Zubrin bans "New Moon Rising"

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

radarredux

Guest
Found the note below on the book "New Moon Rising" interesting. I have almost finished reading the book, and despite a number of errors an editor should have caught, I think it is pretty good. Does anyone know why Zubrin has banned it?<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The Mars Society held its convention in Chicago this past week. Among the exhibitors present was the publisher of the book Frank Sietzen and I wrote "New Moon Rising". Our publisher was only allowed to have a booth at the convention if they did not sell our book. This specific condition was set personally by Mars Society President Bob Zubrin.<br /><br />www.nasawatch.com<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>
 
C

crossovermaniac

Guest
Good work, Bob. Ban the book and come out looking like an anally rectal *******.
 
P

paleo

Guest
How does Zubrin ban or not ban anything? Why is it his call?<br /><br /> Is the Mars Society is a proprietorship owned by Zubrin? Isn't it a non-profit society with an elected executive that has to follow the society's rules of order?
 
L

lunatic133

Guest
That's strange. I wonder why he'd do that? I will ask him. I myself don't want to read the book because it is FAR too depressing ... to go through all that when Kerry will most likely win and throw us right back where we were. If we win, if congress passes the new plan, then I will read it.
 
M

mrmorris

Guest
<br />Several things here:<br /><br />1. Unless there is more to this than what the original post indicated -- it's not *verified* that this is true. It's shocking, I realize, but there is a possibility that some of the things you read on the internet aren't 100% correct. I did a quick Google on this looking for more details with no luck. Just for the record -- I'm not claiming this is <b>false</b>, just that it'd be nice to have something confirming that this did indeed occur before burning RZ in effigy.<br /><br />2. If it *did* occur -- there are no details on what happened. The reason might well make the hypothetical action perfectly understandable.<br /><br />3. Again, if it *did* occur -- Zubrin is numero uno in the society. Executive decisions like this are his to make. He might have to apologize for it afterwards if there is an outcry by the general members, but no rules are going to be so comprehensive as to dictate every decision an elected official must make.
 
N

nacnud

Guest
First customer reivew of New Moon Rising from Amazon.com.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">At first glance New Moon Rising seems to offer a great look at how NASA responded to the Columbia tragedy, the success of the Mars rover mission and how these events led to the Bush administration's plans for revamping the agency and putting men on Mars.<br /><br />But by the third chapter it becomes clear this is nothing more than a one-source story masquerading as insightful historic reporting. Maybe there was more than one source, but they are all cheerleaders of NASA boss Sean O'Keefe or Bush or both.<br /><br />The authors do seem enamoured of O'Keefe with everyone else (previous administrators, non-governmental and government NASA-watchers) being presented as luddites who don't "get it". The backhanded compliments and derision (former chief Dan Goldin gets much of the blame for, well, everything) kind of wears out its welcome after awhile.<br /><br />The great histories of NASA during the Space Race (A Man on the Moon by Andrew Chaikin is a good example) or Bryan Burrough's Dragonfly make for better, far less biased reading. I think that's the books biggest problem. It's not a history, it's a hastily written press release singing O'Keefe's praises that's main purpose seems to be to tout the Bush Administration's now seemingly dorment space plans during a tough election season. Save your money. </font><br /><br />Perhaps it is the attempted politicization of space that is objected to?
 
L

lunatic133

Guest
Interesting. Zubrin is avidly anti-O'keefe. He told me once that O'Keefe is a bloody idiot, but then again, he thinks a lot of people are bloody idiots. Perhaps he thought that the book was altogether too one sided. Though it seems incredibly out of character. Is it just me or does the editor of nasawatch.com seem to have a serious vendetta going on against Bob? I wonder why?
 
A

a_lost_packet_

Guest
<font color="yellow"> Our publisher was only allowed to have a booth at the convention if they did not sell our book. This specific condition was set personally by Mars Society President Bob Zubrin. ..</font><br /><br />Well, it's their convention so I suppose they can restrict the activity of the vendors if they wish. However, who really cares if Zubrin has problems with the book? The days of burning books are over with. Now, people are encouraged to write their own if they don't agree with something someone else has written. If it's poppycock then it is hoped that people who read it will see it for what it is.<br /><br />If the Mars Society places restrictions upon their vendors at conventions then the vendors always have the option not to appear. If such activity continues, the conventions may end up being nothing more than a power-point presentation and a soft-drink stand. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
 
L

lunatic133

Guest
Sorry to post in front of myself but my oh my oh my -- it turns out I was right. This nasawatch bloke DOES have it in for the mars society. She claims avidly that no book was ever "banned" from the Mars Society conference, however, they don't let just anyone waltz right up and sell their books because that would be inherently unfair. <br /><br />I also asked her what she knew about the editor of nasawatch.com and found out some VERY interesting stuff. Apparently Keith Cowing, the editor, is part of Pascal Lee's crowd, a rival group of the Mars Society who have held a vendetta agaisnt TMS since they stopped using his services because he overcharged (300-400% mark-up costs and keeping the profit) for flights to Devon Island. Since then, she says, he has done everything he can to trash the reputation of The Mars Society through his website, and scanning through his other commentaries, I believe it. He can be very vitriolic at times. <br /><br />I think you all should take whatever information about The Mars Society you read on nasawatch.com with a grain of salt from now on, as it stems from a personal feud between Cowing and Zubrin, rather than objective fact.
 
L

lunatic133

Guest
Indeed, Zubrin isn't even all that anti-moon. Of course he would prefer to go to Mars first and he thinks that the moon is rather pointless in comparisson, but if congress indeed decides to fund the moon but not mars he will support it rather than remain in LEO. He even made a special section on the MAPS project dealing with lunar resource utilization, which I was a part of. He is of course more pro-mars but not ALTOGETHER anti-moon -- it is just this man who seems anti-Zubrin.
 
C

crossovermaniac

Guest
The book should still be allowed. In fact, I would love to see Cowing and Zubrin debate each other on any disagreements they have.
 
L

lunatic133

Guest
I repeat, the book was NOT banned. My guess is that they came up to the conference in hopes of selling the book but did not register beforehand, so the mars society said no, and he, being a personal rival of Zubrin's, threw a conniption fit and trashed them on his web site. Yup, that's maturity.
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
That does indeed sound more likely. I'm not a particular fan of Zubrin's, and so the darker side of me wished it to be true, but from what I've heard I don't think he's vindictive, close-minded, or stupid. He wouldn't arrange for this book to be banned, but I could see a misunderstanding arising if the author didn't register properly in advance and was told he couldn't sell the book as a result. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">well it sounds like the book was a waste of paper anyway.</font>/i><br /><br />I disagree. Other than the small editing mistakes I think it is pretty good (I still have a few more pages left to read). It is a quick read, and while there are obvious some biases in the book (Goldin comes out as a bit of a jerk, O'Keef comes out as a bit of a hero, and the ISS is described as a project without a clear mission), I thought it was relatively neutral.<br /><br />Some of the "insider views" were very interesting, and I wonder who fed the authors the information. For example, the day the CAIB report came out, O'Keefe hosted several of the members to some discussion and then a private dinner (or after dinner?) meeting where one the CAIB members from a university started lecturing O'Keefe on the safety standards of the Navy. O'Keefe, after working with Navy for many years, realized the guy didn't know what the heck he was talking about, and O'Keefe was pissed that Gehman, a Navy Admiral, didn't bother to correct the other CAIB board member. It gave me a different view of the CAIB report.<br /><br />The book also comes with a DVD that includes Bush's presentation, O'Keef presentation, some stuff with Cheney at JPL, and some NASA videos of various mission concepts. While much of this is on the web, I think the DVD video quality was better than the web video streams.<br /><br />So unless you are short of cash, if space is your thing I would encourage people to buy it.</i>
 
Y

yurkin

Guest
It is often a common tactic to not register or intentionally register incorrectly. Then you will not granted the right to do whatever it is you are planning to do. When that happens you can claim that there was a vendetta against you and your beliefs.<br /><br />I suspect these guys registered for a booth but did not actually register to sell their book. And then claimed Zubrin was banning their book.<br />
 
A

Aetius

Guest
I've offered a few criticisms of the initial Mars Direct plan on the Internet, but overall I think Zubrin is a visionary. I think that there was a seismic shift in the way a lot of people in the space community viewed Mars after Zubrin came along.<br /><br />I will probably purchase the book eventually, but it sure sounds to me like its authors were trying to garner free publicity, and smear Zubrin's good name [again] in the process. Two birds with one stone.
 
Q

quasar2

Guest
i saw zubrin the zubrin show live once. yes it`s true he isn`t anti-moon. but his presentation of the moon left alot to be desired, he kinda turned it into a sideshow. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">overall I think Zubrin is a visionary. I think that there was a seismic shift in the way a lot of people in the space community viewed Mars after Zubrin came along.</font>/i><br /><br />My impression of Zubrin is not so much that he is a visionary (many of the things he espouses like ISRU had been mentioned by others before) but someone with incredible passion who embraced the ideas and pursues them with relentless passion. He is a man on a mission.<br /><br />Along the way he has probably pissed off as many people as he has inspired, but that goes along with being a zealot.</i>
 
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">but his presentation of the moon left alot to be desired, he kinda turned it into a sideshow.</font>/i><br /><br />Part of the problem is that no one has really made a strong case for the moon. I prefer the moon first for a variety of reasons (primarily because I believe it has a better chance of supporting the emerging space industry (not NASA, Boeing, or LockMart)), but I am not strongly passionate about it. In fact, lately I have been thinking that Near Earth Objects like burned out comets (water) and asteroids containing Platinum Group Metals (PGMs) might make better targets.<br /><br /><i>Moonrush</i> by Dennis Wingo makes the best argument for the Moon that I have seen, and it is based on the need for PGMs necessary for the hydrogen economy. Although, like I speculated above, it might make better sense to harvest these from NEOs.</i>
 
Q

quasar2

Guest
The sad part is that all those plans for The Moon have gone down the tubes. i`m wondering what exactly a continuation of Apollo would`ve really been like, would it have been "better"? would it have inspired more people to go? would Shuttle have been delayed? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY