Sure EP. I promised not to go into one of my obscenity laced rants when presented with numbers that contradict my position. Oh wait that's your modus operundi. Well whatever, I support Zubrin's plan and NASA's derivation solely based on a sample check of some of their numbers and the lack thereof on the part of Zubrin's hand waiving critics.

Show me the math of a "better plan" and If I agree with the underlying assumptions I'll go along with it. I already commented on Jupiter Direct and my doubts about its assumptions and stated I wasn't qualified to judge whether the Ares or the Jupiter Direct assumptions were better (not my field of engineering). Without a clear cut basis for choosing I choose to support the one that will be able to boost the biggest impact diverter or other mission possible (because I'd also like to see pictures of Europa's ocean and a blimp on Titan before I die) and that's Ares V. Of course I'm assuming that debate is where you are leading because neither one is Mars Direct. Mars Direct as an actual mission plan is not in NASA's agenda. NASA wants a bigger crew and claim a higher safety margin although I think they have clearly lowered it in the instance of an orbiting return vehicle and by not even attempting artificial gravity. They did put in higher margins elsewhere. Zubrin developed Mars Direct as the cheapest plan possible at a reasonable level of risk and a pragmatic chance of occurring (no nuclear rockets). Different goals, different results - I'd support either one.

I don't however support bells and whistle missions costing hundreds of billions more. We can't afford to waste money like that. Doubling the cost for a perceived increse in both safety and capability is one thing. Being a jobs program pork barrel for the aerospace industry that simply crams as much money as possible into it is another. No doubt they would love to do a CAPS program instead of doing the asteroid detection job with a far less costly satellite.

Regards,
Mark