Raoul,

Responding to comments:

>I meant TPS and not MS (which I joined
>2 years ago).

I'm also an ex-Planetary Society member. The Planetary Society long irritated me through a bunch of little things. There was some really bad science concerning Mars that they published in their magazine without any technical criticism. I think a space advocacy organization must first and foremost be totally uncompromising about scientific truth and technical validity. Then their bungling of the politics surrounding Mars 2001 (before Mars Polar Lander augured-in) really annoyed me. That stupidity induced me into letting my membership lapse. Then they sand bagged Zubrin on the politics of the Mars sample return bringing back an Andromeda Strain (that comfirmed my decision to disassociate myself from them).

I'm not a member of the Mars Society and quite frankly this makes me uncomfortable. I'm a staunch fan of Robert Zubrin and the Mars Society is his baby. However the Mars Society was built upon the ashes of the "Case for Mars" biannual conventions. There were aspects of that which were flakey to the point of embarrassing. I'm hoping that as the Mars Society matures it can evolve into something like the old American Rocketry Society (ARS) or the early and vigorous version of the American Institue of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). The AIAA now just limps along and doesn't really advocate anything except more profits for Boeing and Lockheed-Martin.

>I wonder about a number of telescopes
>in space (for optical interferometry):
>Could they be more stable than on the
>surface of the Moon, knowing those
>telescopes (located far away from each
>other) would be under the gravitational
>influences of not only the Earth, the
>Moon, the Sun but also Jupiter,
>Venus,etc...and different influences at
>different times(solar wind,etc)?

Optical interferometers based upon large telescopes that are widely separated in deep space are the next really exciting thing to happen in astronomy. I've seen plans for one interferometer (EXPN? can't remember the spelling) at a JPL website that could resolve Earth sized worlds orbiting other star systems. This particular device could also acquire atmospheric spectra, i.e. water vapor, free oxygen and methane. Once they get this device up and running then exobiology will become a real science rather than a bunch of people wildly speculating and posturing in front of the news media. These space based interferometers maintain their separation and orientation through active control systems. I don't know the details but I imagine they would use lasers with fringe counters to determine orientation and distance.

>Well, we haven't colonized the poles,
>the oceans on our own planet (when we
>could).

Obviously you know the answer to this. Living on the bottom of the ocean won't protect you from a future Stalin/Hitler, resource depletion or an asteroid impact. Also besides being a cold dark abyss, there really is nothing on the ocean's bottom but mud. Likewise, all there is in the middle of Greenland and Antartica is ice. When we go to Mars then we've doubled the land surface that the human race can work with. That Martian land surface is rich in metals and is relatively easy for colonists to access.

>While 38% is higher than 16% gravity,
>I'm not at all sure somebody who has
>spent 6 years on Mars would have no
>problems returning back to Earth or
>somebody born on Mars could ever visit
>the Earth.

Colonists don't come back. Sending them one way makes establishing a self sufficient Mars colony almost as cheap as building a large scientific base where the people do come back.

>Besides, colonizing a place has
>entirely different objetives than
>exploring it.

True but you can't colonize the place without first exploring it. Also once the colony is in place the follow-on exploration is assured.

>The idea of colonizing Mars has a lot
>to do with the early settlers in the
>new world...

The ancient Greeks did lots of colonization in the Black Sea, Sicily and Italy. That's where their sphere of influence first encountered the ancient Romans and the Carthagians (Phoenecian colonists).

>We want freedom, we want to reach out
>but we also want to be able to return
>(that's entirely part of our need for
>freedom); remaining under a glass dome,
>or a huge O'Neill like L5 colony are
>not really an expression of freedom
>(like not being physically capable to
>return back to Earth).

Many (most?) of the early American colonies lived in walled settlements because of the danger of Indian raids. Very few of the original American colonists returned to Europe (many went west). However unlike Zubrin, I think the American frontier is a poor analog for space colonization. I think Polynesian colonization is a better example (but that's another story).

Gary