There's not much point in going to places far and wide if there's not the required energy as for accomplishing much of anything, worse yet if you can't safely and/or efficiently store whatever the stuff is that's providing the energy resource in the first place. As for making H2O2, at least that's a done deal if you're speaking of Venus, and relatively moon-dirt cheap if it having to be imported from Earth.

In a nut shell; this IRRC engine is capable of becoming extremely compact, it's also relatively energy efficient and tough as nails. It's entirely internal combustion with only the necessary exhaust port. It actually functions most efficiently in a vacuum, although there's nearly no limitations to the surrounding environment. I'm suggesting as great as 0.1 kg/KW of raw engine output or 10 KW/kg of engine mass, and this is capable of relatively low RPM and thus good low-end torque. Worst case with all accessories and either a multi-gear transmission or multi phase alternator is still capable of offering nearly 1 KW/kg. There's little if any warm-up, extremely fast load response, and within 10,000 hours there's no significant run-time limitations, plus being rotary there's hardly any vibration and it's easily field servicable and/or ismply interchangable sine a replacement engine (short block) is so darn compact.

Of course your job is probably to uncover grammar and math mistakes, such as just for identifying one of those makes this entire topic and whatever substance of this report becomes meaningless dribble, perhaps almost as meaningless as to what a certain resident warlord thinks of other humanity, especially of those outside of his remorseless genetic gene pool. Or, you could actually be looking for the honest to God tell-all and technical drawings, prefferably a working prototype that you can just borrow.

The IRRCE (Internal Rocket Rotary Combustion Engine) may be relatively small, though it isn't a toy, at least it's not like any toy that I've ever imagined, as offering a solid on-demand KW/kg worth of overall continuous engine and transmission/generator performance that's capable of operating within nearly any environment is also about fuel efficiency along with space savings and thereby insuring least overall package weight without reduction in reliability. Of course the first prototypes are going to be somewhat larger and thereby not quite as light weight.

4.85 kw/kg of c12h26/air as opposed to 15+kw/kg worth of c12h26/h2o2 seems like rather a no-contest, especially if the engine itself isn't 1/10th the size nor mass of the conventional piston IC or even 1/8th the rotary Mazda engine. The IRRCE can therefore be economically delivered to remote sites as well as easily serviced in any field on Earth, or perchance if need be on the moon, Mars or even Venus, whereas the only difficult though not entirely impossible location for accommodating such repairs might be under water.

As for addressing one problem at a time, firstly was the task for resolving the issue of having to consume mass quantities of whatever atmosphere just for the essentials of obtaining sufficient amounts of O2, as without obtaining a whole lot more volume as well as density of O2 than C12H26, whatever the fuel itself actually isn't worth squat.

One perfectly viable solution, as opposed to the traditional dependence upon an atmosphere of good old air, this option was for this new engine to be using a two-part cocktail or matrix of H2O2/C12H26; and how hard could that be?

As intended for the energy demands as deemed necessary for powering a rather substantial lunar metro bus (LM-1), of energy that's derived from such portable supplies of a relatively simple fuel and a relatively safe oxidiser payload of 8500 liters. There's been an initial design suggestion of storing roughly 11,645 kg worth of such highly combustible energy, thus providing a likely fuel/oxidiser range of at least 11,645 km, plus obtaining the equivalent of at least another 10%<25% as offered by 48 m2 worth of PV energy for supplementing, providing a total of 13,000+km range without refueling nor having to crawl the remainder of the way home on whatever PV energy. Overall, that's only based upon an expectation of 3.55 mpg as based upon the combined total, which seems hardly such a difficult task, especially since whatever weighs X amount upon Earth becomes 1/6th that on the moon, whereas this initial lunar transporter bus could weigh as little as 25 lunar tonnes or expanded as to representing 100 lunar tonnes.

As for an Earthly IRRCE application of obtaining nearly 100+mpg from the portion of diesel fuel for that of accommodating a full-sized/H2 class SUV seems quite doable, as such we'd need to accommodate perhaps 12 liters (3.17 gal) of the C12H26 or diesel No.1, then 90 liters of 95+% H2O2 for a total volume of 102 liters (total 27 Gal) should provide a cruising range of 325+miles per fill-up of diesel/h2o2, or an extremely clean burning (nearly zero emission) 12 mpg if you're including the volume of H2O2. BTW; this sort of dual fuel/oxidiser energy is rather environmentally friendly, as in extremely clean burning while never consuming one cubic foot nor even one gram of the surrounding atmosphere. Since Volkswagen already offers a small turbo-diesel powered mini-sedan that's accomplishing better than 90 mpg, the IRRCE powered alternative should make that one into nearly 300 mpg, which should stretch Earth's petroleum resources for the C12H26/diesel No.1 for centuries to come. At that level of performance and clean burn I'd certainly be willing to pay $1/liter on the C12H26 and $0.5/liter of the H2O2, a combined tally of $2.12/gal. As of today, China could likely provide the 98% H2O2 at the re-distributed cost of $0.25/liter (including road tax or perhaps that should become hazmat tax), and because it's simply NOT rocket science is exactly why local communities could produce their own home brew H2O2.

Even though efficient rocket engines already utilize this sort of stuff, and there's no international trade restrictions nor legal requirement as to selling any of it to NASA or even the public. Besides, apparently H2O2/C12H26 burns way to clean for accomplishing anything NASA/NSA/DoD, as well as not nearly as spendy as those LO/LH nor as incredibly nasty and polluting as SBRs, nor is the IRRCE nearly as risky as that of the explosive external combustion rocket science.

Of course this application is not your ordinary IC engine, as it's most likely a ceramic composite engine using dual common-rail feeds of highly pressurised products being proportionally injected and thus well atomized if being injected at 1000 bar, having one isolated rail delivering the C12H26 and the other rail accommodating the bulk substance being H2O2. The IRRCE operating much like a two-cycle diesel engine except for having absolutely no atmospheric intake and not really even any compression stroke (only power strokes), thus much smaller and capable of offering terrific energy per machinery kilogram. BTW; this sort of engine wouldn't know not to run just fine and dandy while under water, under snow or perhaps tonnes of moon-dirt, or as having to operate in a near vacuum makes no difference. Even if the environment is absolutely sub-frozen or simply way too hot and nasty as for most other combustion engines, as heat for the IRRCE isn't technically insurmountable, only somewhat derated when 811°K is still a tolerable environment.

Going by the recent levels of apparently dumbfounded folks (sort of the reverse impact of shock and awe, almost as though I've just broken their holy grail) that seemingly intend to share only their flak as directed my way. As far as I can tell there's been no such thing as any safe energy solution, especially if that notion entails much of anything beyond getting yourself out of bed, as unfortunately life itself is downright risky business, and as such I believe life as we've known it continually needs reassurances, as to placing each form of applied physics into relevant context against the alternatives, such as for all the benefits of staying in bed for the remainder of your life as opposed to chancing it by doing otherwise may need to be adjusted to that of accepting a modus risk factor.

As with all things energy worthy that are natural as well as for those artificial (man made or perhaps even lizard folk made), there are relevant pro and con issues as well as risk assessments worth cataloging, at least on behalf of humanity so that the rest of us village idiots might have some clue, idea or notion as to what's what, and perhaps of deciding upon whom to believe is telling us the greater truth, or perhaps realizing whom's telling us something that's a wee bit skewed, such as from the politically corrected intellectual toilet of life, whereas truth is derived from those making certain that everything is politically corrected and thereby conditional and/or of only their skewed laws of applied physics coming into play, somewhat exactly like our justifying the rather spendy WMD commode that's recently been getting itself a little more than plugged up with you know what, meanwhile those actual reasons for the likes of 9/11 and of much worse atrocities against humanity simply haven't even been contemplated, much less of there being any honest focus on the facts of what provoked this latest fiasco, instead there's been more like a whole lot of hocus pocus via smoke and mirrors (fearsome cloak and dagger dog wagging on steroids that has just about everyone fooled into thinking that the upper 0.1% of America did absolutely nothing wrong).

Since it's not possible to please everyone, especially if you're a warlord or the Pope having a fetish for exterminating Cathars, this topic is all about doing what's mostly right, of our honestly discussing what's even been affordably as well as intellectually doable within current technology in spite of all the warm and fuzzy incoming mainstream flak. Though of no matter whatever I'm suggesting, just out of spite others will certainly insist otherwise, so much so that you may need to unplug yourself from your collective Borg network before any of this topic and subsequent tit-for-tat makes the least bit of sense. If all else fails, try reading this report from back to front.

Also, in spite of all of the recent 3-monkey pretense that's been going down, as well as serious dog wagging, spin and disinformation hype that's ongoing by the likes of the pro-NASA and pro-Apollo cults, and by way of continually benefiting their cold-war lord of the rings (NSA/DoD), of which I've previously coined such folks as cloned borgs having the "Col. Wilhelm Klink syndrome" and otherwise of representing by far the world's largest ever recorded blackhole of intellectual knowledge and supposed expertise, whereas absolutely everything enters their world but oddly nothing of any worth for the common good of humanity ever returns as to seeing the light of day. In spite of all that's been officially recorded and thereby thoroughly moderated to death by NASA/NSA/DoD, I'll be suggesting that perhaps all is not exactly what it seems, especially with further respect to places like our moon and Venus.

As cometh from the all-knowing yet doom and gloom kingdoms of those supposedly having "the right stuff", or perhaps it's merely another cesspool of their intellectual incest which lately has been unable to function itself outside their tiny little cloning box for the past few decades, and since so few others will honestly chance as to providing their expertise, nor chance violating their nondisclosure policy, whereas only because I'm such a nice sort of guy (the self appointed messenger from hell that just will not go away), as such I'll try to honestly offer that dim light at the end of an otherwise very dark and gloomy tunnel by way of sharing in some of what little I've learned. Eventually I may even learn how to publish a great deal in such a way as to being understood by the vast majority.

As in this instance, I'm attempting to deliver upon a few of the pro/con issues of risk and benefits regarding various fuel/oxidiser cocktails that have been reasonably well understood by others, and of honestly comparing those as alternatives to what's otherwise surrounding us as being entirely responsible for taking far more than their fair share of lives for little if any apparent good reasons, other than the usual greed and thereby excessive profits, of thereby subsequently upholding their Skull and Bones creed of absolute arrogance by which those claiming no regrets nor moral responsibilities whatsoever (at least as long as it's not been getting any of their butts on the line) remain fully in charge of all their neat little CO2 generating boxes.

For those of you that have the stamina and all the proper decryption codes for dyslexia, here's another not-so-brief catalog/tour of certain things that are quite dangerous to life as we know it, though otherwise of reasonably natural substances that have been representing perhaps by far the most lethal commodities on the face of Earth. For starters there's plain old oxygen (as in O2) having always been a serious problem, especially since Earth has too freaking much of it, even though greater and ever greater amounts of our O2 have been getting somewhat polluted/contaminated into the atmospheric matrix that essentially stores all this supposedly free O2, though getting so much so polluted that a greenhouse "point of no return" seems more likely than not, even still there's way too much O2 for our own darn good.

Short of LH/LO, C12H26 and O2 are about as lethal as substances get;
Unfortunately, our atmosphere is simply chuck full of O2, to the point that causes almost anything to burn, in some instances as spontaneously doing so with little if any human assistance. Otherwise too much O2 causes premature aging, and of all things "oxidising" which represents accelerated corrosion as well as food spoilage among so many other undesirable affects. As risky substances tend to go, having too much free O2 is currently at the top of my hazmat risk assessment profile, as I'll give good old O2 a 10+ as opposed to plutonium representing a mere 5, especially if some fool has gone and compressed and/or concentrated O2 at anything above the 21% per volume, whereas much worse yet is of any liquid form of O2, in which it's either way too cold for life as we know it, and/or it's under such explosive pressures that life anywhere within the collateral damage zone may cease to exist at any moment. Adding to all of that, the for certain carnage that'll happen if there should be anything like C12H26 (kerosene) involved, as then you can kiss your butt goodbye, as so many already have. Yet oddly, compressed and/or concentrated O2 is openly permitted, even the most lethal frozen liquified form is readily available and in places associated with folks that have no honest idea that their lives are so closely linked to a freaking bomb. The same goes even more so for the likes of C12H26, as countless thousands have died from excess exposure to and/or thoroughly incinerated specifically because of nasty products like C12H26 as being associated with just plain old air.

I'd have to give Liquid Oxygen (LO) and the 100% O2 environment the hazmat rating of perhaps 10+
Though I'd also consider atmospheric "@21% O2" the safety rating of perhaps 8.

A somewhat similar notion might go for pure hydrogen;
Especially the frozen as liquid and/or under horrific pressure forms of hydrogen. However, the gas (h2) form of hydrogen actually isn't all that nasty, especially at whatever ambient pressure if it's nearly 100%. Even 4% O2 and 96% h2 is good for go as far as us humans safely breathing and surviving upon quite nicely, such as well documented when functioning at 5+Bar of absolute pressure (that's only an additional 59 psi). Without excess O2, such as below 5% and the remainder as H2, there's little fear of much of anything except obtaining terrific buoyancy and/or of sustaining human life without significant decompression risk of death from excessive N2, nor having to experience the agony of defeat via some horrific explosion/fire from whatever H2, because that's just not going to happen as long as the O2 percentage is kept down to a dull roar.

I'd have to give Liquid Hydrogen (LH) the similar hazmat rating of perhaps 9+
I'd give pressurised H2 gas the hazmat rating of perhaps 7 or greater.

Though I'd offer free H2 gas the hazmat rating of perhaps 3 or less.

One perfectly good reason why ambient H2 is so freaking safe is by the time your hazmat team arrives whatever H2 has been long gone, as in soaring upward at 35+ mph (16 m/s), otherwise nearly impossible to being contained, let alone at any critical explosive mixture, thus the Hindenburg was 100% H2 safe, just not that of a sufficiently airship hull covering safe. In fact, it was most likely the H2 that permitted 2/3rd of the occupants to essentially walk away, as opposed to flight-800 and just about any other aircraft fiasco you'd care to relate to. The likes of 9/11 simply wouldn't happened if those were H2 airships running into tall buildings.

How about for the likes of just plain old air;
Well guess what folks, air itself is downright dangerous, especially in almost any compressed formula. Where otherwise the pathetic viscosity of air is entirely insufficient to keep us humans from dying, sort of dropping like flies, for the fact that our inferior DNA offers us no wings. It seems that whenever we fall down, the nasty acceleration of gravity gets the best of us, as our bones break, heads crack and if you're falling from any distance of much over your own height, there's a darn good chance that you'll die on the spot from our wossy atmosphere offering a woeful lack of sufficient viscosity between yourself and of whatever your head is smashing into.

A perfectly good analogy is for considering water as opposed to air;
When was the last time you saw a fish getting a cast on a broken fin, or an octopus with a skull injury or of any other deceleration related injury, and why do you suppose our pathetic DNA still needs a parachute or bungy-cord when jumping from high places. Obviously air, as a life supporting medium, is simply vastly inferior to water, especially since the portion that's 21% oxygen is capable of burning us at the stake, where just about everything in sight (including yourself) becomes flammable, and on top of that, it's been getting thoroughly greenhouse polluted by way of our own arrogance and utter stupidity.

I'd have to give compressed air the hazmat rating of perhaps 8+
Though plain old air may require a hazmat rating of perhaps 6 or possibly less, but only if you remained in bed.

In other words, plutonium should actually be considered safer than for being around thin air. Obviously, even when it isn't air but mostly CO2, such as on Mars, where that lesser amount of viscosity is worth 1% of what we've got to work with, and even though you're at 1/3rd gravity, it's damn cold which still makes for falling a real concern, whereas at least for sky diving on Venus holds out some interesting promise.

I mentioned water as offering a somewhat better medium for sustaining life as we know it, at least transporting yourself and collision wise, where obviously I was excluding humans within that environment because, our vastly inferior evolutionary DNA isn't worth squat within water. Actually, just plain old water is downright lethal to most humans (especially stupid ones), as too much of the stuff kills tens of thousands every year, hundreds of thousands if you'd care to include the contamination contributions, and perhaps millions if you'd include the wrath of mother nature.

It doesn't even matter if you can swim the English channel, as your ass is still grass of the ship you're on is one of those being sliced in half by a nuclear submarine, in which case it's not the hull chopping submarine that'll specifically be taking your miserable life, but of the vast expanse of an ocean filled with such submarines plus others dying from there being way "too much water", and even if that submarine doesn't get yourself along with your ship, then those sharks will finish off whatever remains within their ocean of water, because after all, if you weren't having to deal with the testy issue of there being "too much water", chances are reasonably good that you wouldn't be having to fend off any damn shark.

I'd honestly have to give the "too much water" a hazmat rating of perhaps 8+
Though plain old drinking/bath/swimming pool water still needs a hazmat rating of perhaps 6 or possibly less, but only if you remained in bed.

The hazmat rating for C12H26 (kerosene) should actually be quite low;
At least as long as that nasty 21% worth of O2 isn't anywhere within the same box. Fortunately, C12H26 isn't just anywhere to be found like water is, and it's even relatively stable over a wider thermal range than H2O or even H2O2, whereas again, as long as these two incomparable compounds are being kept sufficiently apart, there's little to be concerned about, certainly less than if any C12H26 is spilled on the open ground or ocean as opposed to LOX or LH2, whereas generally the C12H26 will not permanently contaminate nor will it spontaneously ignite unless some freaking idiot has placed those higher densities of O2, such as 50+%, within the same box, which is obviously asking for a whole lot of trouble in River City.

By now you should be able to see where all this rant is going, expressing that essentially life is a freaking risk that's exponentially worse off in direct proportion the distance from your bed, as we're surrounded by all sorts of nasty substances, such as plain old natural stuff as dirt and so much other that's been specifically responsible for taking lives left and right by the tens of thousands every year and, there's no apparent end in sight, where even snow is way more lethal in more ways than not, especially as we manage to further de-educate humanity into knowing how to shop until we drop but otherwise can't keep from getting ourselves and others killed off for absolutely no good reason whatsoever.

Even when there's been no apparent reason, we seem to have gone out of our way to invent the likes of invisible WMD in order to justify massive destruction of property along with the taking of thousands of lives, inflicting multiple times more carnage and of creating worse ongoing mayhem and disruption of livelihoods than some of the worst dictators ever achieved (somewhat Pope/Cathar like), whereas the aftermath of which has been costing humanity horrific amounts of diverted talents plus lost for ever resources of precious expertise and of precious time which can never be recaptured. You simply can't spend another trillion bucks of hard earned money upon shock and awe, and then for reconstruction, without directly denying those same dollars and resources from others far more deserving. As various risk assessments go, always linked to the lives of others we supposedly give a damn about, it's been a conscious choice of where to invest our talents and resources, as well as our version of applied WMD, instead of focusing upon achieving the greater good for humanity which, God forbid, sets an example by raising the bar for others to achieve similar beneficial goals. Of course, absolutely none of the truly beneficial goals are remotely possible when every other soul has been and continues lying through their false teeth and/or knowing looking the other way (that's how JFK and a few too many others bought the farm).

Unfortunately, as many religious as well as ego political and ultra ego scientific/physics cults tend to go, they simply don't want to be saved nor enlightened, as obviously most don't want their precious megayacht of benefits, power and wealth to be rocked by anyone other than their own kind (Saddam for example, warlord Bush for another and certainly the Pope has few options, as well as those middle Eastern folks seem pathetically doomed for all of eternity). Even when change and awakening offers an all-around good thing, it's been common place for such cults to eat their own kind in place of accepting any change or responsibility. The intellectual communities of science, physics and astronomy cults are certainly of no exception to flagrant cannibalism if not self-mutilation in order to get their way, as otherwise pure incest has become so common place that DNA/RNA have become nearly indistinguishable between cult members, of course that's actually a good thing as for organ transplants.

Sorry about all the previous paragraphs of my usual rants. Onward to appreciating hydrogen peroxide (h2o2) as being downright nasty stuff if sufficiently concentrated. Though by nasty I'm not suggesting it's spontaneous by itself, especially at lower temperatures and more so stable if frozen solid.

At one Bar (14.7 psi) it takes 150°C for pure H2O2 to becoming a vapor, and even as a vapor it's biologically nasty but not otherwise as lethal as 100% O2, unless you're planning upon breathing or bathing in such hot H2O2, which would be almost as stupid as for breathing that before mentioned H2O that's long been certified as capable and responsible of killing off millions of folks every year, as compared to few if anyone being killed off due to breathing in H2O2, and remember that most folks don't even have to go all that far as to find more H2O than they can possibly tolerate (yet water remains legalized), while H2O2 has remained relatively scarce to say the least, and otherwise too darn valuable to vaporise or otherwise dispose of into the environment just for the heck of it.

As for safely storing H2O2; there's always the self-encapluation of the substance being frozen at -1°C, as a sure-fire alternative to either pressurizing and/or by most other applied technology. Actually, by having the H2O2 within a basalt composite tank, especially if that's a sphere that should be at least partially of thermal insulating basalt micro-spheres. The thermal conductivity of said basalt composites is way below average, potentially R-1.2 per mm, thus a 25 mm overall wall thickness and you've got nearly R-32 as well as considerable pressure holding capability. As for doing such on the moon, of anything that's in the shade is pressing -150°C, thus thermal management is by way of radiant transfers and otherwise damn little conductive, by which either inducing waste heat from the IRRCE or via the sunlight at +120°C are options, whereas surely there's some degree of mutually beneficial thermal ballance that'll benefit the H2O2 storage as well as for liberating those comsumption needs on demand.

I'll supposed the same storage process could be applied for Earthly applications of H2O2, although instead of obtaining 1.45 g/ccm, we'd be frozen solid at 1.35 g/ccm, or 1.35 kg/liter, although I believe as for the likes of C12H26/JP4 can if need be taken all the way down to -100°C, which should somewhat compensate for the overall configuration density.

Of course, if there's to be any fault with creating, storing and/or managing H2O2, that's where those volumes of having too much of that nasty H2O will come in real handy, as for diluting and thereby entirely resolving the H2O2 contamination, even though those volumes of H2O will most likely impose the far greater danger to the surrounding life as we know it than of the original H2O2 spill.

It's true that as a vapor or atomised mist of pure H2O2 within the before mentioned lethal environment of our atmosphere, containing that nasty 21% of O2, can certainly become a wee bit testy, but that's actually not the fault of H2O2, it's clearly the fault of the nasty aspects of there being simply way too much O2 that's making things much worse off than they need because, as controlled substances tend to go, especially of those of any value because they took some effort and/or other energy in order to produce, the utilization of whatever H2O2 would obviously remain fully contained, or applied in prescribed amounts within specific technology deemed safe and sane, thus of what little if any O2 or other there is to react with isn't an issue unless that reaction were being intentionally planned upon.

Fortunately, for the likes of the moon or even Venus, having too much free O2 about isn't a measurable factor. In other words, H2O2 offers a win-win stable energy storage and usage solution for places other than Earth, though for operating under water is certainly another perfectly good alternative usage the safe and environmentally friendly aspects.

H2O2 containment is almost a non issue, at least compared to LO or LH or even LNG is somewhat worse off to safely contain than H2O2. Should a ship hauling LNG crash into your harbor, all folks within miles and especially those downwind will most likely die, whereas that same shipment being H2O2 would be a concern for those coming in direct contact with and/or launched into LEO because of whatever explosion, though a horrific explosion is just as likely if not more so with any LNG fiasco, and there have been a few of those.

Fortunately, the H2O2 offers a relatively stable matrix, as a fluid that can tolerate exposure to O2 without loosing it's cool, sort of speak. As long as other substances like C12H26 (kerosene) are being managed with due respect, and of other well documented necessities of storing and management of the H2O2 are being adhered to, the only remaining "what if" is related to the moron status of the village idiot(s) doing whatever was exactly of what they were informed not to do. Of course, that intellectual requirement of using common sense basically eliminates 99.999% of whatever American ingenuity, since as far as intellectually speaking, we've apparently become a lost cause.

As for the likes of myself to even suggest upon anything containing the taboo of H2 or that of H2O2 is apparently a federal crime, punishable by death, and not by way of any unfortunate energy disaster but, at the hands of our intellectual book-burning rusemasters intent upon snookering the entire world if need be. Thus the only alternative may be for all others including myself to stay in bed, as that way we're all safe, as well as saving others from the evils of discovering and benefiting from most all known forms of clean energy, especially those deemed unprofitable because almost anyone can produce such products as H2 and even H2O2 at home. That must be why so many Americans still heat their homes with wood, coal and even corn, rather than safely utilizing electrons created from more exotic energy resources that will more likely than not be responsible for killing us on the spot if we so much as get ourselves out of bed.

Basically, I've learned that H2O2 offers somewhat less of a technological challenge as well as less of an environmental threat than LNG, as the process of creating, storing, shipping and distributing, which ends up with the burning of LNG/air makes a good deal of CO2, whereas H2O2 doesn't and even H2O2/C12H26 is a rather minor contributor. Without a doubt I'd have to place that LNG hazmat risk assessment at a level 8+, as for being a much greater risk than H2, whereas the likes of propane is another disaster waiting to happen that's worth at least a level 9+, of which every stinking town seems to have tonnes of propane stashed, of all places down wind of communities, some of which also having their very own WMD versions of chlorine and/or ammonia to boot, all well known as lethal agents including the likes of coal being responsible for taking thousands of lives plus all the secondary life exterminated from the excessive mercury discharge plus creating acid rain and, apparently according to our resident warlord, those levels of contaminations will continue to do so in the future.

Obviously if we greatly reduced our energy consumptions, stopped utilizing so many other potentially lethal substances, then there wouldn't be the industries bent upon acquiring, producing, storing, shipping and distributing such lethal and environmentally nasty stuff, there also wouldn't be the waste of utility energies for processing and of so many talents currently associated with all of the above and, subsequently there wouldn't have been so many folks killed off and/or devastated by such efforts. Since common sense isn't about to happen, then perhaps we should weigh the further risk and benefits, choosing carefully those that offer the most bang for the buck/euro as well as per kilogram and on behalf of saving the environment by way of impacting the overall least upon our environments, including the "what if" impacts when certain things don't go according to plan. In other words, what would you rather vent or spill and suffer the consequences from? and of what's more likely than not as to being spilled as opposed to valuable substances that are relatively compact and which would most likely be given some added degree of expertise as well as reasonable concern that's obviously not associated with current levels of energy products?

Unless I've misunderstood, it sounds like a relatively low cost and relatively cheap organic or passive method of obtaining a fairly robust H2O2 formula is at hand, whereas the diluted H2SO4 can subsequently be safely recycled with a vacuum distiller, perhaps using just plain old solar IR to boil off the excess water, then process the next batch of H2O2. That's almost a zero energy process, except for all the beer and pizza, plus whatever expenses encountered from those hazmat teams as they try to recompile whatever is left of your home.

If fuel storage space or that of rather sizable piping distributions were not a factor, I'd just as soon vote for utilizing 100% H2, as that form of hydrogen as a gas is about as safe as energy substances get, offering perhaps the least environmental impact at that. Though we can find any number of folks insisting "doom and gloom" as for the adverse impact of H2 doing all sorts of nasty things to those ozone layers, as though horrific amounts of manufactured H2 would be intentionally neglected and/or permitted to escape. Well lo and behold, good old H2O2 is already a fairly safe matrix of H2 containment, as formula that can't so easily leak through substances and, it doesn't actually require refrigeration nor high pressure storage, while taking the least amount of overall energy to produce, as well as for subsequently storing, shipping and of distribution.

In spite of all that can be positively said on behalf of H2O2, of what I seem to be running into is a whole lot of hypocrites that'll tolerate dastardly amounts of truly lethal substances in their own back yards, or preferably of at least the back yards of others as long as there's a sufficient buck to being made. The fact that the likes of producing chlorine and ammonia are taking up far more of our limited energy resources in order to produce, store and distribute than whatever H2O2 would have required, somehow this is just another example of skewed technology running itself amuck, along with our American arrogance and the fortitude of those doing the snookering and systematic profiting at the demise of others, as opposed to those of us being snookered while some (a few too many) are still having to pay the ultimate price.

Somehow in spite of all the hazmat and environmental risk assessments for obtaining, processing and distributing of numerous other far more lethal substances than H2O2, we've managed by our sheer fortitude if not a good deal of just dumb-ass luck to have only incinerated and/or permanently maimed a few million nice folks over the decades. So it seems, if we were to place the risk assessment into a little honest perspective as to the alternatives, there's actually darn little to lose with respect to our utilizing H2O2, actually there seems to have been quite a great deal lost by way of not utilizing it to it's fullest potential. This is not saying that of every energy producing situation and/or energy on-demand requirement need be including H2O2, especially since we have way more than our fair share of free O2 by which we can continue to pollute and contaminate our world with all those nasty megatonnes of artificial CO2 per year, as everyone knows how warm and fuzzy CO2 can get, just the ticket for melting those pesky glaciers and polar ice caps that'll only continue to degrade the albedo of mother Earth that's already slipped by 5%.

Of course, there's a perfectly good down-side to having such availability of H2O2, in that besides having larger ice caps and growing glaciers, all of which would be offsetting the industrial CO2 contributions, we'd all have the knowledge and thereby the confidence and subsequent desires as for obtaining our own personal supersonic "SR-71 Blackbird" commuter jets (sub-orbital no less). Since these would become so common place there'd soon be a shortage of suitable airstrips, and of those existing airstrips may need to be at least twice as long. I'm certain with little if any coaching, that you can think of all sorts of negative attributes associated with having access to such a terrific density of environmentally clean energy.

As for some of us looking beyond all of the "doom and gloom" aspects, there's the capability of powering up all sorts of nifty machinery where the environment simply doesn't offer much if any free O2, and without our having to utilize radioactive technology nor having to otherwise pollute so much of the environment just for the task of otherwise delivering sufficient amounts of LH/LO and/or of those relatively massive fuel cells necessary in order to extract energy from H2 on demand. As for instead of that bulky as well as spendy and H2 voracious fuel cell, having a relatively small/compact IRRC engine would enable great amounts of energy to being produced on demand, as from H2O2 plus a relatively small amount of C12H26, doing all of this clean energy extraction for pennies on the dollar, and of using the technology at hand, rather than having to reinvent the wheel at some ungodly cost+ fiasco.

I'll suppose, if one wanted to further spike the energy density formula in order to achieve even greater bang/kg, by investing into a little ammonium nitrate along with the C12H26 could be worth doing, though the final stability of mixing H2O2/C12H26+NH4NO3 within the firing chamber of the IRRCE may become undesirable or at the very least a wee bit more R&D challenging, as well as for the combustion byproducts being counter productive to the longevity of the IRRC engine. This being where obtaining the greater bang for the buck may fall short of the long term goal.

Perhaps plain old petrol/gasoline should be outlawed;
Since there no assurance that any consumer will not simply fill up the interior of their car/truck, as opposed to the fuel tank, there's obviously no assurance that at any time some absolute fool isn't going to blow everyone within the service station off the face of the Earth, then proceed to burn down a city block worth before any damage control response is effective. Of course once again, the likes of gasoline is only at it's testy worst because of the 21% O2 factor. By way of either cutting the O2 percentage and/or making the IC engine into a atmospherically sealed IRRC format (except for the exhaust port that nearly always sealed and/or venting spent vapors under good pressure), so that no external atmosphere nor source of potential external ignition need exist, chances are that the same fool filling the interior of their car with the likes of H2O2 would certainly be creating a localized problem, but perhaps not at the level of aftermath fiasco as with the car interior that was being filled with gasoline represents.

Since humans, especially modern age Americans, are creatures of habit and not actually smart enough to tie their own shoe laces, expecting them to actually place an interlocking dual or triple seal fail-safe refueling nozzle into their car is apparently asking way too much. Even if this were restricted to a smart robotic refueling process, as chances are that more than a fair number of absolute village idiots would somehow manage to do something wrong, even if doing anything while refueling wasn't part of the official fail-safe program, as lo and behold, some folks would remain simply dumber than slime mold, and/or looking for every possible alternative for exterminating their miserable lives. But perhaps those same folks shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near gasoline either.

I'm thinking all too much like our resident warlord has recently stipulated about those folks merely considering obtaining WMD (stealth donkey-carts) or of actually having them, sort of dumb or dumber, as in "so what's the difference?" I guess that some folks on this Earth are simply born to die, while taking as many of us along with them, so again "so what's the difference" with regard to our utilizing H2O2?

If some of us are going to prematurely die because we're all so pathetically stupid and thereby unable to cope with change, especially change that's for the better, then so be it. Why should we otherwise avoid this inevitable fate, when at least the rest of us waiting our turn to die from our own stupidity will be able to survive on a relatively clean planet that still offers glaciers and polar ice caps, and of not otherwise acquiring another 5 meters worth of greater ocean depth to contend with, along with a scorching greenhouse environment that's chuck full of nasty CO2, while still having all those idiots that might be intentionally filling the interiors of their cars instead of their tank with petrol. If that's not sufficient proof positive of running ourselves amuck, than I don't know what is, and perhaps no one should ever attempt to improve upon anything.

Or we could always allow the "status quo" to sustain itself until Mother Earth becomes Easter Earth, with archaeologist arriving from other planets investigating into what the hell went so horribly wrong with their terraforming scheme, and in such a short timeline at that. Perhaps our pathetic remains will contain sufficient artifacts of the pagan gods we mistakenly worshiped, or of all the false pretenses that were intentionally perpetrated in order to peg nation against nation, race against race and even species against species, where liars lied and absolute greed and arrogance ruled until the last two surviving souls blew each other up, just out of spite.

OK folks, now that I've given this topic the once over of the "Guth Venus doom and gloom" outlook of Earth's prosperity based upon the way we've been, and of the way we're still headed, perhaps I can cool off a wee bit in order to suggest upon some alternative ways in which a village idiot such as myself sees it.

At some point in the very near future, a portion of us are going to have to become situated on the moon, at least robotically speaking for whatever's on the surface, in that our lunar instruments of interactive astrophysics, astronomy, interplanetary communications via quantum binary laser packets and of numerous Earth sciences will offer the sorts of solar system data as well as of global Earth data, in such a freaking superior way as to allow our scientist (snookered or otherwise) to most accurately predict upon not only whatever solar impact but of the various human impacts, plus of best possible applied technology for locating and of tracking all those potentially Earth killer asteroids, and/or of significant meteorites that are otherwise more than capable of snuffing out far too many lives.

The notion of our establishing the lunar space elevator (LSE-CM/ISS) is just another one of those positive "can do" and/or "should do" sort of things, although since there's only room for one of these suckers to be utilizing the mutual gravity-well nullification zone that's always situated rather nicely between the moon and Earth (roughly 84% from Earth), there may be something necessity of accomplishing this feat before the likes of Taliban or of some whacko Palestinian or perhaps worse being that of their arch rival manages to do so before we do.

The benefits of our having the LSE is nearly unlimited, as are the advantages of having our next ISS situated at the ME-L1.1, as created within the massive CM of perhaps an initial 300 meter sphere of mostly containing moon dirt and rock, is equally of affording the beholder absolutely tremendous technological advantage, as well as for obtaining an overall strategic (star-wars) advantage over global defenses, bar none. Unfortunately, if you can't foresee this significance for having the dominate possession over this phase of human advancement, then the problem is certainly not of what's resting upon technology, but hindered only by way of your self inflicted arrogance and/or inferior DNA.

Lunar surface investments for accommodating human utilization and numerous benefit will obviously be providing sufficient habitat shelter (a minimum of 3+ meters of basalt shield or roughly 1000+ kg/m2) fending off the bulk of meteorites as well as from whatever horrific thermal and radiation influx from the sun and other cosmic sources. The surface transporters (LM-1 and so on) will become relatively substantial and long-range capable. The LSE lobby infrastructure will obviously be considerable, of eventually affording 100e6 m3, whereas the LSE-CM/ISS interior will most likely represent a mere 1e6 m3 worth of habitat safety, as well as for providing the necessary outpost/depot support capability necessary for supporting manned as well as substantial robotic missions trekking off to Mars or Venus, and obviously of places far beyond our current capabilities.

Astronomy wise; if we're ever going to obtain those maximum range along with best possible surface resolution images, the lunar VLA-SAR receiving modules as situated on the moon, as those working interactively with their primary SAR transmitters on Earth will enable a seriously close and detailed look-see at the surfaces of planets which we currently view as fuzzy blobs of clouded whatever. As compared to anything optical, including the likes of Hubble and/or of it's replacement, there's absolutely no observational contest whatsoever, at least not of what's obtainable beyond most forms of robotic imaging probes, and most certainly there's no contest upon looking at what's humanly obtainable (short of being there in person).

Besides further narrowing of the aperture, and/or simply cramming more of those pixels per square mm, because such imaging resolution is best magnified in direct proportion to the distance allowed between the transmitting array and of the narrow aperture receiving detector, eventually the lunar L2+ placement of a radio telescope of greater VLA-SAR capability than of the EM/VLA-SAR performance that surpasses what even the next generation Hubble could ever hope for, especially with regard to resolving surface details of what's within and/or entering our solar system.

The next generation VLA-SAR beyond the E/M VLA should obviously employ the back side of the moon itself as the interactive foundation for either S-Band or X-Band radar transmitters of sufficiently large array(s), and of having the narrow aperture deployed as far off as need be (no longer limited to E/M 385,000 km), technically deployed to at least 1e6 km by tethered centrifical force should create a frame worth of magnifications of at least 1e10:1, in other words a target of 1e9 km distance could potentially yield a well defined 1024x1024 resolution frame upon as little as 100 m2, thereby offering better than 0.1 m/pixel to a depth of 16 bits if need be, of which such performance is no longer rocket science or even of secret NSA spy technology, at least not secret any more. At the range of 1e12 km we're still talking about a resolution of better than 100 m/pixel.

Speaking of NSA spy (DHS intelligence via SAR surveillance):
A yet another reason why we need to be in charge of the LSE-CM/ISS is for imaging back upon Earth, as for the likes of reversing VLA-SAR astronomy imaging, whereas those same or better resolution capabilities are going to become rather embarrassing to say the least, as perhaps no longer will there be a requirement or sole dependency as for personal scanning at airports, at least not with any respect to the relatively short range 100+Ghz resolution capabilities, of what's capable of being orchestrated from the LSE-CM/ISS, much less if utilizing the extended tether dipole element termination point that's reaching to within 50,000 km of Earth is taken into account, as from that perspective and of the imaging math based upon those distances between the lunar and/or Earth based SAR transmitting, of the narrow aperture receiving modules of the associated tether dipole SAR component are resolved to less than 1 mm/pixel raw (that's roughly creating better than a 1024X1024 imaging CCD per m2 area that's also capable of 16 bit depth), whereas such capable radar imaging resolution is going to become downright embarrassing to those seeking any sort of personal privacy whatsoever. Absolutely no chance in holy hell of any stealth WMD donkey-cart getting past that sort of look-see technology.

In other words of weird wisdom, or perhaps doom and gloom; Big Brother Has Landed.

I closing; I'll certainly try to improve upon the descriptive wording of this phase of my research, as well as for correcting any math, plus updating with viable feedback, notions and ideas from others, and of incorporating whatever I've managed to learn on that typical "need to know" basis, as honestly intended for further clarifying upon this phase of my informing our world of the "what if" aspects, and otherwise utmost importance of creating and sustaining a lunar outpost and of it's lunar space elevator or Guth Moon Dirt Express (GMDE) depot, of the rather imperative nature of our establishing this sort of infrastructure and presumably one and only LSE-CM/ISS before the likes of bin Laden or someone much worse does. The last thing we'll need is for some other warlord running humanity amuck by inventing WMD threats, so as to justify attacking our nation (again), and subsequently justifying their taking thousands if not millions of lives, such as in those grand old warm and fuzzy days of the Pope/Cathar fiasco. Unfortunately for us, there's no need for others to have to invent any WMD threat, as we've already got way more than our fair share of those, with lots more lethal WMD capability on the way, including the Boeing/TRW Phantom Works ABL that can just as easily be configured for exterminating life as for disrupting hostile aircraft, shuttles and/or missiles.

In fewer words; our skewed intellectual and somewhat immoral locomotive that's most recently been going to hell in a hand-basket, and of it's fast-track laying crew that's picking up their spent track from behind as fast as we're moving ahead, has seemingly been hell bent upon a one way mission, as though there's no sense in ever going back. Perhaps that's why there's been the perception of no light at the end of this tunnel, as what others can only attempt to see is the rear of our track recycling car, which obviously needs no stinking headlight because, we seem to be not only leaving the station but intent upon never coming back.

Of worthy consideration or perhaps grave concern;
Going by the way certain previous events transpired, and of those unfortunate friendly-fire situations that obviously ran amuck, I'm certainly hoping to Christ that the likes of Saddam isn't actually Secret Santa and bin Laden one of his Elfs. Though of our ABL target practice, of hull chopping via submarine and of stinger/drone oops aren't bad enough indications of our supposedly good intentions running amuck, as clearly those representing a more lethal cure than the illness, then perhaps I've missed a little something along the way, sort of missing a footnote as to how one goes about shooting off both feet while subsequently pretending that being unusually short and footless is the new norm.

I obviously believe that one of the essential elements for accomplishing interplanetary whatever is by way of first accomplishing a lunar whatever. Thus comes the notion for creating a great deal of mobile worthy energy capability, such as from a hybrid IC engine that can operate in just such an environment with good energy density as well as energy efficiency. The IRRCE (Internal Rocket Rotary Combustion Engine) is offering just one of those sorts of capabilities, while requiring the least amount of product being imported onto the lunar environment, thereby the least possible being exported from Earth. Whereas the least cost and least environmental impact for mother Earth has been taken into account for accomplishing such, unless the underlying goal of the status quo is and remains forever bent upon expediting the greenhouse environment on behalf of screwing mother Earth, in which case my ideas aren't worth squat, because I can't think of a more spendy nor more energy consuming and thereby CO2 producing method than what our NASA has enstore for our futures, or of what's left of our future.

Since any notion of obtaining every mobile KW worth from sunlight simply isn't going to be sufficient (not even at 25% conversion), and obviously as for operating such human involved technology within the added safety zone of earthshine as opposed to being thoroughly nuked by direct solar flak essentially rules out almost any sort of PV solution, leaving us with the rather testy but relative safety of utilizing good old nuclear-thermal technologies, but perhaps of far more likely than not is for utilizing the sort of IRRCE technology fueled along by h2o2/c12h26 will prove to more than suffice at almost 1% the cost of anything nuclear, and without all the Greenpiece protest and technological complications imposed by the nuclear alternatives, especially since any substantial lunar metro bus (LM-1) may require <225 KW (25 kw/hr < 225 kw/hr) in order to sustain an active crew of 5, plus enough energy resources in order to accomplish any sort of extended expedition, as well as offering a preferable capability of circumventing the moon with energy to spare.

This is not to say that all other energy alternatives are taboo, as just the tether dipole capability of extracting GW from the mutual M/E gravity-well and/or EMF differentials and of solar induced energies, all of which being efficiently stored in those massive counter-rotating flywheels at ME-L1, should more than power up the LSE and of whatever the CM/ISS and LSE-Lobby might require, with GW to spare. Of whatever the tether dipole fails to extract, there's obviously the conventions of applied solar PV and/or Sterling thermal/energy conversions, and of eventually a substantial lunar nuclear power utility that should more than suffice. But all of that will be fine and dandy for the future, not of what's needed for the LM-1 and certainly not of what's obtainable right here and now with the current levels of technology and expertise, that which can be employed as is in order to the benefit humanity without busting the bank, nor as for otherwise finishing off what's left of Earth's environment by creating megatonnes of artificial CO2.

You send to the moon only what you must, then utilize the local resources of the moon to the fullest extent possible, so that whatever artificial CO2 created for Earth is minimized. This doesn't rule out using less efficient technologies, it just so happens to make perfect sense to apply the best possible solutions that'll obtain the most bang for the buck without gassing those of us on Earth with excessive CO2, among other nasty deposits that for certain impose risk for our environment. Once base camp is established on the moon, obviously the needs for Earth launching so many satellites and probes will fall off dramatically, thus further saving our butts as well as our wallets. Although if we all wait around for the ESEF, by the time it's working we'll all be thoroughly dead, and of our descendants flat broke.

On the other hand, the likes of Zubrin's Mars or bust cult has had serious ants in their pants for more than a decade. In other words, these folks can't seem to wait in order to die somewhere other than Earth. Seems like this is where you and I should do whatever we can to expedite their demise, such as by aggressively funding Edwards Starlight Express Fiasco (ESEF) should be given the green light, along with the required trillion bucks, so that in 4 or 5 decades there'll be some capability of at least sending weekly supplies of much needed radiation medications, steroids and possible supplements of their banked bone marrow off to Mars, and/or otherwise those much needed body bags. In the mean time we should sell off one of our old shuttles to the likes of Zubrin, in that a mission staging itself at ISS could strap on a few of those Russian SBRs and, off they go. Of course, their landing is going to be a wee bit testy, though at least someone might survive long enough to dig in for the winter, spring, summer and fall. Perhaps thereafter a once a week effort could manage a drop shipment of whatever we desperately wanted to get off Earth, like spent nuclear fuel that could still be utilized for melting some of the Mars dry ice.

Speaking along the lines of our going places, one way if need be; as for accomplishing this daunting but doable task, we already seem to have the technology of exiting Earth well at hand, as even for going one-way towards a sub-frozen and otherwise irradiated to death Mars, or perhaps somewhat worse off is that of getting onto that of our moon, as for certain we can supposedly accomplish this, though somewhat undocumented as to what that'll take, and insufficient technology nor have we the DNA stamina as for our ever returning to mother Earth, as remains somewhat the same questionable outlook upon our previously going to our moon, however at least our moon remains within easy AI/robotic reach as for making those deposit deliveries of mission essentials (beer and pizza, plus a little more O2 and H2O2 amd a little C12H26) that'll keep folks alive and kicking, though I still can't confirm those Russian robotic lander capabilities either. As for Venus, there too I believe we currently have what it takes for our going there, at least for managing a stationkeeping (18 month) maneuver at VL2, where returning from VL2 back towards mother Earth is at least a reasonable possibility within our current levels of technology and expertise, and not even all that spendy.

The prospects of actually arriving at Venus and for landing should be a whole lot easier than Mars, especially aerodynamic speaking, as for landing our shuttle onto an existing tarmac that's carved out of their rugged mountainous territory seems doable. Once situated on the Deck, naturally I'm speaking of a nighttime landing, a few hundred hours after sunset, as that's when we'll see first hand whom if anyone has what it takes, especially if we must confront lizard folk that just so happen to be descendants of Cathars, as we might end up having to do a little fancy foot work rather than worrying about there being too much CO2 and being too freaking hot at that.

If our goodwill ambassadors aren't eaten on the spot, at least the prospect of our having to survive on Venus isn't without significant loads of natural energy resources, more energy than we can shake that flaming stick at. I've been informed that with said energy the notions of accommodating ourselves within the otherwise unhuman environment is quite doable, plus based upon every 18 months when the distance to Venus is but 110 times that of our moon, supplemental shipments of water (preferably in the form of cold beer) can be scheduled in a robotic caravan of shuttle pods that'll take perhaps 3 months worth of transit to arrive. Eventually we'll either construct our own rigid airship capable of cruising well above those cool nighttime clouds, and/or we'll merely rent one from their local airships-R-us rental agency, whereas either way the notion of our eventually being capable of exiting Venus may subsequently become a real possibility.

The advantage for our going one way to the Venus surface, as opposed to Mars, is that there have been significant indications that something and/or someone sufficiently intelligent has already nicely altered their rugged mountainous terrain, in such a way as to make for a shuttle landing on Venus a doable task, and since our current level of technology is but one way capable, exactly like going to Mars or even the moon, there's no need of wasting resources nor talents upon those solutions of ever returning home. Unlike my opposition to all of this, at least the expedition(s) to Venus isn't one of a sure-fire death wish, as elevated communities and of their extended season of nighttime should permit some advantage where even our limited technology would suffice, at least without being TBI to death, perhaps even surviving long enough as to being accepted and hopefully protected by those lizard folk that managed to survive through evolution and by having a whole lot of smarts about greenhouse life while otherwise being situated close to the most pathetic and otherwise dumbest other planet in the entire universe.

Cost wise, going for Venus shouldn't represent 10% that of doing Mars. As for at least one darn good reason is that at frequent intervals is where Venus is but 110 or less times the distance from our moon, which clearly represents that it becomes seriously close by, as in close enough for making those local area-code laser packet calls directly from our planet to theirs. In which case we may not have to risk a actual landing in order to learn far more than we may have a right to know. As for other times when Venus is not so close, having a probe stationed at VL2, say something along the lines of a TRACE-II outfitted with sufficient two-way laser communications and, lo and behold, we'll have ourselves a nearly year-round communications link established, sharing all the interplanetary smut your hard drive can store. Of course, if we had our laser communications cannons situated on the moon, not only would they be of relatively low power but we'd all be that much better off. As for otherwise using the modified ABL is a wee bit spendy, and besides the fact that our ABLs need to keep target practicing on available drones that so happen to be sufficiently outfitted with those wing thermal sensors and of those preferably already having an active down-link data stream so that their targeting stability and thermal efficiencies can be verified. Unfortunately, you obviously can't be doing that if some worthy humanitarian aspect is abusing their Death-Ray laser cannon for doing good rather than focused upon improving our WMD capability.

Much like others must have terraformed Earth, our having the one-way capability is initially doable, perhaps decades if not a century prior to folks like us having two-way capability. Thus Earth humans may in fact deliver our DNA along with our superior arrogance and utter bigoted stupidity to places that'll wish the hell our species could have remained as sequestered on Earth forever.

All and all, before much of any of this interplanetary stuff transpires, and because this effort is unlike those "walk in the park" Apollo missions, whereas it's been well established that space travel is actually seriously risky business is why I believe we'll need something like the LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator and rather substantial Counter Mass with the International Space Station as our primary abode) as offering a viable gateway and essential pitstop. Of course the likes of Dr. Zubrin simply doesn't need any stinking LSE pitstop, especially since their's is but a one-way mission, and as such for the needs of creating any robust transport craft that's sufficiently meteorite resistant as well as radiation proof isn't an actual requirement. Giving the likes of Zubrin his ticket to ride is clearly specifying upon a biological one-way requirement because, of whatever Mars microbes can't ever be allowed to migrate back to Earth. The last thing Earth needs is yet another batch of super microbes that can't be frozen nor even nuked to death.

As I've stated to the best I know how, we currently have and for at least the past decade could have offered the likes of Zubrin those one-way tickets to ride, as for going to places like Mars, Venus and even our moon may have been within that one-way reach (oddly there's still no proof as to the necessary technology of anything surviving a moon landing). Even as for delivering sophisticated robotics onto the surface of places ill suited for humans is doable. As such, we could and perhaps should have sent whatever to Venus, the likes of a few interactive probes of audio/video and even of laser communications capabilities for pennies on the dollar in relationship for what we've got to show for all that we've accomplished. Especially of recent technologies where the thermal environment is far within spec, of our otherwise having an understanding of the cooler nighttime environment of elevated territories and of taping into the available thermal and natural kinetic energy has also been something doable.

Of course, none of this is ever going to happen if our focus remains upon political and social/economical domination over the few remaining energy resources of Earth, which clearly represents that at all cost our shock and awe WMD status must always remain at some level above those of such stealth donkey-cart WMD.