Conference 7.286::space

    They seemed to talk more about what they would on Mars than on how
    to get there. And what struck me was the fact that the Russians
    - who seem to have a firm commitment to reach Mars - seemed more
    conservative and cautious than the Americans.
    
    	And did you notice the question-dodging? When an American physician
    asked the chief Russian physician about their conclusions on the
    effects of repeated prolonged space flight, that fellow gave a speech
    that was long on ifs and buts but very little concrete data.
    
    But it was impressive indeed to see how close these people ccan
    get when the talk about a subject they all are interested in.
    
    -parthi

>    	And did you notice the question-dodging? When an American physician
>    asked the chief Russian physician about their conclusions on the
>    effects of repeated prolonged space flight, that fellow gave a speech
>    that was long on ifs and buts but very little concrete data.


  You mean the question about bone mass decreasing over long periods of
time?  If so, yes, the Russians talked all about exersizing and getting
back in shape, but nothing about the actual physical problems encountered.
Also, didn't they show a scene from one of their hospitals where they had
volunteers who stayed flat on their backs for up to one year?  They were
using this to study the affect of not having to use the muscles and such....
The name of the place was real original also, something like INSTITUTE FOR
BIOLOGICAL PROBLEMS.



  Jim

    	Are you sure they were "volunteers"?
    
    	Larry
    

    	I saw it too.  I guess I have a different view of the direction
    needed.  I don't even consider Mars as an objective right now. 
    I'd like to establish a permanent space station with 1 g artificial
    gravity and a permanent Moon base before even considering going to
    Mars.  Let's consolidate what we have before we up the stakes again.
    It would be a very valuable asset to have a Moon base capable of 
    producing rocket fuel.  We could make it on the Moon, transport it 
    to the space station and use it to fuel a ship to Mars which isn't
    launched from Earth.  We then avoid the need to launch all that
    weight each time we want to go somewhere.  All we have to do is
    get the ship into orbit (either piece by piece or all at once) and
    then we can load up on fuel up there.
    
    	I agree that this may not be the glamourous route that many people
    want to take, but in my mind it's the logical route.
    
    The show was good though.
    
    Rich                                                 
    

    one thing i realized from the show was the importance of 
    setting up a base on one of the moons, a colony there would
    easier than our moon, it would give us training for opening up
    the astroid belt plus the colony would have the resources of
    mars below them, not a bad package i know if nasa offered 
    a one way pioneer ticket special i'd grab it.  this isn't
    to say if i was offered the same ticket to the moon i'd 
    refuse it in fact i know many people who would contribute
    money to my ticket, people are so nice to me sometimes.
    pete

From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Sagan lecture: "Star Wars or Mars?"
Date: 3 Nov 87 03:51:00 GMT

    I'm sure this will be of interest to netters; I'm trying to post
it while it's still fresh in my mind. 
     
    Carl Sagan gave a lecture this evening here at Cornell attacking
S.D.I. and promoting the proposal for a joint US/Soviet initiative for
the exploration of Mars.  I shall not repeat the many avenues of attack
he used on S.D.I., as I'm sure you all have heard similar arguments in
one form or another.  I will say that my impression of his presentation
of the Mars initiative was that while it seemed to imply a long-term,
cooperative effort involving near-Earth presence, there was no
substantive statement made to say, "Yes, let's also get a major
presence going that might have some application beyond this Mars
proposal," ie., my impression was that you could read more positive
things into his remarks than were there. 
     
    I asked the following during the question period:  "You propose a
long-term Mars US/USSR mission.  Would not a similar major cooperative
mission of lunar exploration, including a permanent human lunar
presence, also fulfill the objectives you gave [eg, technologically
challenging but feasible, something that the populace could identify
with emotionally, visionary, etc.], plus have the added advantages of
possible near-term economic benefits such as return of resources to
Earth, as well as having greater psychological significance to the
populace, ie, the Moon is something they can identify with rather than
being a red dot?  Why do you not advocate a lunar mission, if only as a
way of building the infrastructure to help achieve an ultimate goal of
Mars?" 
     
    His repsonse went like this (this is of course not an exact quote
but I'm trying to convey its flavor as best I can):  "Excellent
question.  The reason is:  Rightly or wrongly, the American people don't
identify with the Moon.  They say, 'Yeah, we went to the Moon, they
brought some rocks back, I saw one once, it looked just like a rock
from Earth.'  The Moon is inherently a dull place.  There's no geologic
activity there, there's nothing there to stimulate our interest.  We've
been there already; it's too easy:  We need to try something harder."
And immediately turned to the next speaker, even though no speaking
line had yet formed (I made sure I was going to be first for
questions!).  I remained with the small crowd after the talk but was
unable to ask any follow-ups. 

    [The hell with ignorant public opinion!  Let's do what is RIGHT!
Sagan is going to create a Martian APOLLO if he does not smarten up
and start with lunar colonization!  I would love to know what his
motives are behind this manned Mars mission. - LK] 
     
    If anyone who reads this was there, perhaps they can provide
additional perspectives.  As for flammage, please direct it to Dr.
Sagan c/o Astro. Dept., Space Sciences Building, Cornell, Ithaca NY
14853 or c/o Planetary Soc., not me please. 
     
Artie Samplaski
Wilson Synchrotron, Cornell
UUAJ%CORNELLA.BITNET @ CU-ARPA.CS.CORNELL.EDU

From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: joint ventures in space
Date: 15 Dec 87 01:49:26 GMT
 
> Date:    11 Dec 87 15:14:58 GMT
> From:    [email protected]  (Tim J Ihde)
> Subject: Space in Presidents Speech
>
> When I was driving home last night (12/10), the radio newscaster was
> talking about the President's upcoming speech about the summit, due at
> 9:00 that night.  He said that he expected some mention about a joint
> US/Soviet venture in space.  This got me interested, but then I missed
> the speech itself and none of the news commentators after the fact are
> talking about anything like this.  Does anybody know if...
 
    I don't believe anything was said about space (except SDI) at the
summit, but on ABC News "Capital to Capital", which linked
Congresspeople in Washington D.C. to Supreme Soviet members in Moscow,
a New Jersey Senator proposed a joint US/Soviet Manned Mars Landing by
the 100th anniversity of the Soviet Revolution (2017).  This was
applaued by the members of the Supreme Soviet present.  This was about
2-3 weeks ago. 

    Also, last night (12/13) on CBS News Nightwatch, former Secretary
of State Cyrus Vance (Carter Admin.) said the Soviets are looking into
joint ventures of all kinds because they need capital dollars and
Western technology to improve their economy the way Gorbachev wants to.  
They are recognizing the Western need for profits as part of the deal. 

Carlos A. Lopez (clopez@ucivmsa)
University of California at Irvine

                
    from TASS I found the following , sorry the circuit was
    not good so several errors in the copy
    
    SOVIET-US COOPERATION IN SPACE.
    11/12 TASS 208

   MOSCOW DECEMBER 11 TASS - THE FIRST WORKING PROTOCOL IN
FURTHERANCE OF AN AGREEMENT ON SOVIET-U.S. COOPERATION IN SPACE
EXPLORATION WAS SILED HERE TODAY BY SAMUEL KELLEPN DEPUTY
DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
(NASA),=-, VALERY BARSUVOV, DIRECTOR OF THE GEOCHEMISTRY AND
AND ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY INSTITUTE OF THE SOVIET ACADEMY OF
SCIENCES. HIS ACT CAPPED THE WEEK-LONG DISCUSSION IN ONE OFHE
THREE WORKING GROUPESET UP UNDER THE AGREEMENT --=5#3 SOLAR
SYSTEM RESEARCH GROUP.
   +ONE MAY HOPE THAT MAN WILL BE ABLE TO FLY TO MARS EARLY
NEXT CENTCY. I AN CONVINCED THAT THIS WILL BE AN INTERNATIONAL
CREW+, SAID VALERY BARSUKOV, A CORRESPONDING MEMBER OF THE
SOVIET ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. ZIT WILL BRING A SAMPLE OF MARS SOIL
TO EARTH. WE AGREED TO STUDY THE POSSIBLE SPOTS ON MARS IN WHICH
TO LAND SPACECRAFT+.
   SAMUEL KELLER NOTED THAT THE TWO COUNTRIES' SPECIALISTS
REACHED A UNANIMOUS VIEW THAT THE FLIGHT TO MAR WAS INEVITABLE
BUT WHAT WAS STILL MORE INEVITABLE WAS THE NEED FOR CLOSE
COOPERATION BETWEEN THE TWO LEADING SPACE POWERS IN EXPEDITIONS
TO OUTER PLANETS.
   AT THE MEETING THE SPACEEXPERTS EXCHANGED INFORMATION
OBTAINED FROM INTERPLANETARY STATIONS OF THE USSR AND THE UNITED
STATES. AMERICAN SPECIALISTS, FOR INSTANCE, HAVE ALREADY MADE
THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO THE WORK ON THE INTERNATIONAL PROJECT
+PHOBOS+. THEY TRANSFERRED TO SOVIET SCIENTISTS DATA ON THE
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE	PACE SURROUNDING MARE. IN THEIR TURN,
AMERICAN COLLEAGUES VCAIED THE REPLY STEP BY SOVIET SCIENTISTS
WHO HANDED OVR TO NASA AN A TIM OF 27 MAPS OF VENUS' SURFACE.
   BARSUKOV TOLD NEWSMEN THE WAY PREPARATIONS WERE GOING ON FOR
THE INTERNATIONAL PROJECT +PHOBOS+ INVTVING SCIENTISTS FROM
SEVERAL COUNTRIES AND ALSO SPECIALISTS FROM THE EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY.
   THE FIRST SOVIET INTERPLANETARY CRaFT WILL BE LAUNCHED IN
JIY 1988. IN SEVERAL DAYS, IT WILL BE FOLLOWED BY THE SECOND
CRAFT. TESTS OF THE ONBOARD EQUIPMENT ARE PROCEEDING APACE. THE
AOC WILL BE FINALIZED IN JANUARY-FEBRUARY. LANDING CRAFTS ARE
UNDER PREPARATIONS IN PARALLEL. THEY WILL BE DROPPEBHON PHOTT -
ONE OF MARS' MOONS.
   THE EXPLORATION OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM I NS REQUIRES VAST
TECHNICAL RESOURCES AND EFFORTS BY SCIENTISTS9 VHIS WORK CAN BE
ACCOMPLISHED ONLY IN CLOSE COOPERAT ON, SAMUECELLER SAID. HE
CONCURRED WITH VALERY BARSUKOV THAT THE FIRST CREW TO MAKE A
VOYAGE TO MARS WILL BE INTERNATIONAL.
   ITEM ENDS ++++
    

From: [email protected] ([email protected]:[email protected],
        Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: New Road to Mars:  Chicago-area lectures
Date: 1 Mar 88 03:30:00 GMT
 
    A number of groups in the Chicago area have asked me to reprise my
slideshow on Mars exploration.  I'll be giving this talk twice in
March, and again on "Astronomy Day," April 23, though I don't have the
location yet.  All presentations are open to the public.  Come if it
sounds interesting. 
 
                                       Bill Higgins
                                       Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
                                       [email protected]
                                       SPAN/HEPnet: 43011::HIGGINS
 ===========================================================================
 
                             THE NEW ROAD TO MARS
 
                              William S. Higgins
 
                        Chicago Space Frontier Society
 
    Human exploration of Mars is emerging as a possible goal for the
U.S. space program after more than a decade in eclipse.  The third
Case for Mars conference surveyed current technical ideas for robot
probes, piloted missions, science objectives, Martian bases, Phobos
and Deimos exploration, and obtaining useful resources-- such as fuel,
air, water, metals, and building materials-- from the vicinity of
Mars. This presentation will also cover combined rover and sample
return missions, new mission profiles and trajectories, and possible
hiding places for native Martian life.  
 
                             Friday, 4 March 1988
                                   7:30 PM
                        Northwest Suburban Astronomers
                        Eisenhower Junior High School
                          Hoffman Estates, Illinois
 
                               *** AND ALSO ***
 
                            Sunday, 13 March 1988
                                   1:00 PM
                      Chicago Society for Space Studies
                         Adler Planetarium Auditorium
                              Chicago, Illinois

From: [email protected] (Len Weisberg)
Newsgroups: ba.seminars
Subject: Life On Mars? - The Planetary Society
Date: 16 Mar 88 00:49:11 GMT
Organization: HP Corporate Computing Center
 
    "Continuing the Search - LIFE ON MARS?"

    The Planetary Society invites you to attend a public session
moderated by Dr. Carl Sagan, President, The Planetary Society
co-sponsored by NASA Ames Research Center. 

    Thursday, March 24, 1988  -  8:00pm
    Sunnyvale Hilton Hotel Ballroom
    US 101 at Lawrence Expressway  -  1250 Lakeside Drive

    Admission payable at the door:  	
    $2 for members and students   $3 for the general public
 
    What is the relationship between the evolution of the solar system
and the evolution of life?  Has there ever been life on Mars? 
Upcoming missions like a Rover/Sample return Mission have the
potential to look for evidence of life.  What should future missions
do to search for past or present life on the Red Planet? 

    Join us to consider the latest Soviet and American scientific
thinking about life beyond Earth - and searching for life on Mars. 
 
    Speakers:

Dr. Carl Sagan, Moderator, is Direcor of the Laboratory for Planetary Studies
    at Cornell University.
Dr. Harold P. Klein - Chairman of the National Academy of Sciences Committee
    on Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution, and former Viking Biology 
    Team Leader.
Dr. Stanley M. Awramik, Department of Geology, University of California at
    Santa Barbara, is an expert on the earliest life on Earth, and has been
    involved with NASA studies for designing an intelligent rover on Mars.

    Scientists from the Soviet Union have been invited to participate
in this public meeting. 

    Len Weisberg

From: [email protected] (Eric Tilenius)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: MARS DECLARATION and SIGNATURE FORM
Date: 25 Mar 88 03:41:39 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, NJ
 
                           THE MARS DECLARATION
 
    Mars is the world next door, the nearest planet on which human
explorers could safely land.  Although it is sometimes as warm as a
New England October, Mars is a chilly place, so cold that some of its
thin carbon dioxide atmosphere freezes out at the winter pole.  There
are pink skies, fields of boulders, sand dunes, vast extinct volcanos
that dwarf anything on Earth, a great canyon that would cross most of
the United States, sandstorms that sometimes reach half the speed of
sound, strange bright and dark markings on the surface, hundreds of
ancient river valleys, mountains shaped like pyramids, and many other
mysteries. 
 
    Mars is a storehouse of scientific information - important in its
own right but also for the light it may cast on the origins of life
and on safeguarding the environment of the Earth.  If Mars once had
abundant liquid water, what happened to it?  How did a once Earthlike
world become so parched, frigid, and comparatively airless?  Is there
something important on Mars that we need to know about our own fragile
world? 
 
    The prospect of human exploration of Mars is ecumenical -
remarkable for the diversity of supporting opinion it embraces.  It is
being advocated on many grounds: 
 
* As a potential scientific bonanza - for example, on climatic change,
on the search for present or past life, on the understanding of
enigmatic Martian landforms, and on the application of new knowledge
to understanding our own planet 
 
* As a means, through robotic precursor and support missions to Mars,
of reviving a stagnant U.S. planetary program 
 
* As providing a coherent focus and sense of purpose to a dispirited
NASA for many future research and development activities on an
appropriate timescale and with affordable costs 
 
* As giving a crisp and unambiguous purpose to the U.S. Space Station
- needed for in-orbit assembly of the interplanetary transfer vehicle
or vehicles, and for study of long-duration life support for space travelers 
 
* As the next great human adventure, able to excite and inspire people
of all ages the world over 
 
* As an aperture to enhanced national prestige and technological development 
 
* As a realistic and possibly unique opportunity for the United States
and the Soviet Union to work together in the spotlight of world public
opinion, and with other nations, on behalf of the human species 
 
* As a model and stimulant for mutually advantageous U.S./Soviet
cooperation here on Earth 
 
* As a means for economic reconversion of the aerospace industry if
and when massive reductions in strategic weapons - long promised by
the United States and the Soviet Union - are implemented 
 
* As a worthy application of the traditional military virtues of
organization and valor to great expeditions of discovery 
 
* As a step towards the long-term objective of establishing humanity
as a multi-planet species 
 
* Or simply as the obvious response to a deeply felt perception of the
future calling. 
 
    Advances in technology now make feasible a systematic process of
exploration and discovery on the planet Mars - beginning with the
robot roving vehicles and sample return missions and culminating in
the first footfall of human beings on another planet.  The cost would
be no greater than that of a single major strategic weapons system,
and if shared among two or more nations, the cost to each nation would
be still less.  No major additional technological advances seem to be
required, and the step from today to the first landing of humans on
Mars appears to be technologically easier than the step from President
John F. Kennedy's announcement of the Apollo program on May 25, 1961
to the first landing of humans on the Moon on July 20, 1969. 
 
    We represent a wide diversity of backgrounds in the fields of
science, technology, religion, the arts, politics and government.  Few
of us adhere to every one of the arguments listed above, but we share
a common vision of Mars as a historic, constructive objective for the
technological ambitions of the human species over the next few decades. 
 
    WE ENDORSE THE GOAL OF HUMAN EXPLORATION OF MARS AND URGE THAT
INITIAL STEPS TOWARD ITS IMPLEMENTATION BE TAKEN THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.
 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 
    I support the Mars Declaration and its goal of peaceful,
scientific exploration of Mars. 
  
Signature: _______________________________________________________
 
 
Name: ____________________________________________________________
 
 
Address: _________________________________________________________
 
 
City: ______________________________  State: ______  Zip: ________
 
 
    Return this signature form to:  The Planetary Society, 65 North
Catalina Avenue, Pasadena, California 91106. 
 
*----------------------===>  SPACE IS THE PLACE... <===-----------------------*
*        [email protected]  //  [email protected]                *
*      rutgers!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni  //  princeton!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni       *
* ColorVenture - Microcomputer Software - "Because Life isn't Black and White"*
*--------------------===> Another proud CoCo 3 owner <===---------------------*

    This month's Air & Space issue presented a nice essay on why
    going to Mars, while a nice idea, should not be the next step.
    
    Lunar colonization, as presented in previous replies, was considered
    to be the next logical step.  Mining, LLO (low lunar orbit)
    manufacturing, and radio astronomy were cited as tasks which the
    moon is well suited for (especially radio astronomy on the far side
    of the moon - well shielded from this planet's cacophony of EMI).
    
    - dave

From: [email protected] (Ron Tencati)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: U.S. plaque on Soviet Mars Probe
Date: 31 Mar 88 18:33:14 GMT

Ron Tencati
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
 
    WASHINGTON POST, MARCH 18
 
    "Soviets to Fly U.S. Plaque to Mars Moon"
 
    "Soviet officials have agreed to place aboard their spacecraft
bound for the Martian moon Phobos a plaque commemorating the moon's
discovery by an American." 
 
    The POST says in an informal ceremony in Houston, NASA science
official Bevan French presented the plaque to scientist Lev Mukhin of
the Soviet Space Research Institute.  The Soviets have scheduled a
July launch, scheduled to reach the Martian moon in the spring of 1989. 
 
    "I can promise the plaque will be installed on the lander," the
robot vehicle that will descend to the moon's surface, Mukhin said
afterward.  "This means it will remain on Phobos forever." 
 
    The POST says the two moons of Mars, Phobos and Deimos, were
discovered in 1877 by astronomer Asaph Hall of the U.S. Naval
Observatory in Washington, D.C. 
 

As a member of the Planetary Society, I received the mailing extracted
in .11.  Here's how I responded.....

================================================================================


          Louis Friedman, Executive Director
          Planetary Society
          65 North Catalina Avenue
          Pasadena, CA  91106

          I will not sign the MARS DECLARATION,  and  I  must  further
          this  objection by decrying the focus I see that it gives to
          the Planetary Society's goals and purpose.

          Mars as a goal of all our  space  exploration  attention  is
          extremely  short sighted, and will, in the not too long run,
          be counterproductive.  It's a lose-lose-lose situation.

          1.  We lose our focus on the steps it will take to develop a
              secure  foothold  leading to a true infrastructure for a
              presence in, not a journey though, space.

          2.  If the mission to Mars fails, or goes  over  budget,  or
              doesn't  meet  schedule,  or has other problems, we have
              lost credibility and we may not get a second  chance  at
              space exploration in this generation.

          3.  If the Mars mission succeeds, we  have  lost  the  goal.
              "Yeah!  We made it!  Time to get back to work, neat trip
              guys." It's been over 15 years since  a  human  has  set
              foot on the Moon.  This approximates twice the length of
              time from the Kennedy determination that  we  should  go
              until the first landing was accomplished.  Do we want to
              repeat this mistake?


          Yes, the exploration of Mars will be exciting, edifying, and
          worthwhile,  but  not  without the backing needed to keep us
          going, repeatedly, until we can stay.

          I believe the Planetary Society does  a  disservice  to  its
          very  name by focusing on Mars at the obvious expense of the
          other seven extraterrestrial planets.  We can have it all if
          we  are  modestly patient and work just as hard as if all we
          want is Mars.




          To  paraphrase  Isaac  Asimov,  we  can  have  Mars   in   a
          generation,  or if we are careful, we can have the universe.
          As Ben Bova has said, say "No" to Mars.

          It may well be that the Society does endorse a complete  and
          stepwise  advancement  of mankind into space, with Mars as a
          convenient and especially likely target.   If  that  is  so,
          advocate  progress  on  these  grounds!  Don't lie to people
          that Mars is there for  the  taking  when  the  intermediate
          steps still need to be taken and paid for!

          Lastly, I joined the Planetary Society hoping to further the
          presence  of mankind in space.  I had previously, though not
          recently, supported the National  Space  Institute  for  the
          same  reasons.   I  would choose to stay in the Society if I
          thought that I could bring balance to the discourse, but  if
          it  appears  that my dues will be funding this ill-conceived
          Mars publicity drive to the exclusion of more widespread and
          productive  efforts,  I  shall reluctantly let my membership
          lapse.


                                        Sincerely,




                                        Thomas Powers




                            Addendum: a Progression

          I propose a deliberate sequence of  steps  for  building  an
          infrastructure  in  space.  I have neither a timetable nor a
          budget  for  these  endeavors,  but   the   progression   of
          capability   seems   clear   to  me,  even  if  details  and
          reorderings change as we start down the path.

          1.  Economical Earth  to  low  Earth  orbit  transfer:   the
              Shuttle   now,  existing  and  planned  expendables  and
              unmanned semi-expendables soon;
          2.  Transfer to higher Earth orbit  (~600  miles):   Centaur
              and other known upper stages now?
          3.  Earth orbit space station at 600  miles,  intermittently
              manned at first, permanently manned in short order;
          4.  Trans-lunar transfer:  Earth orbit to Moon orbit;
          5.  Lunar orbit space station (maybe Lagragian, maybe  lunar
              orbit);
          6.  Lunar elevator:  orbit to surface and  back  (eventually
              rail gun launch?);
          7.  Lunar base,  leading  to  lunar  materials  exploitation
              (applicable to previous two points);
          8.  Extraterrestrial transfer:  manned and unmanned launches
              from  Earth  and lunar orbits to all the planets and the
              asteroids.


          Each step is a goal, and each goal has successors.  The  one
          or two goals subsequent to the next achievable goal are fair
          game for  advanced  development,  as  evidenced  by  current
          progress,  and  provide  a  continually  widening horizon of
          interest.  Goals further down the line are expanded upon and
          we see more things to do.

          Science benefits at every step of the way.  Each platform or
          transportation  improvement  provides  more  opportunity for
          manned and unmanned observation and investigation.  It seems
          this should be THE MAJOR CONCERN of the Planetary Society.

          Columbus is given credit  for  discovering  America  despite
          earlier   visits   of  Vikings,  Irish  priests,  and  other
          itinerants because he and others were willing  and  able  to
          repeat their trips and build on what would come.

          Is there a better way to celebrate the 500th anniversary  of
          the  last  discovery  of  a  New  World  than to have a ten,
          twenty, or fifty year plan to open the next New Worlds?

          Thomas E.  Powers

From NASA SpaceLink BBS (205) 895 0028 (Huntsville, AL)
=====================================================================
  
U.S./SOVIET SPACE COOPERATION
 
U.S./USSR Space Science Agreement
 
     The U.S./USSR agreement on cooperation in space science was
signed in Moscow by Secretary Shultz and Soviet Foreign Minister
Shevardnadze on April l5, l987.  The agreement establishes joint
working groups (JWG) in five areas: 
 
       o  Space biology and medicine
       o  Solar system exploration
       o  Space astronomy and astrophysics
       o  Solar-terrestrial physics
       o  Earth sciences
 
     A total of l6 cooperative project areas are listed in the annex
to the space agreement covering the five disciplines listed above. 
Additional projects may be added to the annex by mutual agreement
through an exchange of diplomatic notes. 
 
Status of Joint Working Group Activities
 
Space Biology and Medicine JWG
 
     NASA and its Soviet counterparts have agreed that meetings of all
five JWGs will take place over the next year.  The U.S./USSR Space
Biology and Medicine JWG met in early August l987 in Moscow and
Nal'chik, USSR.  Agreement was reached at this meeting on NASA
participation in three upcoming Soviet biosatellite missions (in
October l987, l989 and l991); exchange of biomedical data from the
U.S. Shuttle and Soviet Salyut 7 and Mir space station missions;
establishment of implementation teams on biomedical data
standardization, exobiology and Shuttle/Spacelab flight experiments;
and production of a joint publication surveying progress in space
biology and medicine. 
 
     NASA-sponsored scientists participated in the Soviet Cosmos l887
Biosatellite mission which took place from September 29 to October 12,
l987.  A total of 27 U.S. experiments were conducted in connection
with this mission, which flew 2 primates, l0 rats and a variety of
biological and plant speciments for a l3-day mission. 
 
     Despite problems with one of the monkeys which managed to free
one arm in flight, and landing 3000 km northeast of the planned
nominal landing site, mission science objectives were not seriously
affected.  This is the sixth USSR biosatellite mission inwhich NASA
has participated.  Previous missions took place in l975, l977, l979,
l983 and l985. 
 
Solar System Exploration JWG
 
     At the U.S./USSR Solar System Exploration JWG meeting, December
7-13, a range of implementing activities to carry out the six solar
system exploration projects enumerated in the U.S./USSR space
agreement were discussed.  Teams are to be organized to implement
cooperation in coordination of Mars missions, reciprocal scientific
participation in the USSR Phobos and U.S. Mars Observer missions, Mars
landing site selection, Venus data exchanges and lunar, cosmic dust
and meteorite exchanges. 
 
    NASA is cooperating with its Soviet counterparts in connection
with the l988 USSR Phobos mission which will investigate the planet
Mars and its moon Phobos, utilizing NASA's Deep Space Network for
position tracking of the Phobos landers. Prior to the recent Solar
System Exploration JWG meeting, two technical meetings to discuss
tracking requirements took place, the most recent on November 16-20. 
Equipment and compatibility testing will occur in the Soviet Union and
the United States (Goldstone, Calif.) early next year. 
 
Other JWG Group Meetings
 
     The Space Astronomy and Astrophysics and the Solar- Terrestrial
Physics Joint Working Groups will schedule meetings in l988 to discuss
the following topics: 
 
Space Astronomy and Astrophysics JWG
 
     o  Exchange of scientific data in the field of radio
        astronomy
     o  Exchange of scientific data in the fields of cosmic
        gamma-ray, x-ray and sub-millimeter astronomy.
     o  Exchange of scientific data and coordination of program
        and investigations relative to studies of gamma-ray burst
        data.
 
Solar-Terrestrial Physics JWG
 
     o  Coordination of observations from solar terrestrial
        physics missions and the subsequent exchange of
        appropriate scientific data.
 
Joint Summit Statement on U.S./USSR Cooperation in Global Change Research
 
     The December l0 joint statement by President Reagan and General
Secretary Gorbachev endorsed "a bilateral initiative to pursue joint
studies in global climate and environmental change through cooperation
in areas of mutual concern, such as protection and conservation of
stratospheric ozone, and through increased data exchanges...". 
 
     The April l5 space science agreement called for coordination of
activities in the study of global changes in the natural environment
as one of 16 initial agreed projects.  A U.S./USSR Earth Sciences
Joint Working Group meeting is planned for the first half of l988 to
agree on concrete steps to implement cooperation in this area in
support of the two leaders initiative. 
 
Proposals for U.S./USSR Manned or Unmanned Mars Mission
 
     Recently there have been numerous press articles speculating on
the possibility of a joint U.S./USSR manned or unmanned mission to
Mars.  To date, there have been no official discussions between the
U.S. and Soviet Union on either a joint manned or unmanned mission to Mars. 
 
     Mars is one of the most attractive and potentially rewarding
subjects for exploration in our solar system.  NASA believes there is
great potential for mutual scientific benefit through coordination
between the two countries' Mars missions and programs. 
 
     The April space agreement outlines four specific areas of
cooperation pertaining to Mars exploration, as mentioned above: 
 
    o  Coordination of the Phobos, Vesta and Mars Observer
       missions and exchange of scientific data
    o  Utilization of the U.S. Deep Space Network for position
       tracking of the Phobos and Vesta landers and subsequent
       exchange of scientific data.
    o  Joint studies to identify the most promising landing
       sites on Mars.
    o  Invitation, by mutual agreement, of co-investigators'
       and/or interdisciplinary scientists' participation in the
       Mars Observer and the Phobos and Vesta missions.
 
     At the present time, neither the U.S. nor the Soviet Union is
committed to join in a new major manned or unmanned Mars mission.  The
U.S. has not yet committed to unmanned missions beyond the Mars
Observer, much less to its own manned mission to Mars.  The space
science agreement signed in Moscow last spring provides a logical
starting point and potential foundation for success in coordinated
current and future space activities between the U.S. and the USSR. 
 
=====================================================================
                                                       Eric

Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Path: decwrl!hplabs!hpda!hpcuhb!dmata
Subject: Mars Landing Site
Posted: 11 Nov 88 21:37:17 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino
 
    NASA will help Soviets Pick a Mars landing site.
 
    The Wall Street Journal Friday, November 11, 1988 (page b7a)
states that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has
agreed to help pick a landing site on Mars for a robot craft that the
Soviets will launch in 1994. 

    Samuel W. Keller, head of the NASA delegation that has been
negotiating with Soviet scientists, said the Soviets have slected four
possible landing sites after the U.S. provided detail maps of the
Martian surface. The Soviets have now asked for more data and details
on the candidate sites. These comments were made at a news conference
marking the end of a week of negotiations between the representatives
of NASA and a delegation representing the Soviet Solar System Exporation 
Program. The two groups met to work out areas of cooperation. 

    Valeriy L Barsukov, Head of the Soviet delegation said the all
four sites are within 30 degrees of the equator but declined to be
more specific. 

    NASA has accumulated a vast amount of data on Mars in the form of
detailed images and maps from the Viking spacecraft missions between
1975 and 1980. The Viking program put two craft in the orbit of Mars
and two on the surface. 

    The Soviets plan to launch a spacecraft in 1994 that will orbit
Mars and drop a lander that will scoop up a soil sample and return it
to Earth. 

    Mr. Barsukov said that in picking a landing site the Soviets are 
considering such issues as a search for water and life, getting
comprehensive samples of the geology and gaining insights into the
Martian evolution. 
 
    Other agreements met:
 
 - Using the American Deep Space Network to help track and communicate
   with the Soviet Mars probes.
 
 - An exchange of scientific personnel for work on specific missions.
 
 - An exchange of data on Venus (a planet extensively explored by both
   countries. Mr Keller said the U.S.-Soviet studies are being combined
   to produce four detailed maps.)
 
 - An exchange of lunar material gathered by the Apollo program for
   meteorite material collected by the Soviets.
 
 - An exchange of scientific instruments for use on planetary probes.
 
    Mr. Barsukov said that the Soviets feel that a manned Mars landing
is "inevitable" and will probaly occur in the middle of the next century. 
But before a manned mission is attempted, Mr. Barsukov said there will 
probably new manned flights to the Moon, but declined to elaborate. 

     "There is nothing in the world more sure than that the priests and
  politicians *always* abandon their clients when convenient; nor anything 
  more fixed than the assurance of the due-to-be-abandoned until the 
  miserable fact confronts them." - Talbot Mundy, THE NINE UNKNOWN 
    

    On the news on the radio this morning I heard that an "agreement" had
    been made between the US & USSR for a joint effort to land people on
    Mars within the next 20 years. Has anyone out there got anything firmer
    than just fixing the date earlier than the previously stated 2017? What
    did the news services carry?

The news I saw seemed to indicate that this was just another press release that
NASA seems to give out during slow times indicating what some of its plans
are (you know...the blue-sky stuff from the think-tanks).  The article I
read said that the plans would require participation by other countries (Soviets
specifically mentioned) in order to make them feasible.  I saw nothing about
an actual agreement.

Burns

I think a joint US/USSR mission to Mars would be terrific, and
I'm interested in the psychological implications that such a
venture would have.  It would help the USSR link themselves to
a transcendent fate that would not be destructive at a time when
they have huge untapped natural resources accompanied by a crumbling
empire.  It would be nice if they went supernova in a 
non-destructive way.  Hey, better us and the Soviets than a
USSR-Japanese joint mission, which is also a strong possibility.
The former, especially during the age of Gorbachev, would kick off
a century of lessening paranoia between the USSR and the US, while
the latter would certainly accelerate the oft-spoken Pacific
ascendancy.  It would be a hopeful sign, since science is the
only language of all nations, besides music and dance.  I'd like
to see Star Trek, not Star Wars come true.  Hey, maybe an alien
civilization would finally think we're interesting 8^).  As a
sci-fi fan, I would like to think that humanity is arrogant
enough to want to export the one thing that everyone shares -
consciousness itself - and a trip to Mars would be the first
step towards establishing an extra-terrestrial intelligence.
Also, ever since I read "The Martian Chronicles" by Ray Bradbury,
I've wanted to see the first Martian and fully expect to see him
on the 11 o'clock news someday.

- Jim
< Note 358.3 by DICKNS::KLAES "Angels in the Architecture." >
                                 -< RE 358.2 >-

    	Are you sure they were "volunteers"?
    
    	Larry
    

Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: decwrl!jumbo!ayers
Subject: USSR on manned/unmanned ...
Posted: 27 Feb 89 01:40:16 GMT
Organization: DEC Systems Research Center, Palo Alto
  
    The following exchange begins the USSR/USA television talk/debate
"Together to Mars."  I obtained it from the April 1988 issue of
"Soviet Life," which contains several articles releated to the USSR
space program. 
 
    I believe the exchange sums up the current manned/unmanned debate
well -- the "realists" versus the visionaries.  
 
Sagan:  Should we send men to Mars -- or only robots?  And can we
    afford to send manned flights to Mars?
 
Arkadi Strugatsky, Soviet science-fiction writer:  Well, I'm a
    pessimist in this regard. I think it's too early to seriously
    discuss such a monstrously expensive project. Mankind is not 
    yet prepared for this, economically or socially. Moreover, 
    technologically, mankind is not yet ready for a comprehensive, 
    sustained exploration of Mars or Venus ...
 
Valeri Kubasov, Pilot-Cosmonaut of the USSR:  I've always imagined 
    that first there was the dream -- the vision -- and only after 
    that, the real project. And the visionaries always provided us 
    with a direction for thought ... Sure the mission might take 
    10 or 15 years, but we've got to get started ...

     "Science asks `What is Nature?', but man is a part of Nature, too."

			   - Albert Einstein

    
    Re: .19
    
    Given budget constraints, I have modified my opinion expressed in .19
    I believe that we should say no to Mars missions, moon missions,
    space stations and spend that too-sparsely allotted "science" money on
    particle physics research.  Possibly keep space station funding.  But
    Mars and the moon will always be there...and maybe it would be best to
    see the Soviet empire crumble bit by rotten bit.  Anyway, who'd want to
    go to the Planet of War with the Russians?  ;^)  -Jim
    

    
    re .21
    
    I'd rather see a space station go up. The uses and benifits of it are 
    too many to list.
    
    /prc

RE: .21 -- You do have a point there, if we don't find clean
energy soon, maybe as critical is within the next 50 years, we
won't have a planet to leave from.  About the only thing alive
here will be skin cancers. 

I'd really like to know about Mars from some first-hand tourists
*AND* our planet is in deep trouble.

>    I believe that we should say no to Mars missions, moon missions,
>    space stations and spend that too-sparsely allotted "science" money on
>    particle physics research.
    
    You're swapping one long-term goal for another.  I don't disagree with
    either goal's desireability, but the problem is that they are long-term
    goals - we are not a long-term goal-oriented people.
    
John

    I would rather we stay away from Mars until we demonstrate that
    we can control ourselves on this planet. If we can learn to live
    on our own planet - everybody - comfortably - without destroying
    the habitat, then I would say we are mature enough to go to Mars.
    
    
    Gregg

re: .25

>    I would rather we stay away from Mars until we demonstrate that
>    we can control ourselves on this planet. If we can learn to live
>    on our own planet - everybody - comfortably - without destroying
>    the habitat, then I would say we are mature enough to go to Mars.

With this attitude, mankind will never get anywhere.  You miss the point about
exploration completely.  Exploration generates information.  Information 
generates knowledge.  We go to Venus, we learn about the greenhouse effect.
We go to Mars and we learn about weather.  We go to Jupiter and we learn 
about storms and atmospheric upheavals.  When we go out there, we learn more
about right here.  You want to save the habitat - then we should be learning
as much as we can about planets and how they work.  We *have* to go out there.

								Jeff Diewald

Re: .25

I think that there will always be some place on earth that needs improving
for the next millenium if we wait until everybody is comfortable.

The human race needs to explore and expand to other celestial bodies.  The
side effects of knowledge and products will help improve life here on earth.
The number of products now being used and sold that are a result of past 
space exploration are impressive.  I attended a talk at the Boston Museum of
Science a while back given by someone from NASA.  Just the space suit alone
has about 9 different layers of material, each one has comercial applications
(e.g. Gortex, polypropolene).

Besides, IMHO, humans need to exlore, they always have and always will.  I
wish I had more time to ramble on, maybe later...

Mark

    
    	It would be far more benificial to create and utilize the space
    	station before doing any planetary exploration missions. 
    
    	Once the space station is in place, such missions can be launched
    	from the station, saving vast amounts of fuel, etc...the astronauts
    	only need to be shuttled to the station. 
    
    	After this, THEN explore Mars, etc...
    
    	/prc

>    	It would be far more benificial to create and utilize the space
>    	station before doing any planetary exploration missions. 
    
    This keeps coming up, but I'll argue it again for chuckles.
    
    I disagree with the development of the space station as the first step. 
    I believe that a manned, permanent Lunar Base is more desireable. 
    Getting out of this gravity well is a big problem for doing space
    research.  Developing a permanent station for the Moon would allow us
    to use the materials on the moon for whatever they can be used for. 
    They are 'higher up' in terms of gravity wells.  Everything at the
    space station has to be put there.
    
    I don't disagree with the need for a microgravity environment for the
    purposes of experimentation and materials production.  But let's build
    the beast (at least partially) from Lunar materials.
    
>    	Once the space station is in place, such missions can be launched
>    	from the station, saving vast amounts of fuel, etc...the astronauts
>    	only need to be shuttled to the station. 
    
    How is the fuel going to get to the space station?  From the Earth of
    course.  What does it take to get the fuel up to the station?  More
    fuel, of course.  Seems like the same amount of fuel is going to be
    used regardless of whether or not the mission starts from the surface
    and goes in a single shot or in a series of missions to allow us to
    assemble the spacecraft in orbit.
    
    The exception to this is where a lighter lifting vehicle (potentially
    usefull for lifting the pieces of an 'assembled mission') was more
    efficient than a heavy lift vehicle.  But considering that the
    technology we use is pretty much all-rocket, it all seems to boil down
    to the same quantities regardless of where we launch the ship from.
    
    Is a Saturn V any more or less efficient than an Ariane?  I suspect
    that the Shuttle is the least efficient of all, considering the amount
    of material that isn't true cargo.
    
John

    re .29
    
    The amount of fuel might be the same, it might be even greater if
    we stop at the space station, before going out further. But and
    this is the important part it will probaly be cheaper and easier
    overall, and that is what counts.
    
    Of course I am not saying we should wait for the station, parallel
    effort is the name of the game. If we do everything serially I will
    be dead before we get anywhere. And I want to visit the Moon and
    Mars before I die.

    The logistics involved in setting up a lunar base are substantially
    more complicated than for a space station.  Sure, we can talk
    about refining moon rocks and building stuff from them and all
    that, but the plain fact of the matter is those are just dreams
    right now.  It would be quite some time before a lunar base could
    be self-sufficient to any significant degree.
    
    Frankly, I don't think we (the U.S.) have enough experience in
    long-term space occupancy to seriously consider a lunar base at
    this point in time.  While it does make sense to push for a
    lunar base in the not-so-distant future (and to develop it in
    parallel with the space station), we really DO need a stepping-off
    point.
    
    And, if the unforseen happened, at least we would have a pretty
    good chance of a rescue from a space station; a catastrophe on
    the moon would probably guarantee loss of life, and we DON'T
    need that now, or in the future (but, granted, it will probably
    happen again).

	Re: .26 VIRRUS::DIEWALD	

	>With this attitude, mankind will never get anywhere.  You miss 
	>the point about exploration completely.  Exploration generates 
	>information.  Information generates knowledge.  We go to Venus, 
	>we learn about the greenhouse effect. We go to Mars and we learn 
	>about weather.  We go to Jupiter and we learn about storms and 
	>atmospheric upheavals.  When we go out there, we learn more
	>about right here.  You want to save the habitat - then we should be 
	>learning as much as we can about planets and how they work.  
	>We *have* to go out there.

	
	Jeff,

	You make some assumptions about my position which are unwarranted. 
	First,  I never said we do not explore. We have yet to tap the 
	limit of what unmanned probes can accomplish. The cost per fact
	garnered by unmanned probes is far lower than manned probes given
	our level of technology. Mainly because we know so little about 
	each planet - the well of ignorance is so deep that unmanned probes
	will do fine for a long time.

	You seem to agree that unmanned probes are sufficient, because you 
	are willing to acknowledge that we go to Venus to learn about the
	greenhouse effect - and I'm sure you'll agree that people will not 
	be stepping foot on Venus for a long long time, given its climate.

	Same holds true for Jupiter.

	I agree with you that information gathered from other planets will
	help us to understand the world we live on now.

	And I don't even rule out manned exploration of Mars (after we have 
	done ALL that can be done by unmanned probes)- the kind of manned
    	exploration done on the moon. But even so - manned exploration
    	is fabulously expensive.

	My statements were addressing the concept of migration to the 
	planets in such numbers, and with such effect, that, given our
	propensity to destroy THIS planet, we foul the rest of the planets.

	We have NOT learned to manage our own habitat. We should stay off
	other worlds (en masse) until we can.

	As to your statement: "We *have* to go out there." - we don't 
	*have* 	to do anything - we just want to.

	Re: Note 358.27
	MOSAIC::CROSBY "It tastes just like chicken."

	>I think that there will always be some place on earth 
	>that needs improving for the next millenium if we wait 
	>until everybody is comfortable.

	My use of the word 'everybody' was probably too all encompassing 
	:^) I don't expect that kind of perfection. But for the most part, 
	I think we need to mature before we start staking large claims on
	other planets.

	Note 358.28
	VCSESU::COOK "VAXcluster Support In-House Musician"
    
        >It would be far more benificial to create and utilize the space
        >station before doing any planetary exploration missions. 
    
        >Once the space station is in place, such missions can be launched
        >from the station, saving vast amounts of fuel, etc...the astronauts
        >only need to be shuttled to the station. 
    
       	The Space Station will have no indigenous materials. Everything
	you need to build a vessel to take you anywhere will have to be
	transported up to the Station from Earth. There will be no 
	fuel savings.

	Gregg

re: 32
>	Mainly because we know so little about 
>	each planet - the well of ignorance is so deep that unmanned probes
>	will do fine for a long time.

This is exactly the reason that complete reliance on unmanned probes is 
short-sighted.  Sure, unmanned probes are cheap - but they're also stupid and
(usually) at the end of a very long communication time lag.  If you discover
some new surprise (and I don't think we can name one successful probe that 
didn't find something unexpected), then it may be years before you can get the 
right instruments in place.  If it's a short-term event, everyone loses.  Put 
a man (or woman) there and you have far more options.  This is true on the
surface of the Moon or Mars, or in orbit around Venus or Jupiter.

>	But even so - manned exploration
>    	is fabulously expensive.

That's now.  If we gear up our efforts, we can gain an economy of scale.  As 
we get better, things will get cheaper.  Will it cost astronomical sums?  Yes,
but the payoff is even greater.

>	My statements were addressing the concept of migration to the 
>	planets in such numbers, and with such effect, that, given our
>	propensity to destroy THIS planet, we foul the rest of the planets.
>	We have NOT learned to manage our own habitat. We should stay off
>	other worlds (en masse) until we can.

In order for us to get to these places, we will have to learn how to manage
small, enclosed biospheres.  You don't survive the trip to Mars if you foul
your spacecraft's ecology.  I think that travellers in space will have to 
develop a very different mindset than the one we have down here.  In turn, 
their learning will help us.

>	As to your statement: "We *have* to go out there." - we don't 
>	*have* 	to do anything - we just want to.

Maybe you don't have to.  I do.  The human race has to.  We can't learn enough
down here.  Besides, the more people who have a global view of things, the 
better.  Read some of the astronauts' writings.  Being in orbit gives you an
entirely new perspective on the world.

So - what would I do if I was "king"?  

	- Declare an International Planetary Science Year, say 1992 or 1993.
	  For that year, I'd have a series of large, generic interplanetary
	  probes built - one for each of the planets and one for each other
	  interesting target - a few big asteroids, a comet or two, Titan, etc.
	  In the IPSY, I'd launch them all, using available windows.  That
	  would guarantee a steady incoming flow of planetary data for years
	  to come.  

	- Build a Big Dumb Booster of Saturn V capability...

	- Junk the current space station design.

	- Ask the Europeans to start cranking out their spacelab modules.
	  Ask the current space station developers to start cranking out
	  habitation, interconnection, and power modules.  As much of it
	  would be off-the-shelf as possible.  Get the Soviets and the 
	  Japanese into the act as well, if they want.  We start with a station
	  for scientific research.

	- Use the BDB to launch these modules into orbit as they are finished.
	  Connect 'em together like building blocks.  The whole idea is that
	  the station has to be able to grow and expand.  It should be able
	  to support tens of scientists at a time, many of whom would be 
	  there to look back at the Earth and study it.

	- Commission one new shuttle a year for the next ten years.  Sell the
	  Japanese and the Europeans shuttles if they want them.  In the
	  meantime, continue working on reducing the costs to orbit with new
	  and improved versions of the shuttle.

	- Once the station is in a reasonable start, we head for the moon.

At this point, we still aren't into colonization...  We've taken the time to 
change our perspectives as you suggest.  The spinoffs are raining down on the
earth, improving our lives, our economies, and our understanding of the 
universe.

Expensive?  Yes.  Outrageous?  You haven't been looking at the DoD budgets 
lately.  Necessary?  Absolutely - for our future and that of the world...

								Jeff

	Re: .33 VIRRUS::DIEWALD	

   >In order for us to get to these places, we will have to learn how to manage
   >small, enclosed biospheres.  You don't survive the trip to Mars if you foul
   >your spacecraft's ecology.  I think that travellers in space will have to 
   >develop a very different mindset than the one we have down here.  In turn, 
   >their learning will help us.

	You don't survive earth orbit unless you manage your ecosphere. Nor 
	do you survive under the ocean for months without managing your 
	ecosphere. Yet I still see the daily destruction of this planet.
	We can do this NOW! But we don't transfer the knowledge (and it
	isn't sufficient - or even remotely comparable situations) and
	save our planet.

	So I do not agree that being able to manage a space craft's
	environment means we'll be better able to save the planet's.

   >This is exactly the reason that complete reliance on unmanned probes is 
   >short-sighted.  Sure, unmanned probes are cheap - but they're also stupid 
   >and (usually) at the end of a very long communication time lag.  

	There is so much we don't know about those planets, that an 
	agressive unmanned program would generate more data and ideas
	than the scientists could handle.

	Past unmanned probes have been stupid. But even todays technology
    	allows far superior unmanned probes far more able and flexible
    	to handle the unexpected.

   >Maybe you don't have to.  I do.  The human race has to.  We can't  learn 
   >enough down here.  

	Nonsense. There's more to know about down here than hundreds of
	scientists can collect and digest in decades.
	
	Besides, I never said I didn't *want* to. Of course I want to.
	All I'm saying is - don't start to muck with planetary biospheres
	until you know what you are doing. And today, we know only how to
	destroy.

	If, after your ambitious program, you can show me that we have 
	matured enough and learned enough so that we can manage our 
	resources, and not destroy planets ecologically, I'm all for the
	access to the universe you crave.

   >Besides, the more people who have a global view of things, the 
   >better.  

	I agree with you here. But I don't need to go into orbit to
	appreciate the fragility of our planet - I can smell it in
	Long Island sound, or read about the rainforests in the newspaper.


   >Read some of the astronauts' writings.  Being in orbit gives you 
   >an entirely new perspective on the world.

	Well, it gave *them* an entirely new perspective on the world.
	I read them, and I'm glad they are now impressed with how
	fragile and wonderful our world is. Now I just hope they
	remember that when they plan future space applications.

	Jeff, you seem to be under the impression that I want to hold 
	humans back from space exploration, and all of the benefits to be 
	reaped therefrom. Nothing could be further from the truth. No one
	has to sell me on space exploration.

	I *DO* want to hold back humans from destroying the worlds in our
	solar system - like we are presently destroying this one.

	Judging from your agenda ( if you were king) we really do not 
	differ in goals - or even paths. My path hinges on increased human
	maturity.

	Gregg

RE:< Note 358.34 by CHRCHL::GERMAIN "Down to the Sea in Ships" >
>	All I'm saying is - don't start to muck with planetary biospheres

Interesting, I didn't realize that it had been established that other 
planets had biospheres...  :-)

Gregg,
	I tend to disagree.  We are not talking about Star Trek here.  
Judging by the past 30 years, interplanetary colonization is a very long 
way off.  Even so, it is always easier to start with a clean slate than it 
is to change the inertia of well established habits.  

	As you pointed out, we KNOW what needs to be done.  It is a simple
process to take a small group of pioneers going to a new planet and have
them follow a specific adjenda to care for their new environment.  Small
groups work that way.  It is something else entirely to come up with new
methods of sewage disposal to replace systems that have been in place for
decades if not centuries or to change to a new fuel that's non-polluting 
and that will allow the same basic mobility that is currently realized by 
using gasoline.

Rich

I disagree that living in Earth orbit necessarily leads to knowledge about
a closed biosphere. If you look at the waste that was generated by SkyLab
which they just stored in a tank, you can see it could not be inhabited
long without purging the waste and bringing in new materials. MIR relies 
upon regular shipments of air, food, and fuel. They then pack all their 
waste into the delivery system and crash it back into Earth. It looks to
me as if they do the same thing up there as we do down here.
                                        Bill

If I could this is how I would run the space program: (Parallel Effort Key)

			90-92-94-96-98-00-02-04-06-08-10-12-14-18-20-22-24-26
Curr shuttle fleet:   --5-6-7-8-9-10-------------
Heavy cargo craft (200 tons):  ----------------------------------------------
New OneStageToOrbit(20 tons):           2--4--10--12--15----20---------------
Space Station:  . . .  .    -------------------------------------------------
Robot Exploration:             ----------------------------------------------
Maned Exploration:  .  .  .  .  .  .   --------------------------------------
Moon base:                             --------------------------------------
Mars/Phobos base:   .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     ---------------------------
Asteroid grab:                   ------------

This means starting immediatly developemt of:

. One Stage To Orbit  craft  (20 tons of payload and people to LEO and back)
. Heavy cargo unmaned craft (200 tons of payload to LEO) 
. Modular robot exploration craft (orbiting/landing all places of interest)
. Atomic pile engine, finish developemnt (For robotic Near Earth Asteroid grab)
. Atomic light bulb engine (For maned inner/outer solar system craft)
. Earth Luna tranfer craft and Lunar shuttle craft

Result lunar base operational by 2005, Mars/Phobos base operational by 2010.
Earth station with an Earth orbiting asteroid for raw materials by 2002. Etc.
Another asteroid could be put in orbit around the moon or inpacted into the
future site of the base to provide Hydrogen, etc, also by 2002.

You say where would I get the money for all this, simple I could cut the
military budget by 9/10, use the money in this and still have money left
over for other things.

Gil "the dreamer"

    
    
    From: .37:
    
    >Another asteroid could be put in orbit around the moon or inpacted
                                                               ^^^^^^^^
    >into the future site of the base to provide Hydrogen, etc, also by 2002.
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    	This is a PERFECT example of the kind of action that I am most worried
    about:

    	Thirteen years from now - 2002 - you suggest we impact asteroids
    into the moon. Asteroids (at least the useful ones) are high density
    nickel or iron....
    
    	How fast do you want to hit the moon with this asteroid? What
    size asteroids? Lots of little ones? Lots of Big ones? A few big
    ones? If you want to drop big ones slowly, what is the "impact"
    (no pun intended :^) ) if the braking rockets fail? Or if they do
    not perform well enough to slow it down appreciably?
    
    	What will these impacts of thousands of tons (if you transport
    little chuncks of a few thousand pounds from the Belt, it wouldn't
    be cost effective) at significant speeds do to:
    
    1) any habitat on the moon (moonquakes, tremors, heat generated form
    the impact)
    
    2) The orbital/rotational characteristics of the moon, and, therefore,
    the tidal effects on the earth? What would the impact be onthe natural
    cycles of the plant/animal life on earth if you modified the tidal
    system even a little bit?
    
    	How could you POSSIBLY predict it?
    
    See, right here we have an example of the kind of possible MAJOR
    impact we can have by our mass inhabitation of another world. Thirteen
    years is NOT a long time to get smart. 
    
    Gregg

re:< Note 358.37 by VISA::ANDRADE "The sentinel (.)(.)" >

>. Atomic pile engine, finish developemnt (For robotic Near Earth Asteroid grab)
>. Atomic light bulb engine (For maned inner/outer solar system craft)

These are not too smart!  Lets try something like cold-fusion powered 
ion propulsion, until we find extra terrestrial sources of 
uranium/plutonium.  And what exactally is an atomic light bulb engine?  

>Another asteroid could be put in orbit around the moon or inpacted into the
>future site of the base to provide Hydrogen, etc, also by 2002.

I've got to agree with .38, impacting an asteroid on the mood is pretty 
dumb.  If you want the volitles, place the asteroid in orbit and shuttle 
them down!  Unless you are talking about Terraforming the moon, you will 
waste an AWEFUL lot of volitles with an impact.

Tony

    re:.38 
    	I've been sitting back lately watching the fur fly over this Topic.
    There have been a lot of interesting opinions pro and con for various
    solar system settlement/exploration schemes some of which I agree
    with, others I do not. After this discussion of asteroid-impact-phobia
    I have to speak out...
    
    	Asteroids of a whole range of sizes have been impacting on the
    Earth, Moon, and every other body of this solar system for billions
    of years. The Moon (as well as the Earth) has survived impact events
    that dwarf ANYTHING man presently can do or could do in the near
    future. The results of hitting the Moon, gently or otherwise, with
    a few multi-kilometer diameter asteroids would make little or any
    difference to the Earth-Moon system. If a pure iron asteroid 1
    kilometers in diameter struck the Moon and a speed of 30 kilometers
    per second, the velocity of the moon would change by only 1.7 micron/sec.
    BIG DEAL! That amounts to less than 2 parts in a billion of the
    Moon's current orbital speed.
    	As for other effects; yes there would be moon quakes but they
    would not be that bad a few hundered kilometers from the impact
    site; yes there would be some effects on the rotation of the Moon
    but it would require very careful measuring techniques; and finally
    this impact would have less of an effect on the tides than flushing
    a toilet!
    	This must be considered a worst case scenario. We have yet to
    demonstrate we can even move an asteroid of any size. Most of the
    studies that I have seen talk about moving asteroids 100 meters
    across. That one object alone would have enough metal to supply
    the world for a decade or more.
    	And last of all, why would you want to smash an asteroid into
    the Moon to begin with?! As I have said before, nature has been
    doing it for years. Shouldn't we be checking the Moon out for natural
    deposits of asteroid borne materials before we go strapping mass
    drivers to the next asteroid we come across? And if we do NOT find
    such deposits, that would indicate that something in the collision
    process releases or destroys those materials (it's called turning
    kinetic energy into heat).
    	It seems to me that the best place to park an asteroid near
    the Earth would be one of the Lagrangian points near the orbit of
    the Moon. It is safe, out of the way, and it would be more economical
    to mine than to mine the debris on the surface of the Moon. It would
    take EMENSELY LESS energy to park an asteroid at an L point, mine
    it there, and bring the processed material to the Moon than it would
    to gently lower a big unprocessed asteroid on the surface of the
    Moon.
    
    				Drew
    
    

    Re. 38
    
    As Re.40 pointed out the effects of impacting on the moon an asteroid
    of at most a couple hundred meters diameter would be negligible.
    We wouldn't be able to push anything bigger even if we could find it.
    Mind you this option should be used only if the moon orbiting asteroid
    alternative isn't better and we haven't found anything already in the
    moon. Because this wouldn't be a gentle touchdown, we could make it
    hit where we wanted but thats about it. Wastefull but might still be
    better then bringing things down bucket by bucket, if we insured that
    the asteroid remains got sealed before the needed volatiles had time 
    to escape.
    
    Re. 39
    
    As I just answered re.38 asteroid impact on the moon is no big deal.
    
    As for what is a light bulb atomic engine. Its an engine where the
    atomic material fissions inside a sphere of internally cooled silica,
    with the reaction mass gas passing around it to be heated solely by
    light radiation then exausting to provide thrust. Many times better
    then the fission pile engine or the current chemical engines.
    
    Gil   "the dreamer"

    Ok, I admit that crashing a few-kilometer diameter rock probably
    would have no nasty effects on earth. But I still stand by my claim
    that we could obtain enormous amounts of information much cheaply
    by an agressive unmanned program, and that we had better become
    far more mature concerning our treatments of ecosystems (right -
    no bioshpere on Mars as far as we know - loose usage of words on
    my part :^) ) BEFORE we colonize en masse.
    
     As to best use of an asteroid - why bring it down on the moon at
    all? The Lagrange points are easier to deal with since tidal effects
    on the object are nullified, there. Medium earth orbit requires
    stationkeeping abilities far more than the L points.
    
     manufactuing facilities could be built, at the L points. Then they
    could be transported wherever they need to be used. It would be
    more expensive to pay for landing the raw material on the moon,
    and boosting it out of the moons gravity well to wherever it is
    supposed to go. 
    
     If it is to be used soley on the moon, I suppose it would be better
    to bring it down there. What would be wrong with bringing the asteroid
    to moon orbit, grinding it up into smaller chunks (say 1" or smaller)
    and then gently "pushing" it so as to decelerate it in such a way
    that it "falls" to the moon. It would sort of spiral in, gathering
    speed all the time. But since there is no atmosphere, there is nothing
    to deflect its flight.You could calculate its impact point and slowly
    build a pile of material. Think it's feasible?
    
    Gregg
    
   

    After thinking about it I realize that the ground up asteroid would
    not spiral in, but would find a stable lower orbit if only given
    a gentle push.
    
    If enough of a push was given to generate an eliptical orbit so
    that it would hit the moon, then you could launch the dirt only
    at one point in its orbit, to have it land on one point on the moon.
    
    So there's no real benefit this way.
    
    Gregg

You want to get the ground up asteroid to the surface for the metal right?  
Iron?  Why not simply build a rail gun at the end of the crusher and shoot 
the rocks to the target area?

Rich

    Because it's not as simple as that. 
    
    Is the rail gun in lunar orbit?
    
     Then you can't just aim it at the point on the lunar surface, and
    shoot it. The moons rotational velocity, and yours will decide where
    it lands. To get to the moon from lunar orbit, without expensive
    rocketry, you'll need to put the dirt in an elliptical orbit calculated
    to intersect with the moon at the point you want the dirt to land.
    
    Gregg
    

    Re .44
    
    Not for the metal athough it would come in handy. Mostly for the
    Hydrogen, Carbon, and Nitrogen all needed for life support. The
    Hydrogen also needed for oxygen extraction and rocket fuel. These
    3 elements being rare or non-existent on the moon as far as we know.
    
    With an adequate supply of these elements the lunar base would be
    that much more idependent of Earth. And therefore cheaper, simpler, 
    safer.

	BOSTON (UPI) -- Two Soviet cosmonauts, in Boston for the opening of
a Soviet space exhibit, say man would be flying to Mars today if the
United States and Soviet Union had not stalled progress with its
secretive space race of the 1960s.
	``If we could have gotten together earlier, we would already have
built an international observatory on the moon and we would be flying to
Mars right now,'' Aleksei Leonov, 56, the first man to walk in space,
told The Boston Globe Thursday.
	Leonov and fellow cosmonaut Valentin Lebedev, who lived in space
for 211 days aboard Salyut 7 in 1982, said that while the superpower
competition initally spurred technical achievements, it eventually
proved counterproductive.
	Their comments came as the United States and the Soviet Union are
considering a joint manned mission to Mars, a prospect both men
enthusiastically support.
	The pair also said the ``lazy'' Soviet media were as much to blame
for the clandestine nature of the Soviet space program as was government
policy.
	``Failure was never reported. Of course some of that depends on the
country's leadership. But the press in our country was not persistent,''
said Leonov, who also flew on the joint U.S.-Soviet Apollo-Soyuz mission
in 1975.
	Only recently has the Soviet media reported that after Leonov's
historic space walk in 1965, he and his crewmate, Pavel Ivanovich, spent
three days trapped inside their Voskod 2 spacecraft on the Russian
tundra, awaiting rescue.
	``There was no reason to keep that a secret,'' Leonov said.
	The cosmonauts were in Boston for the opening Friday of an
exhibition of more than 50 Soviet artifacts documenting the history of
the Soviet space program.


From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: clari.news.gov.international,clari.tw.space,clari.news.interest.history,clari.news.music
Subject: Soviet cosmonauts: Space competition stalled progress
Keywords: non-usa government, government, space, science, history,
Date: 31 May 90 10:34:42 GMT

	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- NASA will seek to enlist universities,
businesses and private citizens to come up with new ideas for manned
missions back to the moon and on to Mars, space agency officials said
Thursday.
	NASA Administrator Richard Truly said former Apollo astronaut Tom
Stafford had agreed to chair the effort and that the ``exploration
outreach program'' will ensure agency planners do not rule out promising
alternatives.
	``I'm pleased to announce today that we are initiating a
wide-ranging and comprehensive outreach program to search for innovative
and new ideas in technology and also to look for alternate
architectures,'' Truly said at a news conference.
	President Bush unveiled a new national space policy last year that
calls for the United States to build and launch a permanently manned
space station before returning to the moon and eventually mounting a
manned flight to Mars.
	Last December, Vice President Dan Quayle, chairman of the National
Space Council, directed NASA to consider outside ideas for how to go
about mounting such ambitious space missions. The outreach program was
the result.
	Truly said the outreach program would take a three-pronged
approach.
	First, the NASA administrator is going to write letters soliciting
ideas from universities, private industry, professional societies and
private individuals with expertise in space systems.
	NASA also will spearhead a government-wide search to seek out
technologies that might have space-related applications.
	Finally, NASA is supporting a program by the American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics to poll its 40,000 members for fresh ideas
and to hold a workshop in September to discuss the results.
	Stafford will head a group to coordinate the effort and to
recommend two or more significantly different approaches. The group will
report to Truly, who in turn will report to Quayle.
	``I believe this approach is very solid, it's thorough and it's
very badly needed,'' Truly said. The result will be ``various ways we
could construct missions back to the moon and also particularly to the
planet Mars.''


From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: clari.tw.space,clari.news.aviation,clari.news.military
Subject: NASA solicits Mars, moon proposals
Keywords: space, science, air transport, transportation, air force,
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 1 Jun 90 01:10:26 GMT
Lines: 38

Vera Hirschberg
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                      June 1, 1990
(Phone:  202/453-9183)


N90-39 EDITORS NOTE:  CASE FOR MARS IV CONFERENCE PLANNED


     The Case for Mars IV Conference, with emphasis on the 
international exploration of Mars, will be held at the University 
of Colorado, Boulder, June 4 to June 8.  The conference will 
explore the potential for human exploration and settlement of 
Mars in the 21st century.  

     The conference is organized by the Boulder Center for 
Science and Policy and is co-sponsored by NASA and a variety of 
national laboratories, aerospace companies and space interest 
groups.  

     Keynote speakers on June 4 include Dr. Thomas O. Paine, 
former NASA Administrator, and Raymond Walters, staff member of 
the National Space Council.  Scientists from the United States, 
Europe, the Soviet Union, Japan, Canada and other countries are 
scheduled to present papers.  

     Conference contact for media representatives is Kelly 
McMillen (Phone:  303/494-8144).


From: [email protected] (Peter E. Yee)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Date: 3 Jun 90 06:01:03 GMT
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA

From: [email protected] (United Press International)
Newsgroups: clari.news.interest.quirks
Subject: Quirks in the News
Date: 10 Oct 90 04:07:23 GMT
 
_K_i_d_s_:_ _L_e_t_'_s_ _g_o_ _t_o_ _M_a_r_s

	NEW YORK (UPI) -- Lots of Earth kids are ready to go to Mars and
expect to meet friendly Martians with special talents, according to a
new survey.

	A Gallup poll of 1,500 10- to 14-year-old children around the United
States, commissioned by the makers of M&M and Mars candies, found that
64 percent would go to the red planet if they could.  Only 31 percent
said they'd rather not.

	The children were split, with 49 percent of boys and 43 percent of
girls saying yes, on whether humans would one day build cities on Mars,
with older children more likely to have that expectation than kids aged
10-11, the survey found.

	Most of the children -- 73 percent of the girls and 66 percent of the
boys surveyed -- expected Martians would be friendly to Earthlings.

	Eighty percent expected Martians would have ablities that people on
Earth lack, with 64 percent of the boys and 57 percent of the girls
saying Martians would have better technology.

	A few said Martians probably could fly or perform what, for humans,
would be supernatural tricks. 

Article         1718
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: clari.tw.space,clari.tw.science
Subject: Stanford study proposes Mars landing, base
Date: 26 Jun 91 16:27:08 GMT 
 
	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- An international effort could land the
first human exploration team on Mars and establish a permanent base on
the Red Planet within 21 years, a report concluded Wednesday. 

	The exploration would use currently available technologies
from the United States, Soviet Union, and Japan and cost about
one-tenth what NASA has projected a Mars mission could cost, the
report said. 

	The report stems from a six-month study conducted by four
professors and 25 graduate students at Stanford University in
California and five senior Soviet space engineers.  It was released 
at a news conference in Washington. 

	``We were urged by the U.S. engineers and scientists of the
international Mars exploration community to evaluate and document an
efficient approach to manned exploration of Mars,'' said Bruce Lusignan, 
a Stanford electrical engineering professor who led the study. 

	The plan calls for establishing a base on Mars at a site known
as Candor Chasma II, which is located in a giant rift valley stretching 
more than 4,000 miles across the Martian equator. 

	The Mars exploration team would be composed of three men and
three women and it would take about nine months to travel from Earth
to Mars.  The team would spend more than one year on Mars and then 
take nine months to return.  The base would be permanent and would be
reoccupied and expanded after the first crew departs. 

	The project would cost $60 billion over 20 years, with the
annual budget peaking at $4.8 billion 10 years after it began.  That
price tag compares to as much as $540 billion that NASA has projected
such a project would cost. 

	The plan calls for ``precursor'' missions involving sending
robots to Mars first to collect soil samples.  They would cost $10
billion and be included in the final price tag. 

	The effort would use existing technologies, including the
powerful Soviet Energia rocket to launch material necessary for the
mission into low Earth orbit. 

	Prefabricated ``apartments'' for the crew and a prefabricated
``garage'' containing two-tracked exploration vehicles, which would be
landed at the Mars base two years before the crew arrived, according
to the plan. 

	A Mars surface-to-orbit vehicle and an orbiting propellant
module also would be sent to Mars before the first astronauts. 

	To reduce the adverse health effects on astronauts from a long
space trip, the plan calls for spinning the spacecraft around a 5-ton
counterweight at four revolutions per minute to create artificial
gravity at one-third of Earth's. 

	The plan also calls for a two-step launching method in which
cargo vehicles and the interplanetary transit vehicle would be
launched about every three or four months into a ``staging'' orbit
around Earth. 

	When it came time to launch, one vehicle each day would be
swung out of orbit like a rock from a sling using the orbit's velocity
as part of the energy to go to Mars. 

    This is the way manned space exploration needs to be done. I'm all in
    favour of international efforts like this, for all kinds of reasons in
    addition to the lower cost.
    
    I hope this idea is seen as the way to go by the American, Soviet and
    Japanese people and governments, as it would provide a great boost to
    terrestrial co-operation between these nations as well.
    
    
    Dave Hazel

I agree that it is the way to do this particular mission - it would have many
benefits outside of the space program.

It is important to keep in mind that the cost of doing an international effort
is much higher than a single nation doing it alone (in this case, the cost is
really too high for any single nation, so it's almost moot).  The lower cost
of the combined effort is only lower compared against the cost of going for
it alone.

Accounting structures to handle the different currencies, different work styles,
management styles and ethics, timezone differences, travel costs, and
international politics all incur a *very* high cost.   I wonder if these
realities were factored into their cost estimates and schedules.

- dave

    Of course, they could be really smart, and get the Swiss to organise it
    for them. :-)
    
    Dave Hazel

From:	DECWRL::"[email protected]" "Ron Baalke"  2-APR-1993 
To:	[email protected]
CC:	
Subj:	Mars '94 Contract

Debra J. Rahn
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                                    April 2, 1993
(Phone:  202/358-1639)

RELEASE:  93-62

NASA AND THE RUSSIAN SPACE AGENCY SIGN MARS '94 CONTRACT

	NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin and Russian Space Agency (RSA) 
Director Yuri Koptev today announced that they have signed a contract with a 
potential value of $1.5 Million to fly two U.S. Mars Oxident Experiment (MOX) 
instruments on the Russian Mars '94 Mission.

	The Mars '94 Mission, to be launched in November 1994, will deploy 
small landing stations and penetrators and carry a complement of instruments 
to study the surface and atmosphere of the planet Mars.

	Under the contract, the Babakin Engineering Research Center, Moscow, 
and the Space Research Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 
will provide technical services for integrating and testing the U.S. MOX 
instruments.

	A duplicate MOX instrument will fly on each of the two Russian small 
stations.  These instruments will conduct soil reactivity/composition 
experiments to provide chemical information about the volatile components in 
the martian soil.  These experiments will enable scientists to characterize the 
martian physical and chemical surface environment.

	Subject to appropriation of funds in FY 94, NASA plans to exercise an 
option under the contract to procure an engineering model of the Mars '94 
small station.  This will allow NASA to perform integration tests with the U.S.-
supplied flight instrument systems in preparation for integration on the flight 
models with minimal impact to existing instrumentation.  The model also will 
improve NASA's understanding of lander technology for future mars missions.

	The implementing agreement on NASA's participation in the Russian 
Mars '94 Mission was signed by NASA and RSA on October 5, 1992, in Moscow.  

     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [email protected]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Being cynical never helps 
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | to correct the situation 
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | and causes more aggravation
                                                  | instead.

Article: 3760
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
From: [email protected] (Ron Baalke)
Subject: International Mars Exploration Group Formed
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Mon, 17 May 1993 18:11:00 GMT
 
Debra J. Rahn
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                          May 17, 1993
(Phone:  202/358-1639)
 
RELEASE:  93-87
 
INTERNATIONAL MARS EXPLORATION GROUP FORMED
 
	NASA, the European Space Agency, the Russian Space Research
Institute (IKI), the Italian Space Agency , the German Space Agency 
and the French Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales have decided to form
an International Mars Exploration Working Group to produce an 
international strategy for the exploration of Mars after the year 2000. 
 
	 This decision was made during a meeting in Wiesbaden,
Germany, on May 10, 1993. 
 
	This marks the first time that the agencies have agreed to
develop a multilateral strategy on the exploration of Mars.  The
working group also will examine the possibilities for an International
Mars Network mission.  In addition, it will provide a forum for the
coordination of future Mars exploration missions. 
 
	All interested space agencies that wish to participate will be
invited to join the working group.  The first meeting is scheduled in
Graz, Austria, in October 1993. 
 
	During this meeting in Wiesbaden, the space agency
representatives, together with scientists from around the world, also
unanimously expressed their support for the Russian Mars 96 mission,
an extension beyond 1996 for the U.S. Mars Observer mission and a new
start for the Mars Environmental Survey Pathfinder mission in 1994. 
 
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [email protected]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Never laugh at anyone's
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | dreams.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | 
 

    > INTERNATIONAL MARS EXPLORATION GROUP FORMED
    
    Finally a step in the right direction...   although the risk is high
    that they will just produce another report that everyone will ignore.
    
    Much better if this agreement to talk had been taken at the political
    level. As it is they who control the money.
    
    Gil

Article 3781 of sci.space.news:
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Path: nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!ames!dont-send-mail-to-path-lines
From: [email protected] (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Russian Mars Rover Telepresence Test - 05/21/93
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Followup-To: sci.space
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Sender: [email protected]
Nntp-Posting-Host: kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Fri, 21 May 1993 15:21:00 GMT
Approved: [email protected]
Lines: 54

Status report on Russian Mars rover telepresence test 
between Ames and Moscow:

Dave Lavery, Headquarters Office of Advanced Concepts and 
Technology robotics program manager, reports that Ames 
conducted the first test on Wednesday afternoon of a 
remote virtual reality control system which is being 
tested to operate a prototype Mars rover located in 
Moscow.

This first test involved establishing a computer 
connection from the control workstation located at Ames 
across the Internet to the CNES facility in Toulouse, 
France, and from there through a repeater to the IKI 
laboratory in Moscow.

The first test was to drive the rover down a hallway in 
the laboratory.  A scene description model (a computer 
representation of the physical conditions) of the hallway 
was downloaded from the Internet from Moscow to the 
workstation at Ames and was used to construct a virtual 
environment at Ames of the Moscow hallway.  The computer 
environment was then used by the Ames operator to 
visually command the rover to drive down the length of 
the hallway.

(of note:  This same methodology was used in this past 
December's Dante robot experiment by operators from 
Carnegie Mellon University located at Goddard Space 
Flight Center to perform a robot control test of the 
Dante robot located on the rim of Mt. Erebus in the 
Antarctic.  In this instance, though, the computer link 
was made through the TDRS satellite.)

The only feedback to the Ames operator during the Mars 
Russian rover test was a set of numerical position sensor 
readings being displayed on the operator's computer 
workstation monitor.  Video compression and transmission 
hardware and software will be installed on the rover next 
week to allow the Ames remote operator to view the actual 
operation of the rover as commands are sent over the 
Internet.


Chas Redmond
OACT PAO
5/21/93
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [email protected]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Never laugh at anyone's
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | dreams.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | 

From:	US1RMC::"[email protected]" "Ron Baalke" 22-JUN-1993 
To:	[email protected]
CC:	
Subj:	Library Disc to be Sent to Mars

A LIBRARY TO BE SENT TO MARS:
The Planetary Society Organizes a Gift to Future Settlers

     The Planetary Society, in cooperation with the Russian Space
Research Institute (IKI), will create Visions of Mars to travel 
to the red planet aboard Mars 94 when it is launched to Mars next year.
A press conference at the Explorers Club will preview this historic
undertaking at 10:00 am on June 22, 1993, in New York City.  

     Visions of Mars will be a collection of science fiction stories, 
sounds and images on a compact disc that chronicle humanity's 
fascination with Mars and its imagined Martians from H.G. Wells 
to the present day.  A copy of the disc will be placed inside 
each of the two small stations that Mars 94 will land on the 
surface of the red planet in September, 1995.

     The flight disc and CD-ROM replicas will be produced by Time 
Warner Interactive Group (previously Warner New Media) in Burbank, 
California.

     This collection is intended as a gift from our era to the 
future generations of humans who will one day explore, and perhaps 
settle, Mars.

     Dr. Carl Sagan, President of the Planetary Society, describes the 
rationale behind Visions of Mars:  "Before our technology caught up with 
our dreams, the way to Mars was described by the great writers of modern 
science fiction.  Those who built and operated the first robot explorers 
of Mars, the Mariners and Vikings, and those who are now designing new 
missions -- for robots and for humans -- often recall how they were 
motivated by science fiction.  The first adventures of space exploration 
were some mix of fiction and reality, interacting in the minds of the 
spaceflight pioneers.

     "Now, in 1993, we are preparing the first mobile robotic explorers of 
Mars, and human exploration of Mars is becoming more and more feasible.  
It seems appropriate to place a collection of these works on Mars -- 
as a motivation and memento for future explorers there.  These will be 
the first volumes in Visions of Mars."

     Future recipients of the discs will find them in protected locations 
inside the small landers.  A label on the exterior of each lander will 
announce in five languages the presence of the disc and how to play it.  
A microdot on the surface of the disc will contain additional technical 
information about its operation.

     The five languages on the disc label -- English, Finnish, French, 
German, and Russian -- reflect the languages of the Mars 94 mission team 
participants.

Contents of Visions of Mars

     Visions of Mars will contain the equivalent of several thousand pages 
of fiction from writers around the world, from H.G. Wells to Isaac Asimov, 
Alexei Tolstoi to Kurt Vonnegut.

     At the press conference, the editors plan to issue a special call 
for additional submissions from non-English speaking countries.  All stories
will be recorded onto the disc in the language in which they were written.

     The disc will also include a portion of the Orson Welles radio broadcast 
of War of the Worlds that panicked thousands of people when it aired on 
Halloween in 1938; an audio recording made the night that the Viking I 
lander made the first successful landing on Mars, featuring reactions 
from Gene Roddenberry, Robert Heinlein, Ray Bradbury and others; and 
brief messages to the future inhabitants of Mars from key figures such 
as Arthur C. Clarke.

     A portfolio of artwork will document the changing views of Mars in the
popular imagination with images from classic science fiction stories and 
films as well as works of astronomical art.  Artists include Kelly Freas, 
Frank R. Paul, Frank Frazetta, Chesley Bonestell, Andrei Sokolov and 
Robert McCall.

     Jon Lomberg, the artist and journalist who was on NASA's Voyager 
Interstellar Record design team, is supervising the production and editorial
content of Visions of Mars.  Science fiction writer and anthologist 
Judith Merril is consulting Editor of the selected stories.

     The Merril Collection of Science Fiction, Speculation and Fantasy, 
a major science fiction library in the Toronto Public Library system, 
is coordinating story research and selection.  John Robert Colombo, and 
anthologist and science fiction scholar, and Lorna Toolis, Head Librarian
of the Merril Collection, serve on the Editorial Board choosing the 
stories, together with Lomberg, Merril and Sagan.

Development of Visions of Mars Disc

     The Planetary Society is producing Visions of Mars in agreement with
the Space Research Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences.  Time Warner
Interactive Group (TWIG) will be responsible for the interface design, 
programming and disc production and manufacturing.  The CD-ROM will be 
designed to play on both Apple and IBM computers.

     Gene Giberson, former Assistant Director of Flight Projects at the
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, is providing The Planetary Society with technical
supervision of disc materials, testing and rating for spaceflight.  The flight
disc must be able to withstand both the landing shock on Mars (up to 200 g's)
and temperatures ranging from -115 to +55 degrees Centigrade over its 
anticipated lifespan of a century or more.  Viacheslav Linkin, Project 
Scientist for Small Stations on Mars 94, is responsible for the integration 
of the discs on the landers.

     If the disc is not delivered safely to the surface of Mars due to 
unforeseen circumstance -- The Planetary Society and IKI will prepare the 
disc again and will seek its inclusion in the next mission to land on Mars.

The Planetary Society

Carl Sagan, Bruce Murray and Louis Friedman founded The Planetary Society in 
1980 as a non-profit organization dedicated to the exploration of the solar 
system and search for extraterrestrial life.  With 100,000 members in over 
100 nations, the Society is the largest space interest group in the world.

***

The Explorer's Club is located at 46 E. 70th St.,  New York City.  
The press conference will be at 10:00 am, Tuesday, June 22nd, 1993.  
Explorer's Club Phone: 212-628-8383, Fax: 212-288-4449

***

For additional information (including photos), contact: Susan Lendroth  
(818) 793-5100.

***

Technical contact: Jim Bumgardner, Systems Expert, TWIG
e-mail: [email protected]   
voice: (818) 955-7091

     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [email protected]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Don't outlive your money.
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | 
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | 

Article: 1795
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.info
From: [email protected] (Jim Bumgardner)
Subject: Kids' art to go to Mars
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: Time Warner Interactive Group
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1993 18:01:25 GMT
 
I thought this might be of interest since Mike Okuda from STTNG is one
of the judges in this children's art contest, in which the winner's
picture gets sent to Mars. 
 
Incidentally, we are also including a rendering of Mike's Enterprise
Dedication Plaque on the Mars disc, which mentions that the Enterprise
was constructed on Mars. 
 
- Jim Bumgardner
 
==================================================================
         TIME WARNER INTERACTIVE GROUP
           THE PLANETARY SOCIETY
     NATIONAL PUBLIC TELECOMPUTING NETWORK
 
         *****  VISIONS OF MARS *****
 
       ***** CHILDREN'S ART CONTEST *****
 
About Visions of Mars
---------------------
 
A Russian spacecraft is going to be launched in 1994 on a mission to
the planet Mars.  Nestled inside the Mars lander will be a unique
CD-ROM - a disc containing classic science fiction stories in many
languages, science fiction art and greetings from the people of Earth.
The disc is being produced by The Planetary Society and Time Warner
Interactive Group with assistance from IKI (The Russian space agency)
JPL (Jet Propulsion Lab) and many others.  It is our hope that this
disc will be discovered, and enjoyed, by future human visitors to Mars.
 
About the Contest
-----------------
 
The Visions of Mars Children's Art Contest is an attempt to get the
children of Earth involved in this unique project.  Children ages 4-12
(grades K through 6) are invited to submit an original artwork of
Mars.  You may show us the Mars of yesterday, today, or tomorrow; real
or imagined.  The winning artwork will be included on the Visions of
Mars CD-ROM, and will be launched to the planet Mars.  One day,
perhaps, the artist will get the opportunity to retrieve it.
 
Prizes
------
 
First Prize
The winning artwork will be included on the Visions of Mars CD-ROM
which is scheduled to be launched on the Russian Mars 94 mission.  The
winner will receive a Visions of Mars CD-ROM, and a certificate.
 
10 Runners Up
10 additional pieces of art will be selected to appear in the
commercial edition of Visions of Mars.  Runners Up will receive a
Visions of Mars CD-ROM for their school library or computer lab, and a
certificate.
 
20 Honorable Mentions
Honorable Mention winners will receive a certificate and their choice
of one of the following Time Warner Interactive Group CD-ROMs for 
their school library or computer labs:
 
                The View from Earth
                Murmurs of Earth
                Life Map I, II or III
                How Computers Work
                Creation Stories
                Word Tales
 
Judges
------
 
The following people will be judging the artwork:
 
	Mike Okuda, Art Supervisor, Star Trek: The Next Generation
        Lou Friedman, Executive Director, The Planetary Society
        Jon Lomberg, Project Director, The Planetary Society
        Jim Bumgardner, Producer, Time Warner Interactive Group
        Steve Johnson, Art Director, Time Warner Interactive Group
 
About The Planetary Society
---------------------------
 
The Planetary Society is a non-profit organization with 100,000
members worldwide dedicated to planetary exploration and the search
for extraterrestrial intelligence.  Headquartered in Pasadena, CA, the
Society also sponsors many educational projects for students.  For
further info about the Planetary Society, contact...
 
About Time Warner Interactive Group
-----------------------------------
 
Time Warner Interactive Group is the multimedia publishing arm of Time
Warner Inc.  TWIG publishes a variety of educational and entertaining
CD-ROM discs for both Windows and Macintosh computers.
 
About the National Public Telecomputing Network
-----------------------------------------------
 
The National Public Telecomputing Network (NPTN) is a non-profit
organization dedicated to establishing and developing free, public
access, computerized information and communication services for the
general public.  One of the programs of NPTN is ACADEMY ONE, a
national online educational resource for primary through secondary
students, parents, educators, and administrators.  This art contest
is an Academy One special event.
 
Rules
-----
 
1. Children from 4-12 years of age are eligible to enter the contest.
To facilitate meeting the launch deadline, no more than 3 entries from
each class should be submitted.
 
2.  Either natural or computer art may be submitted.  Winning entries
which are natural art will be digitally scanned for inclusion on the CD.
 
3. Natural art should be no larger than 11 by 17 inches and should be
flat so it can be scanned easily (no macaroni or pine cones please!).
Natural art should be mailed flat or in a tube to Mars Art Contest c/o
Time Warner Interactive Group, 2210 W. Olive Ave., Burbank, CA, USA,
91506-2626
 
4. Computer art should be no larger than 640 x 480 pixels.  The
following file formats will be accepted: PICT, TIFF, PCX, DIB, BMP,
Targa, GIF, Amiga IFF.  Computer art may be mailed to the above
address, or e-mailed to  [email protected].  
 
5.  Each entry should be accompanied with a short document containing
the following information: Name of Contestant, Age, Grade, Home
Address, Phone Number.  Name and Address of School.  Title of Artwork.
Include a short statement describing the artwork.  This information
should either be attached to the picture or written on the back of the
picture.
 
7.  The deadline for natural art entries is November 8, 1993.  The
deadline for computer art entries is November 15, 1993.  Winners will
be announced in January.
 
8.  All images become the property of Time Warner Interactive Group
(TWIG) and The Planetary Society (TPS).  TWIG and TPS reserve the
right to publish the work, free of charge, in any medium, be it
CD-ROM, print, television or some new media not yet invented.
NPTN will display as much of the artwork as possible in electronic
format in the Academy One program.
 
For further information, contact T. J. Goldstein ([email protected]) or
Jim Bumgardner ([email protected]).
 
====================================================================
-- 
--
-- Jim Bumgardner                 |   [email protected]
-- Time Warner Interactive Group  |   [email protected]
 
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited by Jim "The Big Dweeb" Griffith - the official scapegoat for r.a.s.i.
Email submissions to [email protected] and questions to [email protected]

Article: 80808
From: [email protected] (David T. Chappell)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.science,alt.sci.planetary
Subject: Mars Information Sheets Now Available
Date: 4 Jan 1994 03:05:04 GMT
Organization: Stanford University
 
In a project related to class work at Stanford University, I have
written several documents about Mars that are now available via
Internet.  In the Stanford International Mars Mission (SIMM), students
researched a practical manned mission to Mars, and these documents put
a small sample of the course results in a user-friendly package. 
 
The information sheets may be freely copied and distributed as long as
no modifications are made to the original, no fee is charged for the
document, and they are used only for educational purposes.  The
author, David T. Chappell, participated in the 1993 SIMM course and
acted as team leader for the space science team.  He can be reached
via electronic mail on Internet as [email protected] or via
U. S. mail at P. O. Box 8285, Stanford, CA 94309-8285.  Comments and
suggestions are welcome. 
 
The primary source for the latest sheets is an Internet ftp site.  Use
anonymous ftp to harvest.stanford.edu and look in the directory
/pub/mars.  The files are available in several formats:  Microsoft
Word for Windows, Microsoft Word for Macintosh, PostScript, and raw
text.  The listing below shows all currently-finished information
sheets in this SIMM Mars data series.  If and only if reader response
warrants it, more information sheets will be made available. 
 
The Stanford International Mars Mission:
     An introduction to SIMM and the group's mission.
SIMM Document Listing:
     A listing of all SIMM documents.
Mars Sites of Scientific Interest:
     A listing and description of several Martian locations of special
     scientific interest.
Martian Weather:
     A description of the meteorology on Mars.
Scientific Objectives for Mars Exploration:
     Goals for the exploration of Mars.
 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++                                      
     David T. Chappell            --       [email protected]
    Stanford University           --   Stanford International Mars Mission
Electrical Engineering Department --       Keeper of the Superman FAQ       
 

Article: 3705
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
From: [email protected] (Marcus Lindroos)
Subject: Mars Semi-Direct in NEWSWEEK
Sender: [email protected] (Usenet NEWS)
Organization: �bo Akademi University
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 13:16:09 GMT
 
Robert Zubrin's and NASA's "Mars Semi-Direct" proposal is this week's
NEWSWEEK cover story! The informative 6-page article describes how six
astronauts could be sent to Mars for "only" $50 billion. Only three
Energia or Saturn V launches would be required (the illustration shows
an Energia). As everybody knows by now, the secret is to manufacture
the fuel for the return trip on Mars rather than haul it all the way
from Earth. This is where Zubrin saves hundreds of millions because
the spacecraft can be made smaller and lighter, which means the ship
no longer must be assembled in low Earth orbit. 
---
The mission profile of Mars Semi-Direct is as follows:
 
2007:
------
Two Saturn Vs or Energias launch two unmanned payloads towards Mars on
a Type II 11 month trajectory to save fuel. One, the fully fueled
EARTH RETURN VEHICLE, enters an elliptical parking orbit around Mars
where it will remain until the crew is ready to depart in 2011. The
second unmanned payload (a SUPPLY CRAFT, a small unfueled cone-shaped
ASCENT VEHICLE designed to carry the astronauts off Mars, a chemical
processing plant for producing fuel plus six tons of liquid hydrogen)
uses aerocapture to land at the predetermined site north of Valles
Marineris. Then it would release a robot truck carrying a 130hp
nuclear reactor. At a safe distance from the ship (radiation hazards,
I suppose), the reactor starts running a pump that sucks in Martian
atmosphere. A chemical reaction will start, producing 108 tons of
methane and LOX fuel from the hydrogen sitting in the nearby supply
ship and carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. All the fuel is fed into
the ascent vehicle's tanks. 
 
October 2009:
----------------
Another heay-lift launch vehicle carrying the crew of six plus
two-story-high HABITAT MODULE blasts off from Earth. The journey is
slightly faster (6 months) and artificial gravity is produced by
having the empty Mars injection rocket stage and the habitat orbit
each other. They are connected to each other by a 1.5km tether; one
revolution per minute produces a gravity of 0.38G - the strength of
Mars' gravity. The habitat module uses aerocapture to enter Mars
orbit. Aerobraking would be used over two revolutions to land the
craft on Mars next to the unmanned payload that arrived 18 months
earlier. 
---
The surface stay time would be up to 500 days. The crew would use a
pressurized 2-man rover fueled by LOX and methane to explore an area
about the size of Texas. On top of the wish list: sampling the
numerous ancient river beds for signs of extinct life. The crew would
live in the spaceship that brought them.
 
October 2011:
---------------
When the launch window opens, the crew would blast off from Mars in
the small ascent vehicle and dock with the Earth return vehicle. This
is where Mars Semi-Direct differs from Mars Direct- Zubrin's original
proposal from 1990. Mars Direct would have landed the Earth return
vehicle on Mars instead, where _in situ_ fuel production would have
been used to fill its tanks with methane and LOX. But the vehicle
would have to be much larger (and also more expensive) to go all the
way to Earth, which in turn would have required that much more fuel be
produced. In contrast, a small Apollo type capsule will be good enough
for the ascent vehicle. The drawback with Semi-Direct is that the crew
is stranded if they can't rendezvous with the orbiting Earth return vehicle. 
---
Safely on board the Earth return vehicle (apparently almost identical
to the habitat module, except there is no landing gear), the astronauts 
jettison the ascent vehicle and fires a rocket to return to Earth.  A 
small Earth return capsule will be used to land on Earth in April 2012. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A surprisingly high number of Americans (52%) think the US should
undertake a manned mission to Mars with other nations to share costs
and expertise. 4% would prefer a solo mission to Mars. 41% are opposed
to manned Mars missions. This according to a recent NEWSWEEK poll. 56%
ain't too bad... 
 
MARCU$

Article: 3828
From: [email protected] (bromley blair pat)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Re: Mars Semi-Direct in NEWSWEEK
Date: 25 Jul 1994 19:37:57 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
 
[email protected] (Marcus Lindroos INF) writes:
 
>In <[email protected]> [email protected] writes:
 
>> I saw this article too, and I was very interested. One question, though: what
>> will be the reusability potential? Will $50 billion be only the initial
>> investment, or is that what it would cost to return each time?
>> 
>> I am fully in favor of a manned Mars mission, but I don't want it to be a
>> "one-shot wonder" that costs just as much to repeat.
 
>They don't get much cheaper than this, I think. A future upgrade
>to Mars Direct would save some money though. If a Delta Clipper type SSTO
>were available, we could scrap the expendable ascent vehicle & Earth
>return craft and probably omit one or two Energia/Saturn V launches as well.
   
   I read that article this past weekend.  It was quite good.
   I also had the opportunity to listen to Zubrin speak on his 
   Mars Direct proposal, and speak with him personally, amoung
   many others.  
 
   I am skeptical that an SSTO could replace a heavy lift booster
   for the mars direct plan, unless the SSTO could be refueled
   in earth orbit.  From my understanding, Zubrin's plan is
   the fastest and cheapest way to get there now with our
   current infrastructure and technology.  It is analogous to
   the conestoga wagon that was used to open up the
   American West.  
 
   With Zubrin's plan, we throw away the booster, the earth-return
   vehicle; we keep part of the fuel plant on mars, the mars
   dwelling, the truck, and the nuclear reactor, which I' m
   assuming, eventually runs down.  For short-term
   Mars exploration, development, and preliminary settlement,
   it's the way to go.  
 
   Zubrin's conestoga wagon will need to give way to
   "Battlestar Galactica", as I once heard him refer
   to the interplanetary mothership.  It will be 
   a nuclear powered ferry between planets, fueled
   in orbit, and taking on and dispatching cargo
   with SSTO vehicles.  But this requires more
   development and investment, and infrastructure,
   which we don't have right now.
 
   An SSTO going straight from Earth surface to Mars
   surface and back , and carrying significant cargo,
   and being able to support a small crew is limited
   by the engine performance.  Nuclear Thermal Rocket
   engines, and in-orbit refuelling might change that.
   Using straight chemical engines to get a one stage
   vehicle from earth 's surface to Mars' surface
   seems near impossible.
 
   blair
 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Russell Stewart			 "The more people I meet...
>> [email protected]	 	  the more I like my dog." 
>> Albuquerque, NM			    -A bumper sticker I saw
 
>MARCU$

Article: 3850
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
From: [email protected] (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Mars Semi-Direct in NEWSWEEK
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 03:54:21 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
 
In article <[email protected]>
[email protected] (Marcus Lindroos) writes: 

>...One, the fully fueled EARTH RETURN 
>VEHICLE, enters an elliptical parking orbit around Mars where it will remain 
>until the crew is ready to depart in 2011...
 
Hmm.  That means shipping the fuel for the return trip from Earth,
rather than making it on Mars.  It means having to store it in space
for years, which will be particularly troublesome because if you ship
it all from Earth, there will be pressure to use liquid hydrogen to
minimize mass. Finally, it means contending with the effects of Mars's
mascons on the parking orbit for several years.  This does not sound
like much of a simplification to me. 
-- 
SMASH!  "Sayy... I *liked* that window."| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
"I enjoyed it too!"  "Hmph!  Some hero!"|  [email protected]  utzoo!henry