You are not logged in.
No other country's will be showcasing there crackpots so why should you.
Anyway, I'm sure Mr Lightman will find a more understanding Audience in L.A where it O.K to beat black people...nah...Boulder sounds just about right.
I think that personal attacks and race-baiting should be left out of this forum. Mr. Lightman has formed his opinion based on his view of world affairs, and he has made a logical argument based on this view. You should feel free to dsagree with him, but alleging that Lightman (or Adrian, for that matter) is a racist is just plain wrong.
Any profit derived from Mars belongs to the people of Earth as their birthright.
This idealistic notion may seem fair, but it effectively kills any notion of utilizing the resources of Mars. If a company plans on mining Mars, they will need to make a profit, or they will not bother setting up shop. The profit motive also encourages innovation and efficiency. The Soviet Union killed free enterprise. As a direct result, the Soviet government no longer exists.
If an organization is formed to administer the entire Martian planet, I could accept a tax on Martian businesses that would pay for administration, science, and possibly terraforming. But this tax should be kept low so it doesn't hinder free enterprise.
It takes a while for a bill to be passed into law. Here is a brief summary of what goes on:
1. The bill is referred to committee in the house where it originates
2. If the bill passes through committee, it is brought before the full house for a majority vote.
3. If the bill passes, it is brought up for consideration in the appropriate committee of the opposite house (in this case, the U.S. Senate.)
4. The Senate committee will submit its version of the bill to the full Senate if it passes muster. Again, a majority vote is needed.
5. A joint committee is formed to reconcile differences in the House and Senate versions of the bill
6. The joint bill is put up for a vote in both houses of Congress, and it must have a majority in each.
7. The bill goes to the President, who either signs it or vetoes it. If he vetoes it, the bill can still be passed by a 2/3 majority vote of both houses of Congress.
Sound complicated? Well, it is, and it's a wonder that any legislation gets passed. For the Lampson bill to pass, it will need the support of Dana Rohrabacher and Dave Weldon, the chair and vice-chair of the House Space & Aeronautics Subcommittee. Lampson may have an ally in the Senate if this bill does see the light of day--Senator/Astronaut Bill Nelson.
Breaking through the Star Wars defense system is trivial. Just launch a rocket that has one mass destruction payload, and fifty decoy payloads, all indistinguishable using current technology. I don't see any evidence suggesting that third world countries are incapable of doing this.
During the most recent tests of National Missile Defense and hit-to-kill interception, the interceptor has been able to distinguish between the real warhead and decoys. The problem comes in when the missile has multiple warheads, as U.S. and Russian ones did. The solution in this case is either to fire several interceptors (which will be done in any scenario, to increase the chances of blocking the warhead) or intercepting the missile while it is still booting, using either an orbiting laser or an orbiting "Brilliant Pebbles."
I always feel depressed that so few Americans are organ donors. So many people are waiting on donor lists, and yet so many good organs go to the grave. I feel that any economic incentive to donate organs would be a positive step towards imprving this situation. But this also presents the problem of creating an organ-harvesting market. This could be prevented if people are forced to apply the payment they receive for their organs towards their burial or cremation.
Wasn't the Outer Space Treaty signed in 1967, prior to the Nixon Administration? Further, I believe that the treaty was signed so that the United States or the Soviet Union could not claim the entirety of the Moon and use it for decidedly un-scientific purposes.
Still, the Outer Space Treaty is a Cold War relic that should be amended. Perhaps a new treaty would allow nations to claim portions of Mars, with the size of the claim limited to the percentage of the earth's population contained by that country. We must be careful that no country gets so greedy that there isn't enough left of Mars for the other nations who travel there.
That's even bigger than Sea Dragon, which was the largest serious rocket proposal that NASA received. The problem with really big boosters, which Zubrin cites in Case For Mars, is that a launch failure on th pad could wipe out all of central Florida (including me.)
Canth, I couldn't agree more about the drawbacks of chemical propulsion. However, nuclear electric rockets will not be available for another 20 years, which isn't so good if you want to land on Mars as early as possible. I personally prefer nuclear thermal rockets. It would take less than ten years to develop them, they produce high thrust with twice the ISp of hydrogen/oxygen, and they can be used to generate electrical power once in space. I'd like to tweak Mars Direct so that it takes advantage of this improved propulsion method.
I've been reading "Red Mars," and the book has stimulated me to think about some of the obstacles the first colonists will have to face. I believe that one of them will be the United Nations.
I do not share KSR's vision of a benevolent U.N. that will keep order on Mars and try to please all of the colonists. Rather , I see a more limited role for the U.N. as individual nations begin their colonization efforts.
The biggest strike against the U.N. comes in the form of two treaties: the Outer Space Treaty and the Moon Treaty. The Outer Space Treaty, which is currently in effect, bans countries from claiming celestial bodies. The Moon Treaty, although never ratified by major space-faring nations, sets a dangerous precedent for space business because it declares that the profits from moon, Mars, or asteroid-mining must be shared between all of the nations, thus killing any profit motive to do so.
The question the first colonists must face is, "What do we do about the Outer Space Treaty, and will we resist a new version of the Moon Treaty?" I personally feel that the Outer Space Treaty does not need to be completely discarded, but it does need to be amended. The U.N., or another international body composed of the space-faring nations, should be able to designate areas on Mars of scientific interest that should be off-limits to colonization. And decisions that affect the whole planet, such as terraforming, should not be left to one nation. But preventing a private venture or a single nation from "going it alone" would hinder early efforts at colonizing Mars becuase it would deter them from going at an early date, and would instead force them to turn their program into a more complex, international venture. The quickest way to Mars will be through private enterprise. We must allow businesses to claim portions of Mars so they can make space profitable and open the new frontier.
Imagine what would have happened if the U.S. government had told Americans in the second half of the 19th century that any profits they made in the western territories had to go to the government, and that they could not lay claim to the land they settled on. Would any of the pioneers have gone west? Very few. It was the Homestead Act, which allowed settlers to purchase land at outlandishly cheap prices after laying claim to it, that settled the west.
What is the problem with Mars Direct? Why won't anybody outside the Mars Society take it seriously without changes? I think that the main reason, or at least the point that makes me think twice about Mars Direct, is that it makes going to Mars seem so easy and affordable. Like any good "get-rich-quick" scheme, it sounds too good to be true. But the reason why people have this perception is because Mars Direct shifts the paradigm. Mass of the system is kept down through a skeleton crew, reuse of air and water, and use of indigenous Martian resources. I'm sure that the plan would lose some of its elegance after serious scrutiny by the engineering community, but it would emerge with less changes than when NASA started with MD and turned it into the 1993 DRM.
Opposition missions do carry a higher risk of cancer and a higher exposure to cosmic radiation because they pass closer to the sun and they spend more time in interplanetary space. The poor folks in the orbiting command module will have none of Mars's natural radiation shielding while the other astronauts/cosmonauts are on the ground. Furthermore, the habitation module will need more robust insulation and cooling systems because of the Venus flyby (fry-by ?) involved. The only real plus that the opposition mission offers is its short length. However, nuclear-electric rockets can cut down on the travel time for a conjunction class mission, and the minimal science gain from a short mission is a bane to the scientific community.
It's great that Russia (or anybody, for that matter) has come up with a new plan for going to Mars, even if it is flawed. But has anybody looked at some of the technical issues that plague the plan? It will launch in 2015, whereas 2014 and 2016 are the optimal launch windows for a conjunction class mission. The mission will last 440 days, 60 of which will be spent at Mars. It doesn't seem to me like this will be a conjunction-class mission at all--a Venus swingby will probably be needed.
I think that we should wait for the International Science and Technology Center to submit their plan before we draw any conclusions about the current proposal. Although the new Russian plan is hardly "battlestar galactica," it still doesn't hold a candle to good old Mars Direct.
When I did the calculations for the rocket, I started by multiplying the thrust of the RD-180 (or RS-68, in the Delta IV) by seven and then divided by a thrust-weight ratio of 1.1 to determine the weight of the fully-assembled vehicle with payload. The mass of the upper stage and payload is the gross weight with the weight of the lower stages subtracted.
You have brought up an important point about this rocket in that the nuclear thermal rocket is ignited sub-orbital. At the altitude of ignition, the environmental effects from the engine would be minimal. Keep in mind that the design for this booster was simply a thought exercise aimed at possible improvement to Mars Direct, and it should not be taken as a serious proposal. For example, a new core may have to be built, and six CBCs can be clustered around it.
As for the entire debate about Valentina Tereshkova, I would also recommend reading "Mission to Mars" by Michael Collins for corroboration about the story. Collins believes that Tereshkova went hysterical, based on both anecdotal evidence and the fact that only two female cosmonauts have flown since then. In Collins's mind, Russia's first experience with women in space soured them towards the idea of letting women fly again.
I believe that the current National Missile Defense strategy would provide a defense against China's nuclear capability. As it stands, China only has about a dozen nuclear missiles targeted on the United States. This number is expected to triple within the next fifteen years, but it will still be less than the hundred interceptors that the United States will field.
I actually think that the motivation behind NMD is China's missile threat. The message NMD sends is clear: if China wants to steal our nuclear technology, we will make their nuclear technology obsolete.
President Bush has not formally announced a Mars Initiative, but Richard Hoaglund has heard rumors (take them with a grain of salt) that one will be announced in 2003 or 2004, after the MER rovers have landed.
Even though this administration has not been an enthusiastic supporter of NASA, I can see a Mars Initiative coming from the administration. Even if Bush is, in the words of his detractors, trying to avenge the failings of his father, he will revisit the Space Exploration Initiative and try to pass an amended version (hopefully without the moonbase or space station requirements.)
Asia does figure into my "oversimplified model of history," its just that the empires of the East do not overlap in the same way that the afforementioned ones did. For example, it was the influence of the Islamic empire in the 12th century that brought on the Renaissance, and the trade with Asia forced the European powers to sail the seas and eventually migrate to the Americas.
Why do I believe that there will be a golden age on Mars? Mankind always has a history of improving upon the past when it starts from a clean slate. The Martian society will be composed of rational, scientific people with a survivalist mindset. They will have to be highly motivated and possess the latest technology if they wish to survive. Resourcefulness, ingenuity, and ruggedness will be traits of the first Martians. And I believe that if the Martians stick to those tenets, they will become a great society.
I've always seen human history as a succession of empires. I'm sure that many of you will take issue with this belief, but the course of world events continually repeats itself: one nation becomes an empire, that empire begets smalle colonies, and one of the colonies rises up and replaces the original empire. I feel that Mars will be no different.
A simplified summary of world history reveals the following:
1) The Egyptians were the first great society in recorded history. Eventually their culture stagnated, and the Greeks rose to power. The Macedonian Greeks would then add Egypt to its empire.
2) The Greeks established settlements in the Mediterranean which spread Greek culture to the Romans. This empowered the Romans, allowing them to over throw the Etruscans and start a republic and then an empire.
3) One of Rome's many conquests was the British Isles. The Celtic people adopted the Roman way of life, and this culture was, in turn, adopted by the Anglo-Saxons. The British would become the most prominent Western nation and then start their own empire.
4) Britain's American colonies broke away to form the United States, a nation that was forged by the values and lifestyles of the original Anglo-Saxon colonists. Although the United States is not an empire in the classical sense, it is a superpower with a wide sphere of influence.
What does this mean for Mars? My prediction is that the United States will play a pivotal role in giving birth to the Martian colony/colonies. Once these colonies can become self-reliant, they will break away from the motherland and begin a new golden age in human history.
Nuclear thermal propulsion is the only type of nuclear rocket that NASA has built, and it's the only one that will be ready by the time that the rumored "Bush Mars Initiative" is ready to fly.
From an engineering standpoint, nuclear propulsion is desirable. But there are a host of political dragons that must be slayed before we can begin sticking nuclear thermal engines on rockets. It was only five years ago that a horde of extreme environmentalists protested the launch of Cassini and its 70 pounds of Plutonium. More education is needed on the issue before the people will support it.
However, if Richard C. Hoaglund is correct, the Bush administration wishes to start a humans-to-Mars effort "as soon as the American people are ready for it." In Hoaglund's mind, it means exposing the anomalies of Mars and rallying support for a human investigation. If the Martian anomalies are as exciting as Hoaglund thinks, I don't think that Americans will think twice about using nuclear power to get to Mars.
I had read that China was designing a rocket called "Type E" that could lift 70-80 tonnes to orbit or launch their Shenzhou lander on a course for the moon. Because the United States is so used to buying things made in China, NASA may as well buy the Type E instead of going ahead with the "Magnum" booster it's had on the drawing boards.
I haven't heard anything about China abandoning its lunar ambitions for a flight to Mars, but it would be neat to know that Zubrin's ideas may have changed the course of their space program.
I'd be willing to settle on something like "Odin" or "Thor," something related to the Vikings (in honor of the unmanned probe that may have discovered life on Mars.) But the name of the rocket is not as important as its function: getting large payloads to orbit or smaller ones to this new world we plan on settling and exploring.
I've thought of two technologies that have the potential for improving Mars Direct, and I'd like to hear what everybody thinks about them.
1) Use a metal fuel for the ERV. There have been a few Mars mission studies that used Magnesium or preferably Beryllium as a fuel and liquified Carbon Dioxide as an oxidizer. The fuel will be heavier than hydrogen feedstock but you won't need to run the Sabatier reaction or keep everything in cryogenic storage.
2) Replace the parachutes with inflatable balloon-parachutes ("Ballutes.") The extra buoyancy might eliminate the need for descent engines when the ERV and Habitat Lander touch down on Mars.
I believe that the Mars Society could do some extraordinary things if it could partner itself with some of the aerospace giants, like Boeing, Orbital Sciences, or Lockheed Martin. $30 billion is a lot of money for the Mars Society, but the aerospace giants could certainly afford it. The reason why they don't jump aboard is because they don't see any profit motive in going to Mars.
If a major television network funded Mars Direct, could they make enough money off the TV rights to justify the cost? It's a question of how much interest the public has in space exploration. I would enjoy seeing something along the lines of "Survivor: Mars," where TV viewers would follow the exploits of the astronaut candidates as they go through space camp. Winners are chosen and then flown to Mars, and non-stop coverage of the mission will be broadcast on cable television.
Maybe it's time that I quit my daydreaming...
Does Zubrin even has a chance to get to a significant position within NASA's Mars program to get things as he wants? I mean with all the respect I have for him, he's a 'simple' Lockheed employee who's been lobbying against their agenda for the past 10 years.
In all fairness, Zubrin was never a "Lockheed" employee. He was a Martin employee just before that company merged with Lockheed. I don't know the exact date when Zubrin left Lockheed Martin, but he has now become one of the most respected men in the astronautical engineering community. All of the documentaries about the Mars Society's research stations are giving the organization, as well as Zubrin's ideas, a lot of face time. Eventually people will support Zubrin and the Mars Society, and NASA will have to adopt their ideas.
Also keep in mind that NASA has listened to Zubrin in the past--the 1993 reference mission was based on Mars Direct.
I disagree. A rocket as big and powerful as the Saturn needs a name that sounds just as tough as the rocket.
I've thought of an outline for an amended Space Exploration Act that incorporates realistic goals that will still inspire the nation and lead to men on Mars.
1) Within eight years, an unmanned sample return of Mars will be launched in order to test propulsion technologies and to repeat the Viking Labeled Release experiment in a laboratory on earth.
2) Within ten years, humans will land on a near-earth asteroid to perform geology, allowing engineers to devise a method for protecting earth from asteroid impacts.
3) Within 14 years, humans will land on Mars and begin a scientific exploration, the primary goal of which is to determine whether Mars ever contained life.
4) Within 20 years, a permanently tended base on the Moon will be established.
5) Within 30 years, a permanently tended base on Mars will be established. Terraforming may begin after any Martian life has been thouroughly investigated.