Re1: It's a simple process Nick period. Most chemical processes involve "thermal processing" and many involve pressure. I supervised a process using over 400 PSIG of H2 in a 2000 gallon vessel. As any mechanical engineer and most people with a fair degree of mechanical aptitude can tell you , the smaller a vessel is the easier it is to stand up to pressure. Take your simple glass or plastic Christmas ornament. A smaller one with the same thickness is harder to crush (it works somewhat the same in either direction). This is not cutting edge science or engineering and to attempt to avoid it like it is just plain silly because the penalty for carrying return fuel is huge as discussed below.

Re2: I already made comments similar to your reply. I suggest we compare the accuracy of previous landers with desired coordinates to assess whether Zubrin's estimates are realistic. I don't have that info handy, but will keep an eye out for it for future reference. It should also be noted that Mars Direct includes a very good test in landing accuracy with the fuel factory before any humans leave Earth.

Re3: Assuming the mission durations were equivalent was done on the assumption others were interested in a fair comparison. I believe I also made the point earlier that comparing different mission lengths was unfair. I'm quite sure I pointed out to Raoul that transfer time and paths were the same for any mission of similar length regardless of whether the destination was Mars or Phobos. Forgive me if I thought people were interested in a fair discussion rather than just pushing a favorite path or possibly just contrariness.

For instance: "A 1-month short-stay Phobos mission makes the total mission duration about half of that for a surface stay with return at the next conjunction." So would a 1 month stay on Mars. The advantage is not in going to Phobos. This is an argument based on duration not the value of the destination. It is totally inappropriate as a basis for discussing the relative merits of Mars vs. Phobos.

You don't test everything if you don't land on Mars. Much of the risk is in Earth launch, return, and the long transit and you just delay the other big risk. So you are taking all that risk for a pitiful fraction of a full mission's research potential. You haven't cut the risk or the cost in half when you just have to do it over again. You also don't cut cost in half from the standpoint of the mission unless you are sending a smaller vessel and team which negates your near full scale test claim.

The delta V to reach Mars and Phobos is the same (3.6 km/s from LEO) and more to land on Phobos (1.9 km/s vs. 1.0 km/s for Mars) due to the lack of an atmosphere. Using Martian atmosphere for aerobreaking reduces the Phobos
landing delta V to 0.5 km/s but again you have to add one of the risk
factors you used avoiding as a reason for phobos in the first place. That's
5.5 km/s to land on Phobos vs. 4.6 for Mars. The numbers for our Moon are
3.2 and 2.7. These numbers are from a 1988 book "Race To Mars" which
predates both the 90 day plan and Mars Direct. The totals are in line with
those given in "The Case For Mars" although reported somewhat differently.

You can pay for two heavy lift launches and risk a human crew twice, or go
Mars direct style paying for two launches and only risk a crew once. It
makes no sense unless you can provide a science justification for phobos
first.

Re4&5: I thought you had been to an MS convention. If you had you would know that it is nothing like a cult. A Majority disagree with Zubrin on something. A plurality if not a majority have major issues with his management style. I fit in both categories and so does Chris. The reason people so strongly champion his ideas is that he has done the math and spent a lot of time thinking about many issues related to colonizing space not because they think he is a great guy or infallible. When you can think as clearly as he has on many of the issues you brought up people may champion your plans as well. Most of the people chanting Mars cult have never even looked at the delta V numbers or don't understand their implications. Those of us that do are as confident as someone who's used algebra to solve a problem when arguing with people who are just guessing.

For those that have mathematical ability the rocket equation is (M+P)/M=e^(dV/C) where M=dry mass, P=propellant mass, dV=delta V, C=exhaust velocity. (M+P)/M is the mass ratio and increases exponentially with dV. You pay a lot for small increases in dV or decreases in exhaust velocity. It's even worse than it looks because more propellant means more dry mass as well to hold the fuel. When you consider return propellant as part of M to reach a target you can see how that adds a lot. C in Km/s = 0.0098*Isp. Isp typically varies from 300 to 500 seconds for common rocket fuels (900 for nuclear H2 engine) so C is typically about 4 km/s. Plug in a total deltaV for Mars of 10.2 km/s from LEO vs. a 4.6 and you can easily see the huge value of using fuel made on Mars.

Re6: It's math Nick. It shouldn't require a sweet turn of phrase.

Regards,
Mark