Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

. . . exploring, settling, and even terraforming Mars is far easier than NASA would have you believe.

Is this statement, standing alone, controversial?

Posted by Bill White at August 7, 2006 07:36 AM

Fo?

Posted by Astrosmith at August 7, 2006 08:11 AM

Years ago, I read Bob's book Entering Space. He has some interesting ideas, but that contempt mentioned by Dwayne Day came through even then. It just seems to me that since then, he has gone off the deep end and turned himself into a zealot that has little credibility outside of his circle of true believers. He's an irritant now, and not really contributing much to opening up space to private use, flight and development, the very issues he seemed so adamant about in Entering Space. Am I just imagining this, or has anyone else noticed it as well?

Posted by Greg at August 7, 2006 08:57 AM

You are not alone Greg. When the calendar hits 2012, and we are not at Mars yet... I have no idea what Zubrin will do, but I doubt it will be pretty.

Posted by Leland at August 7, 2006 10:24 AM

After watching The Mars Underground, many people will be convinced that exploring, settling, and even terraforming Mars is far easier than NASA would have you believe.

I don't know if this is so desirable. I think we'd be better off, like Kennedy, saying outright it will be hard and dangerous and expensive -- and maybe the first two are just why we'll do it. People will die tragically, in ways that in retrospect could have easily been prevented. There will be huge unexpected cost overruns, and knotty problems, and screw-ups. But it will also be glorious, an achievement that will live forever.

People want to be told work-a-day stuff is cheap and easy. You sell an oil-changing service by telling people it'll be quick and easy and cheap. But people want adventures to be spectacular, and telling them it's hard and expensive often merely increases their attractiveness.

So is Mars an adventure or just a job to be done? (I realize it's got to be the latter to the people who do the work; I'm talking about how it looks to Joe Citizen.) If it's seen as just a job to be done, like fixing the levees in Nawlins, the probability that it actually gets done will be low, I think.

Posted by Carl Pham at August 7, 2006 01:48 PM

There are a number of documentaries about Zubrin and the Mars movement that air semi-regularly on the verious Discovery channels. None has spawned a mass movement. I have to wonder if this one is all that different.

The reviewer also makes a curious comment, "It is also hard to argue about proper crew size and water requirements with the only people who actually put humans into space on a regular basis."

NASA has the only people who actually put humans into space on a regular basis? That would come as a surprise to the Russians. Also, the "proper" crew size is largely a function of mission choice -- what you want the crew to do -- and water requirements can be obtained from an human factors handbook. Whether Zubrin is right or wrong, it is obvious that one does not need to "actually put humans into space on a regular basis" to have an informed opinion on such things.

Stranger still, "NASA’s entry, descent and landing experts—the handful of people who have actually landed craft on Mars—admit that they do not know how they would land a 40 metric-ton vehicle... on the surface of the planet."

None of NASA's entry, descent, and landing experts (called "pilots" in English :-) have actually landed craft on Mars, but I'm sure many of them have ideas about how they would do it. I presume the reviewer actually meant the NASA *analysts* who program robots to land themselves on Mars. That's a completely different problem from landing a manned vehicle, however. There are many things pilots do that cannot be easily automated.

Finally, "It’s worth noting that all the nuclear reactors that we do have require substantial human tending, something that would not be possible with the time delay to Mars." Teleoperation entails a time delay. Human tending, of course, does not. It isn't clear what the author meant here.

Posted by Edward Wright at August 7, 2006 02:01 PM

You mean we can't just deploy airbags and let the lander bounce and roll a few times before coming to a rest. Damn... scratch that idea.

Posted by Leland at August 7, 2006 02:25 PM

With humans? Only in the movies. (And in only one of them, I believe.)

Posted by Frank Glover at August 7, 2006 06:09 PM

> You mean we can't just deploy airbags and let the lander bounce and roll
> a few times before coming to a rest. Damn... scratch that idea.

Well, that is the plan for CEV, I believe -- but I wouldn't recommend it. :-)

Posted by Edward Wright at August 7, 2006 06:40 PM

Screw Mars. Back to the Moon, I say - and to the nearer asteroids - this time to stay, and work, and gain resources and energy, and make a new future for mankind.

Time enough for Mars when we've grown so much it's easy.

As for finding life, Europa is a better bet.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at August 8, 2006 03:31 AM

I remember watching the X-38 drop tests. First the initial stablizing drag chute pops out from the rear. Once stablized, bolts are blown, causing the chute to go from the rear to the top... The immediate reaction is the X-38 doing a violent pitch up manuever as the drag force changes vectors rapidly. Even if survivable, it didn't look like something I'd want to experience.

We noted that replays skipped that portion. Indeed, the atmospheric profile didn't look bas at all, except for that portion. Still, there were other problems that doomed that program.

Posted by Leland at August 8, 2006 11:16 AM

"But the “why Mars” message in the film is the one that Zubrin adopted after the Columbia accident: that a human mission to Mars would give a central driving goal to NASA, which is badly in need of one."

He's been saying this from day one. Perhaps he's emphasizing it more now?

Posted by at August 8, 2006 11:35 AM

Count me among the mutineers, Mr Christian. ;^)

Posted by Jay Manifold at August 8, 2006 12:50 PM

> that contempt mentioned by Dwayne Day came through even then.

You should try working for the man. *Contempt* was something he had considerable store of for his employees, especially those who disagreed with him and who proved themselves right.

"There are no safety concerns!" Shudder.

> It just seems to me that since then, he has gone off the deep end and turned himself into a zealot

He may have gotten worse, but he was this way as long ago as 1996. It think, though, that what's happened is that more people have noticed it.

Posted by Scott Lowther at August 8, 2006 01:21 PM

> that contempt mentioned by Dwayne Day came through even then.

You should try working for the man. *Contempt* was something he had considerable store of for his employees, especially those who disagreed with him and who proved themselves right.

"There are no safety concerns!" Shudder.

> It just seems to me that since then, he has gone off the deep end and turned himself into a zealot

He may have gotten worse, but he was this way as long ago as 1996. It think, though, that what's happened is that more people have noticed it.

Posted by Scott Lowther at August 8, 2006 01:21 PM

Ed,

You said, "Finally, "It’s worth noting that all the nuclear reactors that we do have require substantial human tending, something that would not be possible with the time delay to Mars." Teleoperation entails a time delay. Human tending, of course, does not. It isn't clear what the author meant here."

The author clearly was making a reference to the untended nuclear power plant of the ERV (the Earth Return Vehicle of the Mars Direct plan).

For two years the ERV sits on Mars alone and unmanned while awaiting the arrival of the manned habitat lander. During this interval the ERV manufactures rocket propellant using hydrogen seedstock carried from Earth and carbon dioxide collected from the Martian atmosphere. Powering this process of manufacture and storage of liquid oxygen and liquid methane rocket propellant is a nuclear reactor. Hence the authors comment of the groundbreaking nature of an untended nuclear power plant.

Posted by Brad at August 8, 2006 01:40 PM

About Zubrin

Zubrin's attitude is about what I would have expected from reading his book, "The case for Mars." It's a fine book, but I couldn't help but notice the way Zubrin attacks the ideas of nameless others by accusing them of self-serving agendas. Poisoning the well of debate is amazingly unfair, and failing to name the individuals accused smears the reputations of innocent bystanders. The message one takes from the book is that Zubrin believes that anyone who diagrees with Zubrin's Mars Direct plan is either a fool or a crook.

I just don't understand why Zubrin would indulge in such axe grinding, since that runs contrary to the goal of the book, "The case for Mars." If the purpose of the book is to convince others of the wisdom of the Mars Direct Plan, would good does it do to burn bridges to the very people and institutions who would carry out the Mars Direct Plan?

Posted by Brad at August 8, 2006 02:00 PM

Brad,

That's close to the same kind of things I noticed about Entering Space. He makes some good arguments for changing the paradiem of space travel and exploration on one hand, and then takes swipes at those that would be, or already are involved in doing exactly that. Not a great way to win friends and influence people...

Posted by Greg at August 8, 2006 04:09 PM

All,

Having been at the business end of a Bob Zubrin attack for reasonably disagreeing with him, I really (unfortunately) have to agree with such criticisms.

There's certainly no questioning that Bob is intelligent and driven; but lately, he does seem to be crossing the line with increased frequency. A few days ago, when commenting on detractors who wished to cancel the space program, he said something to the effect that "taxpayers would be saved just enough money to go out and buy their kids black trenchcoats", and that "the best practice for dealing with congressman is interacting with special needs children". These comments--at best--made many in his audience extremely unconfortable.

I think the most tragic thing is that Bob is currently leading the Humans-to-Mars movement, and that he's belying both his credibility and to some extent the credibility of his followers by saying the things that he does.

Space physiology IS an issue. Ask an expert. EDL IS an issue. Ask an expert. Bob is neither, but claims such concerns (and many others) to be trivial. For those of us who want humans to Mars, and are working in earnest to trouble-shoot the problems associated with such an effort, our self-appointed leader is beginning to hurt us.

Posted by Anonymous at August 8, 2006 04:41 PM

After reading all of these comments concerning Dr. Zubrin's behavior, one has to wonder if he has narcissistic personality disorder.

Posted by X at August 8, 2006 04:52 PM

Why does anyone want to make Mars the next project?

The Apollo project should be seen for what it was - premature, a wrong turning and a monstrously expensive political stunt. Why does anyone want to repeat this on an even bigger scale?

It may well be that Apollo was a necessary part of the Cold War. But if we hadn't made that leap to the Moon, maybe by now there would be humans living and working there - and on some of the more useful of the asteroids - and in space colonies - and space would a resource source rather than sink.

I would rather see (not that I am likely to live long enough) a Mars landing in maybe 2050, with the expedition starting from one of several L5 colonies.

But it won't happen that way, because that way won't get any Congressmen re-elected. Another illustration that, for all governments, pork is the first item on the menu.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at August 9, 2006 02:42 AM

> I think the most tragic thing is that Bob is currently leading the Humans-to-Mars movement

He's in charge of the Mars Society*. However, his influence - and that of the MS - in *actually* getting things done are over-rated at best. Bush and Griffin would be on the road to Mars regardless of Zubrin and the MS. So is he truly leading the "movement?" Or is he running one advocacy group with minor influence?

* And thus, I'm no longer a member.

Posted by Scott Lowther at August 9, 2006 07:59 AM

I'm always interested to hear from someone who has a long-term vision regarding permanent settlement of the Solar System. But I'm dismayed by Zubrin's obsession with Mars. Settlement on the Moon is the logical next step. There is too much infrastructure to work out first. When something goes wrong, as it inevitably will, would you rather be days if not hours away from outside assistance, or months if not years? It's a no-brainer. Some may say that the Moon does not have the elements necessary to support a permanent colony. Well maybe that's true and maybe it isn't. Let's find out first!

Posted by David Bush at August 9, 2006 11:46 AM

"Space physiology IS an issue. Ask an expert. EDL IS an issue. Ask an expert. Bob is neither, but claims such concerns (and many others) to be trivial."

There are a lot of subjects where the engineering and scientific communities believe that significant research and testing is required before a human Mars mission and where Zubrin has dismissed them as trivial. Space radiation, EDL, space physiology, and related engineering issues like fluid mechanics and materials all fit this category.

Two examples that I find particularly notable are biological contamination and lunar geology and geophysics. Zubrin dismisses the planetary protection issue as unimportant, making the humorous analogy that because a tree cannot catch a cold, humans have nothing to worry about from possible biological organisms on Mars. But you would be hard pressed to find a single astrobiologist or planetary geologist who agrees with this. At the very least, if you are looking for signs of life on Mars, you don't want to contaminate your samples. Planetary protection is taken very seriously by the scientific community.

Similarly, last year Zubrin published an op-ed in Space News where he claimed that Paul Spudis was wrong about crater density on the moon (and by extension, the Moon is therefore scientifically uninteresting). Now Zubrin had a point that Mars is more scientifically interesting than the Moon, but he took it to extreme lengths by claiming that Spudis was wrong. This was rather absurd because Spudis is a well-regarded lunar scientist and Zubrin is, well, not a scientist. Would we care what an auto-mechanic says about gene splicing? No, so why should we accept Zubrin's comments on a subject that he is clearly no expert about?

The problem is that this attitude essentially marginalizes him. Rather than forming connections with the communities that he needs (like Mars scientists), he alienates them and ensures that his proposals have little chance of succeeding. How far is he going to get in obtaining funding if Congress can turn to the scientific community and find that they _all_ disagree with him?

It is interesting to contrast the Mars Society with the Planetary Society. The latter has developed instruments to fly on spacecraft and has even tried to develop generic technologies, like solar sails. Supposedly the Mars Society originally planned to do similar things. But is there any evidence at all that they have sponsored serious research to develop instruments and technologies for Mars? Their Mars "research stations" are little more than space camp for grownups, where people don plexiglass helmets and attach PVC hoses to their backpacks and pretend to be on Mars. But these operations demonstrate very little that will be useful for exploring Mars.

Posted by George Garwin at August 9, 2006 01:15 PM

If Zubrin stopped being Zubrin he wouldn't be Zubrin any more. He brings a perspective no one else can bring.

For better AND for worse.

Posted by Bill White at August 9, 2006 08:23 PM

I'm going to weigh in as someone who actually has done grad work in social psychology, read Zubrin's book "The Case for Mars" and seen him in action.

First, I'm wildly skeptical that a mission to Mars of only four people would be an adequate start to actually accomplishing anything except screwing up (or worse) four people. It's rather uncontroversial that normal people need interactions with others on a frequent basis. People might try Googling "small group dynamics" for a taste of the literature. I should warn you that when I did it, I got over 62 million hits.

Physiology on the trip and on Mars raises questions as well. We know astronauts are affected significantly by even six months in orbit -- and that's with them taking significant countermeasures. Mars also has only 38% of Earth gravity. Zubrin claims that's enough. I'd like to see some real, experimental research to back up that claim.

I'll leave discussion of other objections to his plans to people who know more than I do about them.

Two years ago I got to watch Zubrin in action for two whole days as part of the Space Exploration Alliance's Moon Mars Blitz. I avoided conflict by being unusually quiet. I did observe Zubrin not listening to staff members. One staff member -- pressed for time -- accepted one of Zubrin's books just to get rid of us.

At one point during the two days, Zubrin mentioned that his family had moved out of New York City just as he was starting high school. I got the impression that high school was not a happy time for Zubrin. High school can be a difficult time for the extremely intelligent as it is. People want to fit in -- and geniuses don't exactly fit in. Compound that with being the new kid on the block and you may get significant psychological problems.

Zubrin was reportedly quite involved with the Larouche crowd when he was younger. Those people are seriously removed from reality. They are also highly authoritarian -- as Zubrin seems to be, both from my personal observations and comments by other people. A leader who treats his employees with contempt is a classic example of such a person.

His attacks on people who disagree with him in any way are also symptomatic of the authoritarian leader. Nobody is right all the time. Better functioning adults recognize this and listen to at least some others in the course of normal living.

Treating elected officials with the contempt that Zubrin does shows both ignorance and, once again, an authoritarian personality. Virtually all of the people who hold elected office are generalists. They get many things wrong because of that. But most of them are also capable of learning from their mistakes. Treating any normal adult as a "special needs child" is a sure fire way of alienating them.

It would be very intersting to get him to take a battery of psychological tests and find out the results. I'm not holding my breath, though.

Posted by Chuck Divine at August 10, 2006 03:25 PM

Most people have the capacity to exchange genius for sanity, and vice versa. A true genius uses their spare intelligence to reinforce their sanity, and becomes very sane as a result.

I get the impression that Zubrin is just a smart guy so desperate to be perceived as a genius that he is willing to sacrifice his own sanity and the well being of those around him, (whether they like it or not), to that end. Sometimes the benefits out weigh the unpleasantness, but it bothers me when people flippantly excuse madness in the name of genius. Usually it is just someone too cheap with their intelligence to expend the effort in getting on with those around them. As it is largely a matter of personal choice, (though not necessarily an easy one), my sympathies are limited.

Posted by Pete Lynn at August 10, 2006 07:16 PM

Pete,

Do you have any basis for your claim? I've actually read a fair amount of the literature, know quite a few really smart people and must disagree with you. Really bright people can also be quite sane. The axes are pretty much independent of one another.

Posted by Chuck Divine at August 11, 2006 07:49 AM

Indeed they can – that was my point. Intelligence can increase free will which can increase sanity, on the other hand greater intelligence can increase insanity much like over clocking a computer can increase its tendency to crash. Then there is the structural component, variable insanity definitions, changing contexts, etcetera.

Due to the free will component insanity levels tend to self adjust to optimal levels – hence the seeming independence between intelligence and insanity – it is a bit like unemployment levels.

It seems to me Zubrin is not so insane or so unintelligent that he could not be much saner if he so chose – but he does not.

Posted by Pete Lynn at August 12, 2006 04:21 AM

Pete,

You are stating a hypothesis. It's an intriguing hypothesis, but a hypothesis none the less. Do you have any supporting evidence?

If you will note my original posting in this thread, I commented that I had done grad work in social psychology. In the rest of the post, I made observations that were reasonably based in established facts and some psychological theories that are fairly well established.

Do you see the difference? People will make comments about how humans behave that are really poorly rooted in reality. It doesn't happen all the time, but it does happen with sufficient frequency that people really should be more careful in general about the way they pontificate. Various kinds of fanaticisms (political, religious) are examples of the phenomenon of large groups of people getting basic things about humanity quite wrong. I'm not saying you are a fanatic -- I'm just using that as an example of wildly erroneous thinking about human behavior.

Posted by Chuck Divine at August 12, 2006 08:51 AM

I only have a years worth of educational background in this area – from the cognitive science end of things, which tends to shine a light on other areas of the problem.

In stating that observed insanity is relatively independent of intelligence you may? have been jumping to the conclusion that there was no causal relationship between intelligence and insanity. I was under the impression that at least a few such causal relationships have been observed, (for example serotonin levels – my definitions are necessarily broad). If so this probably infers that the seeming independent relationship between intelligence and insanity is actually to some extent actively maintained.

But to be honest I do not really need to know the exact details. I know that the evolutionary development of trying to fit as much intelligence in as small a brain as possible was constrained by pushing certain fairly obvious physical computational limits. Considering the value evolution places upon human intelligence it would be naive to think that evolution did not push those limits until something similarly disadvantageous, (for example insanity), pushed back just as hard.

Of course the brain is necessarily far more complicated than this. Have you studied anything of the engineering discipline of control theory? Viewing the brain in such a computational transfer function fashion, (which I place some credence in), yields quite an interesting definition and understanding of intelligence and insanity. This is pretty much the general theory I have been espousing – not that it does not have its weaknesses.

One of my favourite quotes on this subject: “If the brain was so simple that we could understand it, then we would be so simple that we could not.”

Posted by Pete Lynn at August 12, 2006 06:38 PM

To Mr. Garwin re: the Space News Op-Ed.

As someone who took the time to directly challenge Mr. Zubrin's Op-Ed ("The Importance of the Moon" by Kenneth Murphy, Space News, April 17, 2006 and the accompanying sidebar "25 Good Reasons to go to the Moon" http://www.space.com/spacenews/archive06/MurphySide_041706.html) I can tell you the basic gist of his argument was that it was pointless to go to the Moon to study craters because the Moon has no environment and you'll learn nothing nothing of the impact's aftermath in an environment, such as on Earth.

Which is entirely not the point. The cratering record being sought on the Moon relates to the current theory that the Earth undergoes periods of increased bombardment every 30-35 million years. People think this because the crater record we're accumulating here on Earth points to that kind of periodicity. Is it true? And if so, where are we in the cycle?

Of course, we also want to study things like the solar flux over time, as measured in the SWIEs, to see how the Sun has changed in its lifetime (sort of like taking ice samples of glaciers to study ancient air). Study of the Apollo samples has also shown that the regolith traps GCRs, so we can also study the changing environment of the Solar system as it circles the galactic core.

So we're talking about good science that relates to terrestrial security. The canard of the "environmental after affects" was just a weak attempt to dismiss those kinds of studies as an additional reason to go back to the Moon (besides for Mars training).

He either took the criticism well, or didn't make the association, because he was very nice to me at the ISDC in LA, and I look forward to working with him on Mars content for the 2007 ISDC in Dallas.

Posted by Ken Murphy at August 13, 2006 07:17 AM

Pete,

Please accept my apologies. All too often in these kinds of discussions I've encountered people with no real knowledge of a field spouting things that say more about them than about reality. Yes, a person's view of reality does frequently correspond to a more consensual reality, but there are times when the disconnect can become quite hilarious.

What you said in your most recent posting makes sense. My intellectual background includes grad work in physics as well as psychology. I also have an eclectic curiosity that does lead me to be somewhat better informed than the average person on number of topics. I've read entirely too little about brain chemistry, etc., to comment intelligently about what you've said in your last posting. What little exposure I have had has come through the social psychological perspective. For instance, while there really is something called attention deficit disorder, it appears to be wildly overdiagnosed by people who would rather blame children for the failure of their incorrect ideas rather than the ideas themselves.

Thanks again for the knowledge. If time permits, sometime in the future I'll try to learn more about the things you mentioned.

Best regards,

Chuck Divine

Posted by Chuck Divine at August 14, 2006 07:19 AM

Post a comment