Excellent job interviewing Dr Zubrin! We all know he is not always the easiest to interview.. But you both got most of your points across, and we all learned some new things.
Lmao yea he usually thrash people who oppose his ideas. But hes had a very very long time to think about this stuff. All of his life. And he even came up with solutiins that pleases most peoples concerns. I think the answer is somewhere betweeen peoples concerns and his solutions. He can be a bit cold to the mission sometimes. But i also agree that people are a little too soft on the pioneers of the mission. People need to know that this stuff is not sugar spice and everything nice. People will die. Risk are high. But what will become of their sacrifice is greater than any one man. By the way they are going to die anyway. Better to be for a great reason than natural causes or a plane crash or many other non significant ways to go.
Ha! I was listening to this late at night and was almost sleeping until Fraser called Zubrin out. I was completely awake after that :-). I agree with Fraser that NASA got a lot of mixed signals from the US government in the 70s until now that has made it difficult for NASA to set clear goals. Also, SpaceX exists because of NASA's decision to put the commercial program in place. Also, the astronomy missions of NASA are awesome. Zubrin also appreciates that. All in all, great interview. Thanks Fraser and Dr. Zubrin!
@@leerman22 Not really, he mentioned his name once and that was just in regards to an admittedly flawed attempt at a moon programme. Not that I really care all that much, Donald is quite literally not my president.
@@leerman22 I was under the impression that "orange man bad" people were just those who brought up Trump outside of politics, I'm not sure that qualifies. But like I said, either way it really doesn't concern me.
@@jeffvader811 I define the "orange man bad" guys to be those who buy into any crazy conspiracy involving the orange man and after said conspiracy is proven wrong, "Orange man still bad." Kind of like the Carpe Donktum star wars scroll meme video just posted. I just want to be able to follow Rubin's twitter for the science and not the trump ramblings.
We would have lots of dead Astronauts and zero confidence in Space Missions if we listened to Mr. Zubrin. We don't know yet the effects of long term exposure. We have Zero experience at launching from Mars. It would be a one way trip, and the team would perish. There are lots of reasons why this is taking time.
@@hardergamer Appeal to authority doesn't change the facts, though. • there's no data on long term human presence outside the van-Allen-Belt • there's zero experience with crewed interplanetary missions, especially missions beyond Earth orbit without any in-flight failure modes (the Apollo missions had a free return trajectory, which saved Apollo 13; impossible to do with Mars missions) • aero-capture and powered landing of heavy spacecraft (40t+) hasn't been demonstrated on Mars (so far only aero-braking plus hypersonic parachutes plus powered landing has been tried) • this is what astronauts look like after 6 months in zero-G: dailym.ai/2m1Sn12 experience with low-G environment after 6 months in zero-G: none • closed-loop life support on another planet running for years hasn't been demonstrated • in-situ fuel production on Mars hasn't been demonstrated I'm sure there's many more challenges I forgot. There's a reason Apollo took an incremental approach (docking, long-stay in space, in-orbit testing, lunar fly-by, lunar orbit, lunar landing). Progress doesn't take sacrifice! We aren't some savage tribe that needs to sacrifice blood to the Blood God in order to appease the lords of space faring. Taking risks is one thing, but deliberately ignoring them is a crime.
@@totalermist We're not deliberately ignoring risks when talking about the trip to Mars, but everyone agrees it's gonna be a risky endeavour. And still people want to take those risks and travel to Mars knowing full well that it might be a one way trip.
That was such an interesting interview. I really like his statement at the end about the infinite sky. Humans have done a lot to better the human condition, and we can do even more with our intelligence and an infinite sky above us.
Great interview!! Good job on getting him to talk about a variety of subjects other than Mars Direct and the gateway. I enjoyed these bits the most... wonder whether he did too!
Good interview. I am with Zubrin on most of the case regarding Mars BUT I still need more data on human physiology in space and in low gravity provided we don't support it with rotational gravity.
@@NimbleBard48We always need more data on everything, it's a natural mistake to wait too long. Everyone dies eventually, we could "potentially be going to our death" when we get in a car. We each tolerate THAT risk to go get unhealthy food! If I was an astronaut I'd MUCH prefer the more dangerous and rewarding missions to just hanging around Earth taking blood samples of myself in space for my entire career as several astronaut generations have done at this point, bluntly put. We can have them do the testing as they explore. The pace of development at SpaceX, say, is because of risk taking. Making a prototype before you've figured out everything lets you discover all the problems you didn't even think of, early, AND it sometimes even means you stop worrying about some maybe's that never materialize in reality.
@@runem5429 You generalize while we need to be specific. 31:15 This is the thing I am talking about. Low gravity environment and it's effects on humans. Fraser is also concerned about this and Zubrin agrees that we need to start to research it extensively. So far we have valuable information from observations on Scott Kelly. More data will be available after we have astronauts on the Moon. Actually, I just read a good comment in the Live chat while I was writing this: Raimo Kangasniemi: "The longest manned spaceflight is 437 days. There is a huge step from that to two-year-long Mars mission. There should be that long space station missions - and tests of spacecraft." What are you actually advocating for because we haven't established this yet - sending people straight to Mars for 2 years? For 1 year? My opinion is that if it's max an over 1 year mission, so basically a flyby with a possible landing and staying a few days, then I'm good with that. If it's an over 2 year mission then it's a bad idea unless we have artificial gravity on the spaceship.
@@NimbleBard48 Good reply :) I'm accepting your specifics, and using those as the context I think I'm just a tiny little bit more willing to risk something than you are. I'm ok with banking on Mars gravity "fixing" whatever adverse effects zero g travel to Mars would cause. Actually I'm about as ok with that as I would be with having the 3rd, 4th, 5th(..) astronauts to be in zero g for that long to be doing it with no safety net. But you are right, we can't know if people go back to normal on Mars like they more or less do on Earth after zero g..
Hi Fraser, I totally enjoy your show. Never miss any. I was wondering when the JWST become operational will it be able to get a good view of our gas Giants ? I understand there's very little data about Uranus and Neptune.
Fraser, my gods thank you for putting this interview together. 1. A huge amount of Respect for the “I think you oversimplified..” 2. You owe it to yourself to work on a second interview so that the two of you can expand on the Climate change stuff. 3. Subscriber to new patreon contributor soon as I can get the process done. 4. Gratz on 250K! 5. Needs a part 2! And 3 and 4. 😆
I wish we had more people like Zubrin. In governments, schools and next to people like Musk. I also wish we had more Musks :) I'm 33 now in 2020 and I really hope I won't die until humans land on Mars and return to the Moon.
If it turns out that planet 9 is actually a bowling ball sized primordial black hole, 10 times the mass of earth; could we potentially send craft to it and study it in our life times? Is there a chance it might be close enough to send craft to it and have them get there reality quickly?
I think if Planet 9 actually was a black hole, we would definitely use Starshot to check it out as soon as possible! I mean a planet definitely would require a mission eventually, but a black hole within realistic reach could spur calls for immediate investigation. LIGO and the EHT are great for testing Einstein's theories, but there is nothing like getting up close and personal. Basically, I think we would figure the getting there part out pretty quickly. And since it would be multiple times Earth's mass, we could probably get there quick and orbit instead of flyby.
That's a Stellarvue 70mm telescope on an Explore Scientific mount. And I never use it because I"m totally spoiled by the 11" RASA we use for the Virtual Star Parties. :-)
@@frasercain aaaahhh the RASA 11" F/2.2. I remember the days when collecting photons used to be hard :p. Enjoy that beast of a telescope and keep up the good work!
Sébastien Raymond I can see why, I am a history major and, while his outlook is plausible, it surely isn’t 100% truth. There is merit though, something we should definitely be paying mind to.
Hello, my question is. Since black holes have gravity, and since nothing cannot escape a black hole, does that eliminate the possibility of gravitron’s being a thing?
Great viseo and info ! The book "The Case for Space" with chapter three on "Moon Direct" is a great book ! ! ! The return to the moon to stay will develop the tech to go to Mars and beyond-Ad Astra... Keep the Vision alive, the "Vision for Space Exploration" ! The Blue Origin Blue Moon can be refueled on the moon and not at the NASA L1 Gateway. The Blue Moon can then return to the LEO Orbital Reef Commercial Space Station (CSS). The orbit of the CSS is the same orbit that sent Apollo to the moon ! Talked to Robert before this book came out ! T. Lipinski
21:00 - “You send humans to Mars.” Then you do ISRU of fuel, water & Oxygen on Mars - Robert, you REALLY needed to emphasize that the ISRU production of needed materials would be done BEFORE any humans were sent to Mars.
Fraser, with an 18m-diameter Starship 2.0, do you think it will be given a spin to simulate a fraction of gravitational force, en route to and from Mars?
I know you were asking Fraser but I think 18m diameter is too small. That would mean a 9m radius and a 2m tall astronaut would have a noticeable difference in gravity from head to feet. I think that messes you up bad?
@@frasercain Zubrin aha, there's a live stream on RUclips that's been on for a few months now about the space, the universe and colonizing Mars. Zubrin is particularly memorable for his passion and plea regarding Mars Direct :)
Greetings everyone, good video. I’d like to thank Dr. Zubrin for his Mars colonization books - they made a fun read. Here's the case for rotating habitat (spinhab) colonization (from Gerard O'Neill and company back in 1975). I’m mentioning this because it's a much better idea than colonizing any planet in the galaxy (including Mars). And it looks like a lot of people have never heard of it. By the way, this is also the long-term vision of Elon Musk’s competitor Jeff Bezos, in his “Blue Origin” company. Why are rotating-habitats (spinhabs) better than surface colonies? a. Rotating habitats exist mostly out of planetary gravity wells. So, they have cheap transportation. You can build starter habitats in the Earth/Moon orbital zone, because that’s where all the space infrastructure will be built. b. You can move them. With good motors and power sources, you can take them to the stars. c. You can set the spin gravity to anything within reason (like earth surface standard 1g). d. Solar power in space acts like nuclear power generator (as opposed to sticking it on a planet and losing power with nighttime, weather, climate, seasons, latitude, dust, etc.). As long as you see the sun, you get the full rated power, continuously. e. They are mega-structures, and constructing them takes lots of materials of all types to make (especially after setting up assembly lines). So, they like a bottomless sink for minerals - it doesn't matter what you mine. This is a major reason why people want to do space mining on the moon, and the asteroids. f. You make your own land during manufacture. Nobody ever needs to terraform anything at all in the galaxy. g. You can use a single universal colony design for all space habitats. Not have a multitude of specialized designs, for all the types of planets you’ll run into. h. You can shield from radiation using anything with mass (and these stations are massive). i. You can make and maintain an (at shirtsleeve temperatures) atmosphere mix similar to the best of earth's surface. j. They are scalable from tiny utility stations (like the VonBraun style station) and much larger with some fancier construction materials. It is much more living-space efficient to build habitats than to use planetary surfaces. k. Keep in mind we are not just moving humans into space, we are moving the whole ecosystem. If you try this on Mars, you will get a mass extinction. l. You can create an earth-like day/night cycle with mirrors, or led displays (if you have the power). m. You never have to construct a plethora of disparate life-support-systems, for all the different species of humans when they all get together. Thanks for listening. :)
I like the idea of making O’Neal Cylinders, but doing that would require the ability to controllably move asteroids that have masses in the Billions of tons, the ability to create closed-loop life support systems & the ability to “core” the asteroids so we could live in them or the ability to keep materials attached to the outside of the cylinders attached to those cylinders while they spin at 1-G. I don’t think anyone is talking about mass-produced “cookie-cutter” O’Neal Cylinders - There will have as many types as there are communities on earth. And, depending on where they live & how they live, they will evolve differently than humans on earth & probably differently from many cases - See “The Expanse” with its Belters, Martians & earth dwellers for an example.
@@TraditionalAnglican Greetings, First, you don’t gather and carve out asteroids to make rotating habitats. You just mine the asteroids (or the moon) for materials, and build them out of those. You never have to “core an asteroid”. Second, closed-loop life support technology needs to be developed, no matter what you do in space. No special versions are required for rotating habitats. Third, in real life you’re going to cover the rotating part with a container. So, you have lots of space for any 0g storage. Fourth, many assembly lines will create millions of these things as fast as they can make them. The habitats act roughly like an island, and any local communities you have are somewhere on that island. Everybody gets the same thing, there are no planetary problems at all (nobody is resource poor, lots of energy, no storms, no earthquakes, no cooked or frozen countries, everybody has water, etc). One exception might be military bases which will have different requirements. Fifth, most sci-fi got rotating habitats completely wrong. Their central purpose is to solve all the problems that surface colonies never could. None of the authors understood that they are space colonies that are vastly better than surface colonies. Surface colonies are so bad by comparison that no one would want to live there. So, nobody is going to make things like a Mar colony. Whenever you see Earth you should see thousands of giant habitats around it, and eventually vastly more building a Dyson Swarm around Sol. You can also pilot them to the stars. Bye. :)
John Weck - I described the process some scientists & futurists believe will be used to make the first O’Neal Cylinders. It’s simply easier, faster & cheaper & would provide the needed protection from cosmic radiation & micrometeorites without having to solve the problem of keeping the materials stuck on the surface of a cylinder while it produces 1-G that’s trying to throw it off. My main point is that we’re decades away from being able to move the Billions of tons of material we’d need to construct even a modest size (20 km long x 2 km diameter x 2) O’Neal Cylinder, especially if we want to build them in earth orbit. If SpaceX is right, we can have a Martian colony up & running at least a decade before we’re able to begin construction on our first O’Neal Cylinder. I mentioned the bit about closed-loop life support because someone brought it up as an objection to the exploration of Mars. But, a true closed-cycle might not be necessary on Mars, because Mars has water & CO2 which can be used to distill water & make O2 & rocket fuel. Some of the asteroids we deal with will have the same resources... I referenced The Expanse partly because the creators tried to get the science right, which is something SF doesn’t always do. Actually, rotating habitats won’t be there to “solve the problems that surface colonies never could” - They’ll exist so people can live, work & raise their families in space & do so with governments & economic systems they can have an effect on. &, that will probably be true of people living on Mars. Regarding which is better - Some people will choose to stay on earth. Some will go to Mars, & some will choose to live in O’Neal Cylinders.
We're already on Mars, in the form of our orbiters and rovers. A couple of mole men living in tunnels deep underground would add about as much value as a lunar gateway space station.
Thank goodness we have the Chinese interested in a moon base. We can have a race against them to return to the moon. What a great stroke of luck. I'm quite skeptical of long term habitation on both the moon and Mars.
re 32:00 - "We have no information on mice who have gestated/ been conceived in space/ 1/3 Earth gravity." Didn't the Russians do this experiment already? They used geckos, though. I vaguely remember John Oliver doing a bit on it.
Nobody suggests that we launch iron ore to orbit then bring the steel back down. The point is that the raw resources will *also* be in space. I love Zubrin, but geez. This annoyed me for some reason.
Naw definitely not. I believe thats his trademark lol. Ive never seen a perfect camera view of him in interview unless he wasnt in control of the camera. I uave no doubt it's on purpose or simple lack of caring.
Prove that we can live long-term and stay healthy in low G. That's _*proof*_, not S.F., not wishes and hopes that the question goes away and try it and see, not maybe in the future biomechanically engineering ourselves and our offspring. Prove that first, and we can go on to talk about why space habitats (O'Neill, Kalpana, Stanford Torus) are still the better or only way for long-term, large-scale habitation off-Earth. I've heard Zubrin say that with space Shuttle launch costs of $20k per kg, they want to build a ten billion ton O'Neil habitat. I haven't heard anyone be dishonest enough to say that they want to use the Shuttle to soft-land a city on Mars. All the objections against Solar Power satellites and NEA mining are similar red herrings and deliberate straw-men and deliberate failures to consider the scale of the resources and of time. Zubrin talks about using patents from Mars colonists to pay for the future space-borne civilization. Musk is selling internet. And they both use red herrings and jokes to down-play any possible economic benefits of mining NEAs. Media talks about mining space for water for fuel, and talks as if they'll ignore metals that form the basis of our economics and which we fight wars over. Today we mined some more tons of water ice, but let's ignore the gold and platinum. O'Neill and other space advocates say that we must not think of trying to capitalize a future space effort by possibly devaluing gold and other "precious" or "monetary" metals. Gold and oil and even diamonds are not particularly rare down here, but access to them is controlled through a very wealthy monopoly that maintains their scarcity. The only question we need to ask regarding mining asteroids is who will monitor everyone doing anything big in space like water mining or lunar or Mars bases or space hotels or impactor deflection to make sure they're not trying to make some $ by slipping some precious metals back, and who polices the police. This is an issue for any space effort or any working production line of large reliable affordable boosters. Yes we have plentiful fossil fuels until fusion comes around, but using it and mining metals down here is killing us and the biosphere. It can also be argued that such industries down here have never been done economically. Every time we try to get a mining consortium or oil company to leave a healthful environment behind, they go bankrupt, taking the profits to off-shore tax-havens and leaving the mess for future generations of tax-payers to deal with. We hear it all the time from industrialists that if they had to leave zero waste and footprint, they can't do business. Read John S, Lewis "Rain of Iron and Ice", and "Mining the Sky". We know of 10k+ "Apollo" group NEAs. Minus a little chunk over Chelyabinsk in 2013: denser with metals than Earth's crust or the entire Moon. Some meteorites are density 8+, greater than pure iron. King Tut's rust-proof meteoritic steel dagger is 6%cobalt. No mine on a planet or large moon will ever work such materials. The ones that are easiest to get to/from are also the ones most likely to hit us. Deflecting a threatening impactor only sinks the cost and pushes it back into the pool of potential future threats. Preventing a future impact represents a huge economic boon, that's never considered when it comes to talking about the economy of mining NEAs. Plus you get the metals from it, without mining within the biosphere. Flying mountains of raw materials, floating in a sea of free energy where supertanker sized loads can be pushed with a whisper of effort, and the stuff is literally raining down on us. Zubrin and Musk and all tabloid-level media is guilty of spreading far too much wiggle room between a permanent, continuously inhabited base, and a settlement or colony. We've had people continuously on Antarctica for decades, and it is not a "colony" to which people will retire to live out their lives and raise children. Nor should anyone ask why we should be there, or demand that it turn a profit or be self-sufficient in any way.
He tries to, but doesn't quite reaches to, eating the webcam. Roaarrr! - The guest ate the cam. Show is off until we resume contact with Earth. Or some other solid place.
The half-Lunar gateway to nowhere is horrible! Terrible! Horrible again! And it deserves the comment of my chess teacher: Terrible, Horrible, Terrible again. Okay, let's go for it...
All this talk yet there isn't a single rotating habitat planned. THERE IS NO WAY AROUND THE TRAVELERS NEEDING SOME GRAVITY. the rotating habitat may be the biggest obstcle to the trip. I mean we already have the engines and technology for the veicle but we would need to assemble the ship in space no matter what. it will likely need to be bigger than the iss and we all know how much that cost.
Zubrin is still a hero! When is he going to be made Director of Nasa already?? I wonder if he'd accept a job with the Chinese as mission director if their aim was Mars? I don't care what flag flies over the planet first, I just wanna be alive (and of sound mind) when it happens, so hurry up damn it!!!
I severely disagree with Zubrin about the lunar gateway, the Moon will eventually get colonized whether we like it or not and that includes the Moon's orbit. There will be space stations around the Moon for the simple fact that it's so much easier to launch resources into space from the surface of the Moon, the Lunar gateway will simply be pioneering the colonization of the Moon. I also don't like his and everyone else's obsession with Mars.
It’s a matter of cost & what we can accomplish for that cost - Lunar Gateway, SLS & Orion will end up costing a total of $120B (Gateway - $60B, & SLS/Orion - $60B), & these would require ALL of our “Heavy Lift” capabilities for 8-10 years. That means NO “Heavy Lift” available for anything else - spacenews.com/op-ed-lunar-gateway-or-moon-direct/ www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/11/moon-direct-spacex-falcon-heavy-plan-is-6-years-faster-and-50-times-cheaper-than-nasa.html Getting to the Lunar Gateway would require the same Delta-V from LEO as getting to the moon or Mars. BOT, better to go directly to the moon or Mars. Lunar Gateway would not be built because it’s required to go to the moon or Mars, but because Orion & its attached ESM are too heavy for the SLS to get it into Lunar Orbit with enough fuel for a return to earth. Astronauts in Space stations in Lunar Orbit would have none of the protection from cosmic radiation that astronauts in the ISS get just by being close to the earth. BOT, it’s better to either have bases on the moon or Mars (where we can go underground) or rotating space stations in earth orbit. Building the Lunar Gateway would divert funds from all other missions (including creating a moon base) while making it impossible to create even the most basic moon base because of the high cost of the Gateway. Even using Falcon Heavy & Falcon 9, we can do Moon Direct & build & populate a moon base for
Take the Starship in your architecture mission, the Starship is a game changer that makes the lunar gateway only to encourage an old architecture space based economy.
At $60+B to build, Lunar Gateway would only discourage exploration of the moon by making it unaffordable. The only way the moon gets colonized is if NASA drops the Gateway & the things that need it in order to get to the moon (SLS & Orion). $120B is a lot to spend to go to the moon, especially when you could do it NOW for 1% of that using Moon Direct & Falcon Heavy. www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/moon-direct www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/11/moon-direct-spacex-falcon-heavy-plan-is-6-years-faster-and-50-times-cheaper-than-nasa.html And, if we’re really going to wait until 2024 (the Artemis timeline), we’d have both Starship & Blue Moon available by then. ATP, we could launch a (Cargo?) Starship from earth with 2 Cargo/ISRU Blue Moons. Refuel the Starship in LEO. Go to the moon & drop them in lunar orbit. The Blue Moons land & produce H2 & O2 & create a landing/launch pad. A second Starship could drop off 2 Bigelow “First Bases” - bigelowaerospace.com/pages/firstbase/ - Once that is done, a Starship could drop of the crew for the base. Total Cost ~ $150 million including Blue Moons...
Obviously it's more easy to send thing from space down to earth, you don't need to fight gravity and can use earth atmosphere to decelerate, if would be a space industry in the future sending large and heavy payloads to the earth will be relatively cheap, about this problem I do not agree with Dr Zubrin.
Oof, Robert is very driven, but turning a blind eye to the health issues that Martian gravity can bring, is very naive of him. If Martian children want to grow normal bones, they have to be put in those 1G centrifuges for their entire youth! Great interview and good job staying respectful, @Fraser Cain
Very disappointed with Zubrin here. Space based solar is not currently -- or in the forceable future -- a means of sensible energy generation for Earth, but in the distant future it might make sense for many reasons. He lacks long term vision to see how in the distant future humanity might decide to offload most if not all industrial activity to space in order to reduce pollution, resource exhaustion and green house gas heating as well as the entropic heating resulting from any manufacturing process -- not necessarily burning co2. This should not be tackled currently due to more pressing concerns regarding the need for a steady-state society. However, after these concerns have been alleviated, we can decide to expand into space where most if not all industrial activity might take place. Then he totally nukes his credibility by stating that not only are climate change and resource depletion not humanity's main concerns (resource depletion is definitely the top concern, with climate change further down the list), but he actually claims that resources on Earth are infinite. Are there an infinite amount of atoms on Earth, Robert?
Maurice Levie I’m assuming you mean Trump? While I understand your point, judging and excluding people by this notion is not helping. Listen I hate TDS as much as the next non-regressive but we should be encouraging interaction and discussion.
wouldn't it be better to reorient NASA to fight climate change as suggested by a scientist? Give NASA the Apollo budget of 4% and spend 3%on climate change and 1%space exploration?
Baljeet Bhachu why not take 5% from the military and give nasa some more and use the rest to research and seek solutions for the global climate change? The same amount of money would be spent but with better results.
I havent heard it all yet, but I disagree with almost everything Zubrin says. I don't care if he's legend, he comes off as arrogant and not very thoughtful guy
I feel Zubrin's impatience. I'm deeply annoyed at how slow everything is going. Hopefully Space X hits their goals and we can get to space
The MK1 has been assembled now, looks fantastic!
Robert Zubrin is an inspirational guy when he gets going and when he gets going there is no stopping him :-)
Happy quarter million subscribers!
An excellent interview with one of the granddaddies of space advocacy! 🖖
Excellent job interviewing Dr Zubrin! We all know he is not always the easiest to interview.. But you both got most of your points across, and we all learned some new things.
"I feel like you over simplify ... " gotta be honest, I jumped up and hid behind the couch
Lmao yea he usually thrash people who oppose his ideas. But hes had a very very long time to think about this stuff. All of his life. And he even came up with solutiins that pleases most peoples concerns. I think the answer is somewhere betweeen peoples concerns and his solutions. He can be a bit cold to the mission sometimes. But i also agree that people are a little too soft on the pioneers of the mission. People need to know that this stuff is not sugar spice and everything nice. People will die. Risk are high. But what will become of their sacrifice is greater than any one man. By the way they are going to die anyway. Better to be for a great reason than natural causes or a plane crash or many other non significant ways to go.
Ha! I was listening to this late at night and was almost sleeping until Fraser called Zubrin out. I was completely awake after that :-). I agree with Fraser that NASA got a lot of mixed signals from the US government in the 70s until now that has made it difficult for NASA to set clear goals. Also, SpaceX exists because of NASA's decision to put the commercial program in place. Also, the astronomy missions of NASA are awesome. Zubrin also appreciates that. All in all, great interview. Thanks Fraser and Dr. Zubrin!
@@Lilmiket1000 could you give me a time stamp of this ?
Any interview with Dr. Zubrin is interesting. Less of a conversation and more like a wrestling match. We need more people like him.
Head of the Mars Society! Thanks for your contributions to society!
Despite all that he's still an "Orange man bad" kind of guy so he does lose some points from me. The orange man not that bad.
@@leerman22 Not really, he mentioned his name once and that was just in regards to an admittedly flawed attempt at a moon programme. Not that I really care all that much, Donald is quite literally not my president.
@@jeffvader811 You haven't seen his twitter lately then. He bought into the Trump-Ukraine scandal, which now looks like the Biden-Ukraine scandal.
@@leerman22
I was under the impression that "orange man bad" people were just those who brought up Trump outside of politics, I'm not sure that qualifies. But like I said, either way it really doesn't concern me.
@@jeffvader811 I define the "orange man bad" guys to be those who buy into any crazy conspiracy involving the orange man and after said conspiracy is proven wrong, "Orange man still bad." Kind of like the Carpe Donktum star wars scroll meme video just posted.
I just want to be able to follow Rubin's twitter for the science and not the trump ramblings.
Well Done Fraser, for not interrupting a guest when they are on a roll.
We should of been to Mars already if People listen to Zubrin
We would have lots of dead Astronauts and zero confidence in Space Missions if we listened to Mr. Zubrin.
We don't know yet the effects of long term exposure. We have Zero experience at launching from Mars. It would be a one way trip, and the team would perish. There are lots of reasons why this is taking time.
Progress takes sacrifice we already have a lot of dead astronauts but we still keep going to space.
@@ArdaKaraduman Do you have any proof? No you don't. Also his title is Dr Zubrin, he has a B.A, 2x M.S and holds a PhD.
@@hardergamer Appeal to authority doesn't change the facts, though.
• there's no data on long term human presence outside the van-Allen-Belt
• there's zero experience with crewed interplanetary missions, especially missions beyond Earth orbit without any in-flight failure modes (the Apollo missions had a free return trajectory, which saved Apollo 13; impossible to do with Mars missions)
• aero-capture and powered landing of heavy spacecraft (40t+) hasn't been demonstrated on Mars (so far only aero-braking plus hypersonic parachutes plus powered landing has been tried)
• this is what astronauts look like after 6 months in zero-G: dailym.ai/2m1Sn12 experience with low-G environment after 6 months in zero-G: none
• closed-loop life support on another planet running for years hasn't been demonstrated
• in-situ fuel production on Mars hasn't been demonstrated
I'm sure there's many more challenges I forgot. There's a reason Apollo took an incremental approach (docking, long-stay in space, in-orbit testing, lunar fly-by, lunar orbit, lunar landing). Progress doesn't take sacrifice! We aren't some savage tribe that needs to sacrifice blood to the Blood God in order to appease the lords of space faring.
Taking risks is one thing, but deliberately ignoring them is a crime.
@@totalermist We're not deliberately ignoring risks when talking about the trip to Mars, but everyone agrees it's gonna be a risky endeavour. And still people want to take those risks and travel to Mars knowing full well that it might be a one way trip.
That was such an interesting interview. I really like his statement at the end about the infinite sky. Humans have done a lot to better the human condition, and we can do even more with our intelligence and an infinite sky above us.
Great talk, really enjoyed it
Great interview.
Dr. Zubrin always has a positive point of view.
You should try reading his other book "merchants of despair" lol
Awesome conversation!
Zubrin as always been a fighter for going to Mars rather than the moon,... We'll get there, sooner than you think!
Great interview!! Good job on getting him to talk about a variety of subjects other than Mars Direct and the gateway. I enjoyed these bits the most... wonder whether he did too!
Hah, it's probably because I already knew most of his answers, so I wanted to go in new directions. I'm glad you enjoyed it.
Been waiting for this interview....
Fantastic!
Good interview. I am with Zubrin on most of the case regarding Mars BUT I still need more data on human physiology in space and in low gravity provided we don't support it with rotational gravity.
Why?
@@runem5429 Because we potentially don't want to send astronauts to their deaths.
@@NimbleBard48We always need more data on everything, it's a natural mistake to wait too long. Everyone dies eventually, we could "potentially be going to our death" when we get in a car. We each tolerate THAT risk to go get unhealthy food! If I was an astronaut I'd MUCH prefer the more dangerous and rewarding missions to just hanging around Earth taking blood samples of myself in space for my entire career as several astronaut generations have done at this point, bluntly put. We can have them do the testing as they explore.
The pace of development at SpaceX, say, is because of risk taking. Making a prototype before you've figured out everything lets you discover all the problems you didn't even think of, early, AND it sometimes even means you stop worrying about some maybe's that never materialize in reality.
@@runem5429 You generalize while we need to be specific.
31:15 This is the thing I am talking about. Low gravity environment and it's effects on humans. Fraser is also concerned about this and Zubrin agrees that we need to start to research it extensively. So far we have valuable information from observations on Scott Kelly. More data will be available after we have astronauts on the Moon.
Actually, I just read a good comment in the Live chat while I was writing this:
Raimo Kangasniemi: "The longest manned spaceflight is 437 days. There is a huge step from that to two-year-long Mars mission. There should be that long space station missions - and tests of spacecraft."
What are you actually advocating for because we haven't established this yet - sending people straight to Mars for 2 years? For 1 year?
My opinion is that if it's max an over 1 year mission, so basically a flyby with a possible landing and staying a few days, then I'm good with that. If it's an over 2 year mission then it's a bad idea unless we have artificial gravity on the spaceship.
@@NimbleBard48 Good reply :)
I'm accepting your specifics, and using those as the context I think I'm just a tiny little bit more willing to risk something than you are. I'm ok with banking on Mars gravity "fixing" whatever adverse effects zero g travel to Mars would cause. Actually I'm about as ok with that as I would be with having the 3rd, 4th, 5th(..) astronauts to be in zero g for that long to be doing it with no safety net.
But you are right, we can't know if people go back to normal on Mars like they more or less do on Earth after zero g..
Great interview Fraser, thanks!
Hi Fraser, I totally enjoy your show. Never miss any. I was wondering when the JWST become operational will it be able to get a good view of our gas Giants ? I understand there's very little data about Uranus and Neptune.
WOW, very nice to have a Robert Zubrin interview ! :) (you should make a part 2 !)
Robert Zubrin is CooCoo for Coco Puffs in regards to climate change.
I really wanted to grill him on that, but I ran out of time. Definitely a region where we disagree.
Fraser, my gods thank you for putting this interview together. 1. A huge amount of Respect for the “I think you oversimplified..” 2. You owe it to yourself to work on a second interview so that the two of you can expand on the Climate change stuff. 3. Subscriber to new patreon contributor soon as I can get the process done. 4. Gratz on 250K! 5. Needs a part 2! And 3 and 4. 😆
Just sold me another book Frasier. Thanks.
I wish we had more people like Zubrin. In governments, schools and next to people like Musk. I also wish we had more Musks :)
I'm 33 now in 2020 and I really hope I won't die until humans land on Mars and return to the Moon.
If it turns out that planet 9 is actually a bowling ball sized primordial black hole, 10 times the mass of earth; could we potentially send craft to it and study it in our life times? Is there a chance it might be close enough to send craft to it and have them get there reality quickly?
I think if Planet 9 actually was a black hole, we would definitely use Starshot to check it out as soon as possible! I mean a planet definitely would require a mission eventually, but a black hole within realistic reach could spur calls for immediate investigation. LIGO and the EHT are great for testing Einstein's theories, but there is nothing like getting up close and personal.
Basically, I think we would figure the getting there part out pretty quickly. And since it would be multiple times Earth's mass, we could probably get there quick and orbit instead of flyby.
Ah Fraser, thanks! One question: what telescope mount is behind you? :-).
That's a Stellarvue 70mm telescope on an Explore Scientific mount. And I never use it because I"m totally spoiled by the 11" RASA we use for the Virtual Star Parties. :-)
@@frasercain aaaahhh the RASA 11" F/2.2. I remember the days when collecting photons used to be hard :p. Enjoy that beast of a telescope and keep up the good work!
200 miles strait up from where ever you are watching this and you are half way to anywhere from the Belt in. It is just a matter of delta/V. Ad Astra!
to the stars
I disagree somewhat with Zubrin's final point of view, at the same time it was a nice video interview. Thank you very much!
Sébastien Raymond I can see why, I am a history major and, while his outlook is plausible, it surely isn’t 100% truth. There is merit though, something we should definitely be paying mind to.
Anyone else think 'Zubrin's Landing' sounds like an awesome name for the first city on Mars?
Hello, my question is. Since black holes have gravity, and since nothing cannot escape a black hole, does that eliminate the possibility of gravitron’s being a thing?
Always knocking Saskatoon! Lol
Great viseo and info ! The book "The Case for Space" with chapter three on "Moon Direct" is a great book ! ! ! The return to the moon to stay will develop the tech to go to Mars and beyond-Ad Astra... Keep the Vision alive, the "Vision for Space Exploration" ! The Blue Origin Blue Moon can be refueled on the moon and not at the NASA L1 Gateway. The Blue Moon can then return to the LEO Orbital Reef Commercial Space Station (CSS). The orbit of the CSS is the same orbit that sent Apollo to the moon ! Talked to Robert before this book came out ! T. Lipinski
It's been a few years since we talked, I wonder if there are any updates.
great show - video drifted way out of sync but that was fine 😎🙃😃👍
21:00 - “You send humans to Mars.” Then you do ISRU of fuel, water & Oxygen on Mars - Robert, you REALLY needed to emphasize that the ISRU production of needed materials would be done BEFORE any humans were sent to Mars.
Fraser, with an 18m-diameter Starship 2.0, do you think it will be given a spin to simulate a fraction of gravitational force, en route to and from Mars?
I know you were asking Fraser but I think 18m diameter is too small. That would mean a 9m radius and a 2m tall astronaut would have a noticeable difference in gravity from head to feet. I think that messes you up bad?
Who else remember this guy from the space live stream that's still going ahaha
Me or Zubrin?
@@frasercain Zubrin aha, there's a live stream on RUclips that's been on for a few months now about the space, the universe and colonizing Mars. Zubrin is particularly memorable for his passion and plea regarding Mars Direct :)
I share Zubrins view on getting there quick but share your view on treading carefully with having the space babies👾
I don’t think they’re all that far apart, just that their levels of concern are different.
Greetings everyone, good video.
I’d like to thank Dr. Zubrin for his Mars colonization books - they made a fun read.
Here's the case for rotating habitat (spinhab) colonization (from Gerard O'Neill and company back in 1975). I’m mentioning this because it's a much better idea than colonizing any planet in the galaxy (including Mars). And it looks like a lot of people have never heard of it. By the way, this is also the long-term vision of Elon Musk’s competitor Jeff Bezos, in his “Blue Origin” company.
Why are rotating-habitats (spinhabs) better than surface colonies?
a. Rotating habitats exist mostly out of planetary gravity wells. So, they have cheap transportation. You can build starter habitats in the Earth/Moon orbital zone, because that’s where all the space infrastructure will be built.
b. You can move them. With good motors and power sources, you can take them to the stars.
c. You can set the spin gravity to anything within reason (like earth surface standard 1g).
d. Solar power in space acts like nuclear power generator (as opposed to sticking it on a planet and losing power with nighttime, weather, climate, seasons, latitude, dust, etc.). As long as you see the sun, you get the full rated power, continuously.
e. They are mega-structures, and constructing them takes lots of materials of all types to make (especially after setting up assembly lines). So, they like a bottomless sink for minerals - it doesn't matter what you mine. This is a major reason why people want to do space mining on the moon, and the asteroids.
f. You make your own land during manufacture. Nobody ever needs to terraform anything at all in the galaxy.
g. You can use a single universal colony design for all space habitats. Not have a multitude of specialized designs, for all the types of planets you’ll run into.
h. You can shield from radiation using anything with mass (and these stations are massive).
i. You can make and maintain an (at shirtsleeve temperatures) atmosphere mix similar to the best of earth's surface.
j. They are scalable from tiny utility stations (like the VonBraun style station) and much larger with some fancier construction materials. It is much more living-space efficient to build habitats than to use planetary surfaces.
k. Keep in mind we are not just moving humans into space, we are moving the whole ecosystem. If you try this on Mars, you will get a mass extinction.
l. You can create an earth-like day/night cycle with mirrors, or led displays (if you have the power).
m. You never have to construct a plethora of disparate life-support-systems, for all the different species of humans when they all get together.
Thanks for listening. :)
I like the idea of making O’Neal Cylinders, but doing that would require the ability to controllably move asteroids that have masses in the Billions of tons, the ability to create closed-loop life support systems & the ability to “core” the asteroids so we could live in them or the ability to keep materials attached to the outside of the cylinders attached to those cylinders while they spin at 1-G. I don’t think anyone is talking about mass-produced “cookie-cutter” O’Neal Cylinders - There will have as many types as there are communities on earth. And, depending on where they live & how they live, they will evolve differently than humans on earth & probably differently from many cases - See “The Expanse” with its Belters, Martians & earth dwellers for an example.
@@TraditionalAnglican Greetings,
First, you don’t gather and carve out asteroids to make rotating habitats. You just mine the asteroids (or the moon) for materials, and build them out of those. You never have to “core an asteroid”.
Second, closed-loop life support technology needs to be developed, no matter what you do in space. No special versions are required for rotating habitats.
Third, in real life you’re going to cover the rotating part with a container. So, you have lots of space for any 0g storage.
Fourth, many assembly lines will create millions of these things as fast as they can make them. The habitats act roughly like an island, and any local communities you have are somewhere on that island. Everybody gets the same thing, there are no planetary problems at all (nobody is resource poor, lots of energy, no storms, no earthquakes, no cooked or frozen countries, everybody has water, etc). One exception might be military bases which will have different requirements.
Fifth, most sci-fi got rotating habitats completely wrong. Their central purpose is to solve all the problems that surface colonies never could. None of the authors understood that they are space colonies that are vastly better than surface colonies. Surface colonies are so bad by comparison that no one would want to live there. So, nobody is going to make things like a Mar colony. Whenever you see Earth you should see thousands of giant habitats around it, and eventually vastly more building a Dyson Swarm around Sol. You can also pilot them to the stars.
Bye. :)
John Weck - I described the process some scientists & futurists believe will be used to make the first O’Neal Cylinders. It’s simply easier, faster & cheaper & would provide the needed protection from cosmic radiation & micrometeorites without having to solve the problem of keeping the materials stuck on the surface of a cylinder while it produces 1-G that’s trying to throw it off.
My main point is that we’re decades away from being able to move the Billions of tons of material we’d need to construct even a modest size (20 km long x 2 km diameter x 2) O’Neal Cylinder, especially if we want to build them in earth orbit. If SpaceX is right, we can have a Martian colony up & running at least a decade before we’re able to begin construction on our first O’Neal Cylinder.
I mentioned the bit about closed-loop life support because someone brought it up as an objection to the exploration of Mars. But, a true closed-cycle might not be necessary on Mars, because Mars has water & CO2 which can be used to distill water & make O2 & rocket fuel. Some of the asteroids we deal with will have the same resources...
I referenced The Expanse partly because the creators tried to get the science right, which is something SF doesn’t always do. Actually, rotating habitats won’t be there to “solve the problems that surface colonies never could” - They’ll exist so people can live, work & raise their families in space & do so with governments & economic systems they can have an effect on. &, that will probably be true of people living on Mars.
Regarding which is better - Some people will choose to stay on earth. Some will go to Mars, & some will choose to live in O’Neal Cylinders.
We all got to buy groceries...lol
The lunar gateway is a plan that nobody intends to actually implement. That in itself is a way to spend money for no reason other than to spend it.
We're already on Mars, in the form of our orbiters and rovers. A couple of mole men living in tunnels deep underground would add about as much value as a lunar gateway space station.
Thank goodness we have the Chinese interested in a moon base. We can have a race against them to return to the moon. What a great stroke of luck.
I'm quite skeptical of long term habitation on both the moon and Mars.
1:00:30
Anybody can understand there is an infinite number of points on an infinite line segment.
re 32:00 - "We have no information on mice who have gestated/ been conceived in space/ 1/3 Earth gravity."
Didn't the Russians do this experiment already? They used geckos, though. I vaguely remember John Oliver doing a bit on it.
Nobody suggests that we launch iron ore to orbit then bring the steel back down. The point is that the raw resources will *also* be in space. I love Zubrin, but geez. This annoyed me for some reason.
Yup, keep that space stuff in space.
With all due respect to the good Doctor
You need to own your real hairline like Fraser 😋
is it fake ?
lmao camera placement with Zubrin is always awkward lmao
Hah, I wasn't going to try to control him.
Naw definitely not. I believe thats his trademark lol. Ive never seen a perfect camera view of him in interview unless he wasnt in control of the camera. I uave no doubt it's on purpose or simple lack of caring.
Definitely the latter in my experience.
Prove that we can live long-term and stay healthy in low G.
That's _*proof*_, not S.F., not wishes and hopes that the question goes away and try it and see, not maybe in the future biomechanically engineering ourselves and our offspring.
Prove that first, and we can go on to talk about why space habitats (O'Neill, Kalpana, Stanford Torus) are still the better or only way for long-term, large-scale habitation off-Earth.
I've heard Zubrin say that with space Shuttle launch costs of $20k per kg, they want to build a ten billion ton O'Neil habitat.
I haven't heard anyone be dishonest enough to say that they want to use the Shuttle to soft-land a city on Mars.
All the objections against Solar Power satellites and NEA mining are similar red herrings and deliberate straw-men and deliberate failures to consider the scale of the resources and of time.
Zubrin talks about using patents from Mars colonists to pay for the future space-borne civilization. Musk is selling internet.
And they both use red herrings and jokes to down-play any possible economic benefits of mining NEAs.
Media talks about mining space for water for fuel, and talks as if they'll ignore metals that form the basis of our economics and which we fight wars over. Today we mined some more tons of water ice, but let's ignore the gold and platinum. O'Neill and other space advocates say that we must not think of trying to capitalize a future space effort by possibly devaluing gold and other "precious" or "monetary" metals.
Gold and oil and even diamonds are not particularly rare down here, but access to them is controlled through a very wealthy monopoly that maintains their scarcity.
The only question we need to ask regarding mining asteroids is who will monitor everyone doing anything big in space like water mining or lunar or Mars bases or space hotels or impactor deflection to make sure they're not trying to make some $ by slipping some precious metals back, and who polices the police.
This is an issue for any space effort or any working production line of large reliable affordable boosters.
Yes we have plentiful fossil fuels until fusion comes around, but using it and mining metals down here is killing us and the biosphere.
It can also be argued that such industries down here have never been done economically. Every time we try to get a mining consortium or oil company to leave a healthful environment behind, they go bankrupt, taking the profits to off-shore tax-havens and leaving the mess for future generations of tax-payers to deal with. We hear it all the time from industrialists that if they had to leave zero waste and footprint, they can't do business.
Read John S, Lewis "Rain of Iron and Ice", and "Mining the Sky".
We know of 10k+ "Apollo" group NEAs. Minus a little chunk over Chelyabinsk in 2013: denser with metals than Earth's crust or the entire Moon. Some meteorites are density 8+, greater than pure iron. King Tut's rust-proof meteoritic steel dagger is 6%cobalt.
No mine on a planet or large moon will ever work such materials.
The ones that are easiest to get to/from are also the ones most likely to hit us.
Deflecting a threatening impactor only sinks the cost and pushes it back into the pool of potential future threats.
Preventing a future impact represents a huge economic boon, that's never considered when it comes to talking about the economy of mining NEAs. Plus you get the metals from it, without mining within the biosphere.
Flying mountains of raw materials, floating in a sea of free energy where supertanker sized loads can be pushed with a whisper of effort, and the stuff is literally raining down on us.
Zubrin and Musk and all tabloid-level media is guilty of spreading far too much wiggle room between a permanent, continuously inhabited base, and a settlement or colony.
We've had people continuously on Antarctica for decades, and it is not a "colony" to which people will retire to live out their lives and raise children. Nor should anyone ask why we should be there, or demand that it turn a profit or be self-sufficient in any way.
He tries to, but doesn't quite reaches to, eating the webcam. Roaarrr!
- The guest ate the cam. Show is off until we resume contact with Earth. Or some other solid place.
The half-Lunar gateway to nowhere is horrible! Terrible! Horrible again! And it deserves the comment of my chess teacher: Terrible, Horrible, Terrible again.
Okay, let's go for it...
All this talk yet there isn't a single rotating habitat planned. THERE IS NO WAY AROUND THE TRAVELERS NEEDING SOME GRAVITY. the rotating habitat may be the biggest obstcle to the trip. I mean we already have the engines and technology for the veicle but we would need to assemble the ship in space no matter what. it will likely need to be bigger than the iss and we all know how much that cost.
Zubrin is still a hero! When is he going to be made Director of Nasa already??
I wonder if he'd accept a job with the Chinese as mission director if their aim was Mars?
I don't care what flag flies over the planet first, I just wanna be alive (and of sound mind) when it happens, so hurry up damn it!!!
I severely disagree with Zubrin about the lunar gateway, the Moon will eventually get colonized whether we like it or not and that includes the Moon's orbit. There will be space stations around the Moon for the simple fact that it's so much easier to launch resources into space from the surface of the Moon, the Lunar gateway will simply be pioneering the colonization of the Moon. I also don't like his and everyone else's obsession with Mars.
It’s a matter of cost & what we can accomplish for that cost -
Lunar Gateway, SLS & Orion will end up costing a total of $120B (Gateway - $60B, & SLS/Orion - $60B), & these would require ALL of our “Heavy Lift” capabilities for 8-10 years. That means NO “Heavy Lift” available for anything else -
spacenews.com/op-ed-lunar-gateway-or-moon-direct/
www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/11/moon-direct-spacex-falcon-heavy-plan-is-6-years-faster-and-50-times-cheaper-than-nasa.html
Getting to the Lunar Gateway would require the same Delta-V from LEO as getting to the moon or Mars. BOT, better to go directly to the moon or Mars. Lunar Gateway would not be built because it’s required to go to the moon or Mars, but because Orion & its attached ESM are too heavy for the SLS to get it into Lunar Orbit with enough fuel for a return to earth. Astronauts in Space stations in Lunar Orbit would have none of the protection from cosmic radiation that astronauts in the ISS get just by being close to the earth. BOT, it’s better to either have bases on the moon or Mars (where we can go underground) or rotating space stations in earth orbit.
Building the Lunar Gateway would divert funds from all other missions (including creating a moon base) while making it impossible to create even the most basic moon base because of the high cost of the Gateway. Even using Falcon Heavy & Falcon 9, we can do Moon Direct & build & populate a moon base for
Take the Starship in your architecture mission, the Starship is a game changer that makes the lunar gateway only to encourage an old architecture space based economy.
At $60+B to build, Lunar Gateway would only discourage exploration of the moon by making it unaffordable. The only way the moon gets colonized is if NASA drops the Gateway & the things that need it in order to get to the moon (SLS & Orion). $120B is a lot to spend to go to the moon, especially when you could do it NOW for 1% of that using Moon Direct & Falcon Heavy.
www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/moon-direct
www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/11/moon-direct-spacex-falcon-heavy-plan-is-6-years-faster-and-50-times-cheaper-than-nasa.html
And, if we’re really going to wait until 2024 (the Artemis timeline), we’d have both Starship & Blue Moon available by then. ATP, we could launch a (Cargo?) Starship from earth with 2 Cargo/ISRU Blue Moons. Refuel the Starship in LEO. Go to the moon & drop them in lunar orbit. The Blue Moons land & produce H2 & O2 & create a landing/launch pad. A second Starship could drop off 2 Bigelow “First Bases” - bigelowaerospace.com/pages/firstbase/ - Once that is done, a Starship could drop of the crew for the base. Total Cost ~ $150 million including Blue Moons...
Obviously it's more easy to send thing from space down to earth, you don't need to fight gravity and can use earth atmosphere to decelerate, if would be a space industry in the future sending large and heavy payloads to the earth will be relatively cheap, about this problem I do not agree with Dr Zubrin.
too sad to remeber over and over again.... that... boeing is totally old and clumsy and slow and corrupt.....
Oof, Robert is very driven, but turning a blind eye to the health issues that Martian gravity can bring, is very naive of him.
If Martian children want to grow normal bones, they have to be put in those 1G centrifuges for their entire youth!
Great interview and good job staying respectful, @Fraser Cain
Are we really ready to send poeple to mars? Yes I love the optimists, but we need to bring them back alive to make it a successful mission.
Very disappointed with Zubrin here. Space based solar is not currently -- or in the forceable future -- a means of sensible energy generation for Earth, but in the distant future it might make sense for many reasons. He lacks long term vision to see how in the distant future humanity might decide to offload most if not all industrial activity to space in order to reduce pollution, resource exhaustion and green house gas heating as well as the entropic heating resulting from any manufacturing process -- not necessarily burning co2. This should not be tackled currently due to more pressing concerns regarding the need for a steady-state society. However, after these concerns have been alleviated, we can decide to expand into space where most if not all industrial activity might take place. Then he totally nukes his credibility by stating that not only are climate change and resource depletion not humanity's main concerns (resource depletion is definitely the top concern, with climate change further down the list), but he actually claims that resources on Earth are infinite. Are there an infinite amount of atoms on Earth, Robert?
China is going to mars in 2021 put a military base!🚀🤪 Lol maybe the US will wake up and go 2020!🙈
Robert Zubrin sounds like he’ll 100% arrange for you to be kneecaped once he has graded the day’s papers.
That sounds like an entry on an "Extreme teachers from hell!" TV programme
I liked Zubrin before he went full TDS (see pandorum)
I just saw his twitter and he's buying into the latest Orange Man conspiracy.
Maurice Levie I’m assuming you mean Trump? While I understand your point, judging and excluding people by this notion is not helping. Listen I hate TDS as much as the next non-regressive but we should be encouraging interaction and discussion.
His mannerisms are identical to the Jokers.
I wish this guy would fix his camera I’m sick of looking at his forehead
wouldn't it be better to reorient NASA to fight climate change as suggested by a scientist? Give NASA the Apollo budget of 4% and spend 3%on climate change and 1%space exploration?
Baljeet Bhachu why not take 5% from the military and give nasa some more and use the rest to research and seek solutions for the global climate change? The same amount of money would be spent but with better results.
I havent heard it all yet, but I disagree with almost everything Zubrin says. I don't care if he's legend, he comes off as arrogant and not very thoughtful guy
man on the moon
Cain meaning, any murderer, esp. of a brother! EVIL Fin evil
Are you a teacher or an educator? EVIL