Russell asked me for this information off-list, but I thought it might be of
general interest to those of you interested in our future in space.
Josh
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russell Whitaker [mailto:russell_whitaker@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 6:33 PM
> To: martin.907@osu.edu
> Subject: RE: It may be hard for life to get started
>
>
> Josh,
>
> This is insightful; thanks!
You're welcome!
>
> I'm still mulling whether to involve myself in the Mars
> Society. I'm not interested in dissipating my efforts
> in a NASA-cheerleading squad like the NSS. Is the character
> of the Mars Society much different?
The character I have gotten from my admittedly limited involvement (I was
out of the country for the convocation in Toronto last summer, but I have
seen/heard Zubrin speak many times, read his books, and given presentations
on the Society) is that the society has one goal: getting humans to Mars.
Opinions in the group range from NASA fans to libertarian idealists. The
Ohio chapter head is going to work for NASA as a space medicine physician,
but even he admits NASA's many, many faults. Zubrin has spoken often about
his disappointment in NASA, but he retains some hope it can be brought back
to its former glory. I really can't say anything about his politics, he
seems to be dedicated only to Mars. One especially good sign is that the
society has a contingency plan for a lack of NASA involvement. From the
membership trifold:
"The Mars Society is an international effort to launch humanity towards the
new world. Our purpose is to further the exploration and settlement of the
planet Mars through:
-Broad public outreach to instill the vision of pioneering the Red Planet,
-Mobilizing support for ever more aggressive government-funded Mars
exploration programs around the world, and
-Conducting Mars exploration on a private basis.
Starting small, with Earth-based technology demonstration activities and
then hitchhiker payloads on government funded missions, we intend to use the
credibility created by such activities to mobilize larger resources that
will enable stand-alone private robotic missions and ultimately human
exploration."
So, it's a mix of government and private, with the emphasis on private. I
don't get the impression that the Society has much faith in NASA, and they
have put their money where their mouth is and put up a research station in
the Arctic. The Discovery channel will be filming their activities there
starting this summer, and they are now taking applications for volunteers.
I'm a member because they do stuff. I have personally given many
presentations and sat at many tables to get publicity for the project. I'm
currently arranging to get Zubrin to come speak at OSU (my university) this
spring. With the way the Society is progressing, I really feel like my
efforts are making a difference, and getting something done. Other groups,
like Artemis or the Planetary Society, seem to be stagnating, with no clear
purpose or goal.
The only qualms I have about the Society are silly. I sometimes feel funny
saying "Zubrin this, Zubrin that, the Society this," like some sort of
acolyte. But it is men (and women) like Zubrin who get stuff done, and
groups of loyal followers who help them.
If you have any more specific questions, let me know. Though I think it is
not very well designed, the website (www.marssociety.org) has lots of useful
information. They also have forums and projects (such as the research
station, or the pressurized rover) with which you can get involved. If you
have any expertise, engineering, computer, or otherwise, you can help out,
they won't turn down free help.
If you don't mind, could I post this to the extropy list as well? Other
members may be interested.
For Mars,
Josh Martin
Columbus, Ohio, Chapter Head
The Mars Society
-
>
> Thanks,
> Russell
>
>
> >From: "Josh Martin" <martin.907@osu.edu>
> >Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org
> >To: <extropians@extropy.org>
> >Subject: RE: It may be hard for life to get started
> >Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 17:21:09 -0500
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-extropians@extropy.org
> > > [mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.org]On Behalf Of Russell Whitaker
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 11:52 AM
> > > To: extropians@extropy.org
> > > Cc: transhuman@logrus.org
> > > Subject: Re: It may be hard for life to get started
> > >
> > >
> > > Someone please forward this to Robert Zubrin.
> >
> >You can do it yourself, or at least to those in his organization, at
> >www.marssociety.org. Not to drop names or anything, but I do have his
> >email
> >address, though I don't want to give it out here without his
> permission.
> >In
> >my experience, though, he responds, however briefly, to most
> >communications,
> >and, though he exudes an air of impatience, he will listen to
> what you have
> >to say when you talk to him.
> >
> >The penultimate
> > > chapter of his *Entering Space*
> > > ("http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1585420360/"), "Meeting
> > > ET", is one of number of flaws* in an otherwise mostly excellent
> > > work**.
> >
> >I agree it is a good work. His first book _The Case For Mars_ is also
> >great.
> >
> > >
> > > There, he jiggers the Drake Equation to show outrageous
> > > values for components such as f-sub-ell on the righthand
> > > side of the equation.
> > >
> > > Russell
> > >
> > > * - some other flaws, in brief:
> > > 1.) surprisingly unresearched typical statement about freezing
> > > damage (the "cells expand and rupture" business) due to cryonic
> > > suspension
> > > 2.) strawman arguments against feasibility of molecular
> > > nanotechnology
> >
> >Don't know about these things, though I haven't read the whole book. A
> >little disappointing, though not unexpected. I know a guy who works on
> >Closed Ecological Life Support Systems, including implementing
> them in his
> >own home, who talked with Zubrin about his ideas in my presence,
> and Zubrin
> >was the embodiment of skepticism. Strange, from a guy who wants to send
> >missions to other planets, but it gives you an idea of how feasible he
> >believes the trip to be.
> >
> > > 3.) his embrace of Apollo-style government expenditures
> > > - and government funding in general - to reach Mars
> >
> >This one, though, I can comment upon. I think Zubrin is just
> pandering to
> >the guys with the money right now, to see if he can squeeze the
> mission out
> >of them. He already got them to adopt a minorly revised version of his
> >plan
> >as their design reference mission, but funding does not seem to be
> >increasing, and they will not set the correct timetable. They
> still refuse
> >to drop the extraneous crap from their list of "necessary
> steps," the same
> >bureaucratic nonsense that killed Bush the Elder's plan (they
> had the balls
> >to ask for 900 billion dollars. HA!).
> >
> >Zubrin is not waiting around for the government, however. He
> (and the Mars
> >Society) has already started to privately prepare with the Mars Arctic
> >Research Station (http://arctic.marssociety.org/) sponsored by Flashline,
> >the Discovery Channel, and others. The next step will be to get private
> >support for a piggy-back mission on a NASA Mars flight, and then
> a private
> >robotic mission to Mars, all with the purpose of preparing for a human
> >mission. If NASA fails completely, the Society has the goal of a
> >completely
> >private mission.
> >
> >Zubrin is, at heart, a die-hard pragmatist. He doesn't feel the need to
> >help kill NASA by privatization of space flight if NASA will get us to
> >Mars.
> >
> >Josh Martin
> >Columbus, Ohio, Chapter Head,
> >The Mars Society
> >
> > >
> > > ** - otherwise, I do highly recommend this book.
> > >
> > >
> > > >From: "John Clark" <jonkc@worldnet.att.net>
> > > >
> > > >In today's issue of Nature a team of scientists from UCLA and the
> > > >Curtin University of Technology in Perth Australia present strong
> > > >evidence that liquid water existed on Earth at least 4.3 billion
> > > years ago,
> > > >400 million years earlier than previously thought. The oldest
> > > known fossil
> > > >is 3.85 billion years old and if we only started to get liquid water
> >3.9
> > > >billion
> > > >ago as had been believed then the origin of life, at least
> the simplest
> > > >forms of it, must have formed very quickly and thus be easy to do.
> > > >But if life needed those extra 400 million years to get
> started then it
> > > >might
> > > >not be effortless for nature to produce even the most
> rudimentary life
> > > >forms.
> > > >This may mean that simple life as well as the complex stuff like
> > > us is rare
> > > >in the universe.
> > > >
> > > > John K Clark jonkc@att.net
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:19 MDT