Rants & Raves
Seeing Red
Tom McNichol's article "The New Red Menace" (Wired 9.07, page 140) contains many errors.
As part of his argument that near-term human missions to Mars are infeasible, McNichol states that chemical rockets are too feeble to get a crew to Mars in six months, and that advanced propulsion systems such as fusion rockets - "still years away" - are a better alternative. He goes on to say that I am undeterred by this, since I allegedly firmly believe that fusion rockets will be available within 10 years.
All of this is false. Chemical rockets are capable of getting payloads to Mars in six months, as proven by the Mars Odyssey spacecraft, which currently is on a six-month trajectory to Mars driven by chemical propulsion. For that reason, the Mars Direct plan uses a chemical rocket-driven booster upper stage to send the astronauts to Mars. This is stated on page one of my book The Case for Mars, and repeated many times afterward.
McNichol also obfuscates the issue of space radiation, stating that the water shields needed to block cosmic rays would increase the mass, and thus the cost, of the mission by orders of magnitude. This is wrong because water shields are not used to block the trickle of gigavolt particles known as cosmic rays. Rather, they are used to block solar flares, occasional floods of megavolt-class particles that can be effectively stopped by 12 centimeters of water. This much shielding can be provided with no mass cost to the mission by positioning the mission consumables around a centrally located solar-flare storm shelter. It is true that meters of water shielding would be necessary to stop cosmic rays, but it is not necessary to do so, because the magnitude of the radiation these rays deliver is not life threatening. We know this, because Earth's magnetic field does not stop cosmic rays, and thus astronauts on Skylab, Mir, and the Space Station have been exposed to comparable doses as would be encountered on a human mission to Mars. No symptoms of radiation sickness have been observed.
McNichol then presents a litany of all the health-damaging effects the crew will receive from long-duration exposure to zero gravity on the way to Mars. What he neglects to mention, however, is that in the Mars Direct plan, the crew will use an artificial-gravity spacecraft, so that none of these effects will be experienced.
He then makes an argument that the Mars Society should be called "the America Society" for its "jingoistic" notions. Many facts contradict his accusation, yet he fails to report them. These include that the Mars Society has chapters in 40 countries, that our primary project is in Canada, that this past summer the project was led for two-thirds of the time by a French national, that most of the crew-member shifts were taken by non-US citizens, that our European chapters determine our European policies, and that we have been campaigning all over the world to get as many nations as possible to join in the great adventure of human expansion into space.
The Mars Society does believe that robotic exploration by itself is insufficient. McNichol argues otherwise, saying that "you don't need the Mars Society," because we already have a multitude of photographs of Mars taken from orbit. Really. Perhaps McNichol should try exploring Paris using orbital imagery and report to all of us his exciting experiences.
Robert Zubrin
President, the Mars Society
"The New Red Menace" was a great article! Is there anybody concerned about the impact of too much activity on the moon? There is no wind, no erosion - any footprint will stay there for ages. Playing golf, constructing bases, having remote robots doing wheelies on its virgin surface will be cool, all right, but how long will it take for the moon to be as exciting to look at as any dirt track on Earth? The one small step on the last pristine patch of the moon will be a very sad step for humanity as well.
Pascal Forget
pforget@mac.com
Electric Minds
There are two ways of solving problems: brute force or intelligent design. In "The Energy Web" (Wired 9.07, page 114), intelligent design is used to overcome the current energy crisis instead of the brute force technique of building even more power plants.
I'm disappointed, though, by the tendency to invent new and complex gadgetry when simpler solutions would work. Much of the electricity that's suddenly in short supply is used to power California homes. And much of that household power goes into air-conditioning and heating. Of course, home builders in California have been required to install insulation for many years, undoubtedly saving heaps of energy. However, if developers would also fine-tune their architecture to the Californian climate, much more energy could be saved. This could be achieved, for example, by building longer roof overhangs to keep the sun off walls and out of windows, along with strategically placing windows and doors to catch cooling breezes.
Instead, developers build, structurally, the same houses in California that they build in Phoenix, Seattle, and Washington, DC. My house, in the tropical north of Australia, was specifically designed to be energy efficient. It uses about one-fifth the energy of a standard developer house, and most of this savings comes from low tech design.
Mike Rozak
mikerozak@bigpond.com
To achieve economies of scale and high efficiency, power plants must be large and significant producers. Solar and wind are inherently dilute. The big power project you tout in the Philippines is an example of sheer folly; it is interesting that nowhere in the article is the power output given. The current price per kilowatt (installed) for solar is about $7,500. Thus the $48 million Philippine installation will produce around 6,400 kilowatts. Most "real" power plants (fossil or nuclear) are measured in terms of thousands of megawatts, so the Philippine plant produces about 6.4 percent of what a single, large generating station could.
Only in authoritarian and third world nations would such a waste of resources be tolerated. A government that recognized its duty to its citizens would insist on the most efficient power source, and solar is not it.
There are precisely three significant sources of energy at our disposal: fossil, nuclear, and hydroelectric. That's it. All of the worthwhile hydro resources are fully exploited (and it didn't help that Clinton busily blew up dams). Take your pick: fossil or nuclear? Both are politically incorrect. And both are all that's left, until somebody discovers the route to fusion.
Forgive me for betting it will not be the Electric Power Resource Institute that makes the fusion breakthrough, and also that every environmental group on the planet will oppose it - if and when fusion comes.
James F. Glass
jglass@socal.rr.com
"The Energy Web" is absolutely the best critique I've seen of our decrepit power infrastructure. The emergence of the energy crisis has most people feeling powerless, but 25 years of research has clearly shown we need not rely on antiquated, Rube Goldbergesque power-generation and transmission systems. Now if only Gray Davis and George Bush would get the message.
William L. Seavey
groverbeachboy@aol.com
Toward the end of his broad review of sources electric, Steve Silberman mentions "a man named Elbert Hubbard" attracting "Thomas Edison, Samuel Insull, and George Westinghouse" in 1913 to an organization called the Jovians.
Hubbard was a media superstar who followed up a career in the soap business (he was the first to pack premiums in soap boxes) with the organization of an arts community, which consisted of writers, artists, craftspeople, and creative types of every stripe. His Roycroft Campus still thrives just outside Buffalo, New York, in arts and crafts-rich East Aurora.
Tragically, he was dead just two years later at the zenith of his life: He and his beloved Alice were among the victims of the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915.
Bill McKibben
bill@mckibben.com
Undo
Power Surge: MIT runs a 21-megawatt gas turbine cogeneration plant on its campus ("The Energy Web," Wired 9.07, page 114). ... Max Headroom: Wilbur Wright's flight crossed a distance of 852 feet at an altitude of 10 to 15 feet on December 17, 1903 ("Terminal Velocity," Wired 9.08, page 128). ... Character Reference: Wired 9.09 cover translation of "The sky is calling" by TransPerfect Translations.
Send your Rants & Raves to:
Email: rants@wiredmag.com
Snail mail: Wired, PO Box 78470 San Francisco, CA 94107-8470
Editorial guidelines: guidelines@wiredmag.com
Editorial correspondence: editor@wiredmag.com
