Your point suggests you have never bothered to get all the facts on this issue because an Apollo style lift capacity is all we need to get to Mars. NASA has also designed an alternatives using both minor changes to existing shuttle technology (85 ton capacity) and significant extensions of it (Magnum). Apollo could lift over 100 tons into LEO and the shuttle stack can lift about 75 tons when you take into account the shuttle's mass. Please explain how you think needing the same lift capacity as Apollo compares to the technology gap between Mercury and Apollo? Much work on 0 g issue has done by space station missions. Long term life support systems have also been worked on for those. The gap does not appear nearly that big to me Larry.

Nothing I have seen about technology needed to get to Mars compares to the obstacles we had to pass to reach the Moon and doesn't even look as tough as the steps from one capsule generation to the next. I know you know a lot more about existing and past rockets than me Larry, but I've also seen how dug in you can get on technical issues without openly looking at all the data so forgive me if I need to see a far more detailed critique to believe you. Your comments don't provide even 0.01 % of the detail Zubrin provides. Again please list specifically what you think these major obstacles are? I be thrilled to get down to brass tacks with you on any specific technological issue. A new suit as you mentioned before hardly justifies a return to the Moon first.

I don't believe Zubrin is a Saint. I don't even believe he is the best leader for the Mars Society. I'd prefer Chris McKAy. What I do believe based on actually reading Zubrin's book is that he makes a compelling case why we don't need to go to the Moon first. I didn't believe that prior to reading his book. I'm an engineer who specializes in optimizing processes and looking for ways to cut waste and have ripped apart preconceptions and old ways of thinking many times on my own including my own theories and recommendations when new data warrants it. I read Zubrin's book with just as much skepticism as I approach exsisting process methods and for almost every new idea or proposal he presented many counter issues and followup questions sprang to my mind. Zubrin answered every one as I progressed on through the book. Zubrin's cutting through the bull and waste approach resonates strongly with my own style and has similar negative consequences in offending people which is why I don't think he is the best public face for the society.

Regards,
Mark