New Mars Forums

I disagree with GOM and Alexander about terraforming.  As humans we have always tried to "terraform" our surroundings so that we can live there more comfortably.  This is not arrogance as some might suggest.  Rather it is an intense longing to live someplace and be a part of that place.  For those who went West in the United States, they wanted to be a part of the wilderness and see the rugged beauty.  Yes, others followed who destroyed some of that beauty, but even now that beauty still exists in the West.

For others it is the pleasure they get in reshaping something inhabitable.  Much like an artist reshapes a canvas or clay to make it something desirable to look at.  I can't wait until we have terraformed Mars and pictures are taken of the kind of plant life and animal life and sunsets we see on Mars.  Can you imagine the size of trees on Mars? 

I get goosebumps just thinking about it! 

This is interesting in theory, but we don't know for sure the reaction of our muscles if we were born on Mars.  Granted, you are probably right, but on the other hand, there could be other variables that might play into how our body reacts to gravity.  Who knows, maybe human muscles will develop differently on Mars.  These kind of questions will not be answered until animals have been experimented with.  This means raising an animal on Mars and then bringing them back to Earth to see how their bodies react.

I know there has been some experimentation in microgravity but it has not been extensive enough to be conclusive.

I did a little research on the Sea Dragon.  I had never heard of it before you mentioned it.  When I hear about this kind of work it makes me wonder whether or not the shuttle was too ahead of its time.  The article I read said that the Sea Dragon could have put up payloads for $60 - $600 per kg.  Isn't that approximately $150 - $1500 per pound?  And, isn't the space shuttle cost somewhere around $10,000 per pound? 

http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/truax.htm

The article I read was from astronautix and can be found at the above website.

Alright.  Here goes again. 

This is my point!  When the meaning or "take" of material can be changed because we no longer agree with it, this can become oppressive.  For example, the Supreme Court has ruled or at least has implied from recent decisions that there is a seperation form church and state.  However, that is not what the constitution was intended to say.  If it was, the Senate and House would not have a daily prayer before starting their business.  Instead, the writers of the Constitution expected religion to be a vital part of the state.  However, the state itself was not to make a law that held one religion above another, i.e. a set, memorized prayer in school.  If we as a society no longer agree with this, then we need to ammend the Constitution.  But, instead we have said that is not really what the writers meant.  And, even if it was we are more enlightened and so we know better than they about the true purpose of religion in state affairs.  This is true arrogance.

Yet, this is exactly what the Supreme court does each time it reinterprets an applied meaning in the past.  I used the Dred Scott case because I figured more people would become upset if I used Roe v. Wade.  In Roe v. Wade we see an application of the Constitution that was never intended or expected by the writers. 

More to the point, judges should use strict constructionism when looking at the Constitution and not judicial activism.  I agree that there has been some good that has come from judicial activism, however, I think in the end more bad will come from it than good. 

This is not true, ammendments could change the Constitution, and even John Marshall's view on judicial review could be used in a limited form.  Granted, the government would be a bit sluggish, but government is not intended to change fast.  When things change quickly the government is swayed by fads or by the whims of the majority.  I for one am not in favor of allowing the Constitution to be changed by the whimsical majority.

Everyone has spoken their concerns about the power of the executive and legislative and how it should be divided.  However, no one has questioned the power of the judicial branch. 

I am wary of giving the judiciary the power to review all laws and change or veto those laws without question.  This is what is occurring now in the US.  Instead of going through the process of actually changing the Constitution, judges are rewriting it and other laws to fit their political views.  This creates in essence a superior branch of the government.  Power is held in the hands of 9 people who are not elected but rather chosen. 

If judges were elected to their position then this could be remedied, because if they changed a popular law than they could be voted out.  However, this would cause judges to become even more political than they already are.  The only answer is to limit the judicials ability to review laws. 

I agree with those who argue against the welfare state.  I believe that the welfare state breeds laziness and stagnation.  I also agree with clark when he says that there has to be a safety net.  We could take William Bradford's suggestion and make a law that says if one does not work than they do not work.  This of course would modified to leave out the extremely handicapped.

Once the government gets involved they mess up everything.  They are only intended to be groundbreakers and not business managers.  The government was able to get us to the moon, build a space station, and build a dependable RLV.  Now they need to sell everything they have to the private sector and get out of the way. 

A lot has been made of Lewis and Clark's expedition.  Once Lewis and Clark made the expedition, the next step was for the government to sell the land Lewis and Clark explored.  So far, the government has not sold anything to the private sector.  Rather, they continue to monopolize space assets. 

We are beginning to see a change in this, primarily because of people's overwhelming interest in space, but it could change faster if NASA was dissolved and a new government agency was formed.  This agency would go even further into the "final frontier".  This agency's only goal would be to get us to Mars.  This would stop the government from putting its fingers into Near Earth space.  This does not mean there would be no government assets in Near Earth space.  Just as there were forts in the territories there would be sattelites and space stations designed for the military.  However, the private sector would be hired to build and maintain these assets. 

In fact, I believe that the ISS should have been built by private companies rather than the government.  All of the components were built by the private sector. The only other company needed to complete the space station would have been a space construction business that would have put the space station together.  Just as others have mentioned, once the ISS was built then the government could have bought time and space on the station.

I know I am rambling, but I believe that if we are to get anywhere, we need to stop relying on the government to build the next RLV.  Instead, the government should be trying to build the first inter-planetary spacecraft.  The technology developed through this endeavour could be used by the private sector to increase the efficiency in the systems they build.

Yes we should use the metric ton.  However, as an American I must admit I have a hard time thinking in metric measurements.  I wish we would actually make the switch to metrics rather than just talk about it!

I must agree that studying orbital mechanics is interesting, even if it is complicated.

I absolutely agree that the current space shuttle configuration is not efficient as a permanent space vehicle.  However, I think these modifications could be done.  I must admit that the thought of astronauts doing space walks to tear off ceramic tiles is a bit daunting.  Perhaps making the space shuttles permanent space vehicles is not the best use of the current space shuttles.  However, these shuttles are going to be around a long time, and I don't think we should just junk them when the next generation RLV comes along.

Once NASA or someone else has built a newer, more reliable, and cheaper RLV, the space shuttles should be used in a different way.  Instead of continuing to use them as RLV's, they possibly could be launched into space and be used as transporters between the moon, space stations, etc.  They are already built to withstand much of the radiation.  There might have to be a few modifications once they are in space, but they definitely would give us a boost in space vehicles.

At the very least, it is an idea that should be looked at.