and starting small is logical.
It’s the first planet, and starting at the first planet is also logical.
It’s off the beaten path, so it won’t be overrun with freakin’ Mars tourists.
Mars is the god of war (bad), whereas Mercury is the messenger, and our information economy, the Internet itself, is built on messenging and communications (good).
An Asimov Habitat in orbit above Mercury running a bunch of mining robots would be a great to exploit it’s resources.
..go to Mercury…irritating Bob Zubrin.
Yup, that would do it.
3 months on a Hohmann…
It’s not the flight time they’re concerned about it’s the radiation.
Mercury is awash in [higher radiation levels]
Growing plants on Mercury [sunlight] so intense
no atmosphere
…to provide some radiation protection and a useful easy source of gases.
Mercury’s temperature varies widely
Mars is going to be cold everywhere.
It’s a lot easier to raise temperature than to lower. It’s less dangerous to make minor adjustments than wildly varying adjustments.
Mercury is extremely rich in metals
A good point, but farther away from the habitable zone. We’ll exploit mercury one day, but it shouldn’t be first.
It’s the smallest planet, and starting small is logical.
Not a bad point, but not the determining issue.
It’s the first planet, and starting at the first planet is also logical.
You thought you could slip this one by, didn’tcha?
It’s off the beaten path, so it won’t be overrun with freakin’ Mars tourists.
Now you’re just getting silly. But seriously, selling real estate pays for ALL costs. Other economic activity is gravy. Only the first 144 million if we make the claims one sq. km. Nine or sixteen sq. km. might work as well. Any arguments regarding that?
Mars is the god of war (bad), whereas Mercury is the messenger, and our information economy, the Internet itself, is built on messenging and communications (good).
Low on sugar???
Ken,
Despite Dr. Zubrin’s claims pioneering Mars is not going to be like Little House on the Prairie with space suits. You are dealing with very toxic soil the becomes very that gets into everything thanks to the very high winds in a high radiation environment that makes the worst Super Fund site look like the Garden of Eden. To survive you will need to be completely isolated from that environment. To survive you will also need food product/recycling technology that is 100 percent fail safe and 100 percent effective. You are not even close that today. Indeed, getting to Mars is the easy part compared to surviving off the land once you get there.
That should be “very toxic dust”
Yes, Thomas, the environment will kill you. I used to work at a company that worked with “very toxic dust.” As a matter of fact, we had to bury a number of half a million or so dollar machines because of their toxicity rather than normal methods of disposal. The air in the factory of 300 employees was replaced every few minutes or so. It’s amazing what humans can do when we want to.
It does seem that Zubrin has destroyed VASIMIR. Another link…
http://www.universetoday.com/87425/zubrin-claims-vasimr-is-a-hoax/
@ken: If you can’t safely handle the radiaation near Merccury, which is probably more constant and intense than a trip to Mars, you can’t safely handle radiation events that you will encounter during a trip to Mars. For the Mercury trip you know you’ll need adequate shielding (polyethylene trashbags or UHMW are ideal, and reduce landfill space!), but many of the Mar,s proposals skimp or entirely skip shielding and just roll the dice on the odds of a fatal radiation burst.
Growing plants on Mercury is easier than on Mars because you’ve got 20 times more solar flux. This is important because on Mars you need lots of window area, but the windows still have to be pressure rated and humans still have to enter the greenhouses. The ASME standards for a positive pressure window are quite rigid, and if you get too many windows the only thing the crew can do is conduct window inspections and yearly replacement. Most of the O’Neill colony designs fall apart on that point. For growing, the only difference between the Martian atmosphere and a hard vacuum is massive convective losses and dust accumulation.
Raising greenhouse temperatures on Mars sounds easier, except that everything is cold, the sun is dim, and solar cells don’t provide much power. Cooling on Mercury is easy by contrast, because aluminium foil can be shaped to provide and umbrella against the sun and a lower skirt to reflect heat from the surface, letting heat radiate out to the cold of space without convection or atmospheric interference.
Mercury can also support mass drivers to launch products into orbit or even directly on Earth transfer trajectories. Orbital greenhouses built on Mercury can have little tiny windows feeding 20 times the plant growth you could get in Mars orbit. To hammer home the point, how hard would it be to colonize a moon of Saturn, where a solar cell can’t even stay warm enough to function?
Mercury would create a booming industrial base, an incredible agricultural output, and an awesome nightlife. It would be the Taiawn, Singapore, Tokyo, New York, London, Paris, and LA of the solar system, while Mars will never amount to more than the Nacogdoches Texas or Mogadishu of the Solar system. Heck, the backwards folk on Mars won’t even have VASIMIR drives. People lounging on Venus will make sitcoms about them.
You make some good points George. I would agree that if you have a general purpose ship it aught to be adequately shielded to go to either mars or mercury (otherwise how could you justify calling it general purpose?)
massive convective losses
A real engineer would have to tell me what that would be for the thin martian atmosphere. I haven’t a clue (other than there would be some rate.) Dust is a problem on any surface, atmosphere or not. Not in orbit and more so in atmosphere of course.
everything is cold [on mars]
This is why we leave the envirowackos on earth and go nuclear. Nuclear power just makes so much sense on a cold world.
What about mineral diversity? I know mars has it. Mercury would have good metal deposits, but what about other elements (let me look…) It has about the same density as the earth so that’s good. Mars and mercury could probably share an SSTO lander design but fueling is trivial on mars.
ISRU research would be different for the two. Water on mercury might be a big problem but we’re finding water everywhere. Most would prefer the more earthlike day/night cycle.
I think once you colonize mars, mercury would follow close behind. Mars would have better access to the outer system which is not a big consideration this century. A healthy industrial society needs perhaps a million people which I think would happen faster on mars than mercury (more resellable real estate.)
Well Ken, convective losses probably wouldn’t amount to much on Mars, since the atmosphere is so thin, but they’d be higher than on Mercury.
I really doubt many people would want to go to Mercury, in truth. Heck, we’ve hardly bothered to send space probes there. Even Venus gets more attention, though probably as a poster child for global warming funds.
Ken,
[[[As a matter of fact, we had to bury a number of half a million or so dollar machines because of their toxicity rather than normal methods of disposal. The air in the factory of 300 employees was replaced every few minutes or so.]]]
Good strategies for Earth, but any machinery you bring to Mars will be too valuable to bury given a replacement will take at least a year to arrive. And replacing air in a Mars habitat every few minutes will be a lot more difficult then on Earth. And you won’t just be working around the dust a few hours, but 24/7 for as long as you survive, and with medical help a year away if you make ANY mistake, its likely won’t be long.
Humans will eventually tame Mars, but it won’t be by Dr. Zubrin’s Little House on the Prairie model. It will be by placing one or more Asimov Habitats in high orbit dedicated to using advanced robots and short human visits to the surface to prepare the way.
That is also the strategy behind Buzz Aldrin’s proposal to make Phobos an early goal and to establish a base on it first, before tackling the surface of Mars.
We had a poor strategy for moon dust but our short stays allowed it to work out. We will have to do better whenever we go back to the moon.
On mars we won’t have to bury the toxic machines, we will just continue to use them in the toxic environment and repair them in that toxic environment. Most machines will not be used in a toxic environment, but in a shirtsleeve environment where that toxic dust is not an issue.
replacing air in a Mars habitat every few minutes will be a lot more difficult then on Earth
So you don’t replace it, you filter it. Bubble it through water and your dust problem just went away. Your airlocks could include a footbath and sprayhoses to knock the dust off your boots. No more difficult than wearing galoshes in some parts of the country.
Although telerobots will be used to scout out landing sites first, Phobos is in the wrong orbit, better to just stay in your orbiting ships until ready to land. Asimov Habitats are just a distraction since you yourself have pointed out it will be a while before we have them.
Short stays are for wimps. We land with the purpose of research and conquering the problems. We don’t have to be 100% perfect. People may even die. I’m sure of it. That shouldn’t prevent us from going. Pioneers take the arrows. We give it our best and move forward. Or we sit here and endlessly talking about it while going in circles getting nowhere.
Ken,
I wonder what it is about Mars that turns folks like Dr. Zubrin and his followers into such zealots ignoring life science research and the data showing Mars Direct is just a very expensive form of suicide.
The good thing is no government will ever fund it while it makes no sense from an investment viewpoint.
Ken, one fairly easy solution to the dust problem is to use that spacesuit design where the back of the suit was a hatch. The suit just docks with the outside of the building, the hatch opens, and you crawl inside in your skivies. The outside of the suit stays outside.
For any dust inside just use a cyclone dust collector like you find in better woodworking shops, followed by regular particulate filters. That or just man up. I’ve never seen a Western where the cowboys are going “Ick! I’ve got dust on me!”
I think one of the biggest daily challenges will be suiting up the horses in the morning. Getting those back legs in is a bitch.
Horses are pussy cats. I think the front legs are harder, but I’ve got a solution. Have their space suit split down the spine. You can get the horse to slide up to the wall then secure the other half of the suit (which includes a feedbag… teaching them to drink from a straw might be a bit difficult.)
But seriously, that’s a good idea. Your spacesuit could fit into your vehicles the same way it fits into the outside of a building. Other emergency exits would also be needed.
Livestock would stay inside.
Suicide Thomas, really? Even Zubrin has changed his tune regarding the direct approach. You have yet to come up with anything that can’t be dealt with. You’re not going to be breathing in a dangerous level of toxic dust. You do realize that you are currently breathing in toxins right now, don’t you? Not to mention subjecting yourself to high levels of radiation, right now? Move people from Phoenix to South Dakota without any preparation and half of them wouldn’t survive the first winter.
Ken,
You haven’t clue about the surface environment on Mars do you?
Here is a report from the NAP you should track down from your local library and read to see just how dangerous the Martian environment is for humans.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309084261
Safe on Mars
Precursor Measurements Necessary to Support Human Operations on the Martian Surface
Committee on Precursor Measurements Necessary to Support Human Operations on the Surface of Mars
Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board Space Studies Board
Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
National Research Council
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C.
Learn what Dr. Zubrin is not taking into consideration in his Little House on the Prairie with spacesuits scheme.
And read up sometime on what Capt. John Young had to say about lunar dust and spacesuits. It applies to Mars as well.