New Mars Forums

Occupancy gives you a say in what happens and in this case especially of a treaty which just does not work. There will be a form of occupancy possession which allows the user to utilise the area and materials there. National interests mirror commercial interests here.

Im unsure if we can take the verbal announcements of some seriously and others lack the infrastructure/finances and experience to actually manage there statements. Still time could and likely will change this so best to get in first.

And we have yet to send the actual main science labs up, as the ISS reaches its end of life. So making any stated purpose evident as illusion.

Strictly speaking one advantage of the Moon is that various national systems will not have to fundamentally go in front of a committee just to see if it might effect another nations mission element. The ISS as a combined collection of various elements and from just about every space fairing nation was such a complicated hodgepodge that the various methods and in some cases the actual design philosphy created problems and tensions.

It is a case on the Moon where we will only be connected by electrical systems and possibly air and water subsystems. It makes sense then for the nations to develop a single set of warning and access systems like airlocks and to standardise the atmosphere used for safety reasons as well as reducing complexity. This is not fundamentally expensive and in the case of the Moon allows the various nations to design base elements they believe would give the most benefit. If science experiments in the European science habitat could interfere in another nations hab then it is easy to move the European science habitat further away so that the problem is resolved. This is something that could not happen in the ISS where the closeness of modules meant adding a bit could well interfere in another nations hab.

Developing private enterprise driven habs could also reduce costs especially if there is a standard set of items to be used. And power systems will tend to rely on solar access and if more power is needed add more solar cells. Burying the habs puts them in a constant tempature where stress reduces so increasing service length as well as reducing maintenance.

There is more than just plain commercial reasons that can be used. National interest is something as well, even though there is not anything coming from the Moon immediately there is the potential for it to happen and similar to what occurs in Antartica, missions are kept there just in case legal and other frameworks change. The Outer Space Treaty which restricts commercial and national interests is unlike the Antartic treaty a very shaky treaty without real broad public support and one which could well fall if any of the intrested and active parties withdraws.

We already have the Russians and Chinese and even the Indians intrested in the resource potential of space and pushing that could increase public and therefore political support.

Will it ? I have serious doubts as to the usability of the ISS and even its actual purpose. It appears to be a station in need of a purpose and one which due to domestic political concerns and ignoring the engineers does not help the furthering of the push to space.

Commercial delivery to the ISS is a good way to reduce costs and to promote an increased US space capacity but will the ISS have a future?

Developing a purposeful and deliberate plan for the use of a space station is something that should have been done before it was launched and even the construction method (piecemeal) has lead to the stage where the ISS is getting old and worn out before it is even finished.

It does depend on what we plan to do and how we do it. It also depends on the red tape that seems to flow out of everything goverment being cut. And nothing more seems to increase costs than the cost + system.

ISRU utilisation is not a problem. As long as the belief that it solves everything is not taken for granted. Mars direct is an example where everything is skimped to make a program work to the point it really becomes for Mars exploration worthless.

cooperation will be a problem but so will the viewpoints of the other space agency partners. There has been a lot of designs by these agencies how they would go the Moon and a lot of research into how this should be done. Using Japan as an example there Moon plans are heavily into robotics and this is something that can be reasonably fitted into the NASA plans. But other agencies like Russia are more into putting money back into the corporation and this they will do likely by selling private seats to the Moon and actively looking for commercial interests on the Moon.

Mars Takes a Fresh Pounding

This indicates that when we get to Mars that we have to seriously consider thickening the atmosphere quickly. And until then we will have to have a very effective Skywatch

The Earth does have a magnetic field it is this that is used to repel a tug from LEO to higher altitudes and it can then attract itself back down to LEO.

Electrodynamic Tethers: Getting into the Swing

It is not a fast system but it does benefit from simplicity.

The solution is simple using our plans to create automated solar cell production we then build solar cell farms to the west and east and connect by buried cables then keep going to increase power supply to the point we actually are working. At the lunar poles it makes sense with the horizon being so close and that we then we will have almost constant power supply. The lifeblood of our space exploration. And when we move to another point we simply connect into what will be a quazi lunar power grid. When we leave the poles to go to the equator we do the same there and connect to the poles.

Completely on another thought you do know there is almost as many people in Canada calling themselves Scots as there actually reside in Scotland.

Very happy I am now 

So heavier tools.

Is it just me or does this not bring to mind they are calling for a sledgehammer.

So in space emergency repair procedure 1 still applies 

Ah but this is a poll on should the US lose the race to Mars. It certainly cannot be beaten to the Moon can it 

Yes the 1967 Outer Space treaty. What a really vague treaty, does it allow private ownership of extraterrestial real estate or not? In my view it does not allow ownership but it does allow the use of and ensures non interference. It is that term non interference where the real problem with the treaty comes down to.

I land a robot on Phobos but so later does NASA I claim my mission is being interfered with and so NASA by nature of the treaty must either leave or take the case to the international court of justice.

There are points in the solar system where an advantage is gained by ownership or in the spirit of the treaty stewardship. Mars has the two Moons which allow for potential space stations as well as fuel stops. Olympus Mons is simply the best place for the placing of any Martian space elevator.

The Outer space treaty needs to be firmed or replaced but there is a lot of resistance to this.

But we have seen in our colonisation efforts on Earth that this is exactly what Does not happen.

Mars will be close in communication unlike these old colonies and so contact with family and friends will be still there. People will build the way that they believe is best. (it is why domes will be more popular than underground bases: Larger open areas are prefered by Humans) They will also take there culture with them and these new colonies will absorb that culture and learn from it and it will be the basis of the nw Martian culture. That is why the USA tends to be called the anglosphere like Australia and Canada. But Quebec is french orientated and South America Spanish and Portugese orientated. Language has a lot to do with this but it is also what is behind the language the points of view that it is based on.

So it comes down to control and colonisation rates. Certainly if western orientated states are the prime colonisers and control the certain most important strategic points on Mars then they will dominate the emerging martian cultures.

The problem is not that of 7 people agreeing a decision it is when it comes to 100 or 1000 or 10 thousand.

There will be a point when a computer has intelligence.

But will it be a computer with silicon chips probabily not we are reaching the point of there not being effective. It could well be that computers become biological/Technological hybrids.

They could also be crystal based matrices.

In the end it comes down to invention and humans wish to create such a device.

Certainly there is a demand for greater and greater computing power but is it true intelligence?

Who Knows the turin test even that is not really a definite test just that of perception.