It looks like a 'manned' mission to Mars is so far off that NASA isn't 
doing much more than saying it would be great to go there later.  Much, 
much later, you know what they mean.  The current rate of progress will 
put us on Mars just before my dead bones petrify.  Bob Zubrin is start 
a Mars Society that he hopes will gather international support for the 
cause.  He has a number of ideas about using local Mars resources to 
support a colony there.

How such an undertaking can avoid the Apollo science flash in the pan 
syndrome I would like to know?

3 responses total.

People do all sorts of things for doubtful economic reasons.  Perhaps we 
could persuade some rich guys, or corporation, or throng of 
corporations, to set up on Mars for a tax break.  Tax rebates for 
utilizing native materials.  Tax incentives for providing their own 
transport and resupply.  How much could it cost the Feds?  For a 
potential profit people will attempt to cross the country through 
warlike enemies in WAGONS!  They will struggle across frozen wastes in 
dogsleds.  They would probably attempt to go to Mars in tin cans if the 
economic prominse were great enough.

I'd like to hear more about ideas for a colony on mars, from a technical
point of view.  Anyone know?

Economic promise from Mars?  I doubt it, for quite a while.  Unless
there are people who will pay for Mars rocks there isn't much you
can sell off the planet until you have a large industrial base, and
that pre-supposes a lot of people there.  See a chicken/egg problem?
 
The first products from Mars are going to be scientific data.  For
instance, we still don't know if the chemical processes on Mars ever
created anything living, and if so if it resembles Earth life or not.
We could learn quite a bit from picking around in the rocks and drilling
holes.  The first economic opportunities would be supplying the scientists.
 
I like the Zubrin Mars Direct concept (and I don't care much for the
semi-direct variant).  Mars Direct would plant, every two years, a
lander with a living space and a nuclear power reactor somewhere on the
surface.  Unlike the DIPS (dynamic isotope power system) proposed for
semi-direct, the reactors would be controllable and useful for much
longer.  This makes them suitable for boot-strapping other ventures
once the original missions have terminated.
 
Also, a reactor can be launched "cold", with very little radioactivity
and not generating much heat.  A DIPS is hot from the get-go and
requires a working heat sink for the entire mission.

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss