New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#351 Re: Human missions » CEV is Bullshi... » 2006-08-23 07:21:06
well its to be called Orion. Apparently the statement had to be brought out early after being accidentally outed.
#352 Re: Human missions » The First to Mars - Who will it be? » 2006-08-22 15:20:03
Mars is empty. If one person lives there and claims to be ruler of Mars, their is no one else to say otherwise. That one person might claim to be the World Government of Mars, but if someone else sets down and does whatever he wants, there is very little the first person can do about it.
How many people do we need exactly to have claim to a World Government on Mars, and if not the whole planet, then how much of it can a person legitimately claim to own? I think having no government works, when you have few people on Mars, but when population gets high enough where you start having to worry about crime, then you need a government of some sort to enforce the law so you don't have chaos and anarchy. I think we need some nice orderly process where a World government can be established and all concerned will recognize it and make it stick.
If Mars has its own World government that is automatically recognized by the most important nations, then we can get past the national rivalry issues about who owns Mars, who can claim it as a terrotory and how much of it.
I think Mars should have an open World Government with equal access to all so that nations and corporations that invest in it can all realize a return in their investment and so have incentive for doing so. I think property rights are important, their must be some agency that fairly awards claims to various governments, agencies, corporations and people so that Mars might be properly used and exploited. Earth governments should be allowed property rights,but not sovereignty over territory on Mars. A Martian Government should have sovereignty and decide upon the laws with the democratic participation of all the people living on Mars, and all corporate and national enitities should be legally required to adhere to the law established by the Martian government, but the law should also be fair, open to all and unbiased. I wouldn't want nation-states forming on Mars or colonies with borders. I think all the World's governments, all corporations, and all people who can afford to get their should be allowed equal access to all parts of Mars without having to contend with borders, and customs except for that of the planet as a whole. That way we have a bit of security that doesn't exist on Earth. With a recognized World government, we don't have to worry about wars and other such things, and if the government is fair and just, people won't have reason to rebel, and it should be inclusive to allow for the participation of the people in the political process.
Probably at this time, no one really cares about a World Government on a planet with no people, so I think nows the time to decide upon a process for determining one, hence my idea of having a constitutional convention on Mars. Once people start arriving on Mars in large numbers their are bound to be comflicts between them and disputes about who owns what, and who rules. I just think we should head all that off and establish a process that the participating nations will agree to adhere to and then just follow that process to establish a new Martian government when the time is right.
When the European powers colonized the New World, their were many wars between the colonial powers over resources and competing claims. The sooner we can settle this, before economic interests get involved, the better I think.
A goverments control of land only comes down to what it can defend, either by force or by use of historical and legal authority. Currently no one has that right and no one will have it for a long time. No decision made on this planet will have universal popularity or even universal political support. If it does you may well not like the result. Imagine not being allowed to go at all, and being called imperialist for even thinking
No it will come down to who actually controls the land and the more important ability to get to Mars. There are strategic choke points when it comes to Mars and control of these gives will give the occupier a lot more power.
#353 Re: Human missions » The First to Mars - Who will it be? » 2006-08-22 08:15:22
The motivation behind all business interests is power, if they get a chance to start a political government on Mars, they may just reach into their deep pockets to do it. Money is just a form of power, and it is the power they are after, if getting a chance to start a government on Mars and become the planet's leader suits their fancy, they may just dig into their deep pockets to accomplish it. So long as "everbody owns Mars" nobody's going to want to spend the money to send people there, however if you can conquer a planet and make it your own, that is a different story. So long as Mars remains the common property of all humankind rather than just the people who live there, there is going to be little incentive to colonize the place except for enthusiast groups like the Mars Society. I'm willing to risk not getting there first, I happen to think the chances of my country getting their first are very good, but if someone else like China does it, I can accept that. If the constitution is too repressive, Mars is not going to be successful and no one is going to go there. If property rights aren't protected, no one is going to invest there. I think there is no environmental problem of developing Mars like their is with Antartica, Mars is pretty barren and no one has thus far proven otherwise. You can strip mine it, or terraform it, and no one is going to seriously object. I think Mars has a good chance in becoming a second home for humanity, the massive manipulation of the planet's environment would be unthinkable to do deliberately to Earth.
Mars is a big place and it has roughly the same landmass as we currently use now (remember no oceans..yet). But getting there at the moment will take a lot of power literally billions of dollars and it wont get many people there. So any group getting there will not have the numbers to have the moral capability to say we own Mars.
It will come down to routine access to space and the development of routine journeys to Mars before Mars colonisation will take off and the political future of Mars can be developed.
#354 Re: Human missions » Martian & Lunar Bases - Where would you put them? » 2006-08-17 05:07:17
It will come down to compromise in what is the best spot for an intial base. In the case of the Moon we have the poles which may well not only have access to ice or similar as well as the potential for constant access to solar power (Mountains under constant sunlight). The disadvantage is that it is harder to get to the poles and of course there is the lack of "flatter" spaces. The Equator is the best place for ease of access but will be in the dark for 50% of the time.
So a lot will depend on what we find and what we use to find it. We need to discover a place where we can deliver multiple loads of cargo and do it routinely that is also close to mineral deposits that we can use to provide air and building materials to experiment on.
#355 Re: Not So Free Chat » Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking » 2006-08-13 07:20:56
It's a fact that Nasser commited a Casus Belli, it's also a fact that Israel jumped over the Casus Belli to attack Syria and Jordan as well as Egypt.
Israelis conquered territories over Jordan that didn't attack Israel.
When I was in Israel in july 1967, from Eilat, it was possible to see jordanese army positions and tanks that didn't at any time attack Israel.
If Israel occupation of Sinaï was legal, Egypt being the agressor, occupation of territories seized from Jordan, a country which didn't attack Israel was illegal, that's why President De Gaulle condemned Israel as an agressor. That was a tough decision, France having been a close ally of Israel, had collaborate on Israel Nuke program, and was its main weapon supplier before that war. Arab air forces were smahed down thanks to Mirages III and french IR missiles, many arab tanks destroyed by french wire-guided missiles.
Under jordan administration, before 1967, the Holly places in Palestine where reachable by Jews, Christians ans Muslims.
If you are going to be casting blame best if you do it from a point of knowledge.
Actually the 1967 war was the direct result of actions by Syria and Jordan. It was they who by diverting the water of the Dan-Barias into the litani and into dams would have bled Israel dry of water. Israel was forced to bomb these works so that the water would not be cut off in 1965. There was also the actions of the PLO which where based in these countries. In 1967 they put a mine in front of a patrol and killed 3 soldiers and injured many others. Israel chased them in operation Shredder to the village of Es Samu and since the village had been abandoned before hand Israel simply flattened about 50 houses. King Hussein who had problems with public opinion started a general call up and there where exchanges of artillery. Syria also started to shell Israeli towns as well and also attacked with aircraft.
The UN peacekeeping forces withdrew as they where frankly useless.
Egypt started the main action of the 1967 war by blockading the straits of Tiran and banning Israeli ships. They also signed a treaty with Jordan and with Sudanes, Kuwaiti and Iraqi soldiers started to build up troops on both the Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian borders with Israel.
Israel asked repeatedly that Jordan stay out of any trouble and Jordan ignored these calls. We now know that King Hussein could not as there was much political pressure from pan Arabic forces inside his country and he risked civil war if he ignored calls to attack Israel.
Israel did attack first but this was military necessity Jordan if it had been allowed to attack would have been able to split Israel in two very quickly. So The war happened and both Jordan, Syria and Egypt lost badly but a lot of this was to do with there own commitments elsewhere (a peacekeeping force in the Yemen).
And Frances actions in the war where simple they where one of the main suppliers to both side of munitions. They also where attempting real politik blocking of Britain and the USA. There is also the fact that France was attempting to get back into the graces of the Arab countries especially after the end of the Algerian occupation.
#356 Re: Not So Free Chat » Dr. Jeff Bell - Strikes again » 2006-08-12 16:31:48
Its a bit of thread necromancy but it is appropiate.
Jeff Bell is certainly a critic and his hatred of all manned exploration is renown especially on this forum.
#357 Re: Human missions » mining lunar ice » 2006-08-12 16:01:56
If the ice is mixed with dust then it is the easiest option to get at the water.
Simply collect both and then take them to a spot where you can direct sunlight onto by mirror. Then it will be a case of collecting the steam out of the material. The excess dust now water free is simply ever dumped or used for sintering and turned into building materials.
#358 Re: Human missions » Can China go to Mars ? Dr. Zubrin will talk in August 06 » 2006-08-07 12:21:14
it almost sounds to me that a major reason China is slow to act on lots of science and technology is because they are constantly reanalyzing based on every more data that comes in. You could say that is a bad thing, but, in a way, it is a measure of just when humanity will be ready to green light and go out into space, or if it is even possible.
China has a problem when it comes down to basic science in that plagaraism is almost endemic in the country. New ideas are just not coming out.
Add to basics that scientists are paid poorly and you have the situation where space researchers are part time scientists and the rest of the time they work as farmers.
China has yet to put down concrete goals and it is unwilling to do so when it can lead to propoganda failures (where someone gets there first) It has a lot to learn and more importantly gain experience before she can go for Mars missions or even to race the USA back to the Moon. This means she would rather cooperate and garner knowledge and experience from partners in things like the ISS than try on her own. And that is why these public announcements come out they want to be invited into the fold of ISS partners.
#359 Re: Human missions » What IS an astronaut? » 2006-07-27 17:16:52
Note to all: every space 'tourist' that has gone up HAS been trained as a member of the crew. If something goes wrong, they have to know what to do.
Does anyone do any research anymore?
But the future will be space tourists who are only along for the ride.
Im with GCN on this we will have a new term for the people who go to space for work and do work they will be spacers. The equivalent of our merchant mariners and will be licensed as such.
#360 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Medical Science Potpourri » 2006-07-24 08:12:52
Daily Pill to cure Alzheimer's
Tests in mice have shown the drug, PBT2, prevents build up of the amyloid protein linked to the disease.
Protein levels dropped by 60% within 24 hours of a single dose, and memory performance improved within five days.
Definitly good news but not a cure yet, but on the right track.
#361 Re: Human missions » hot damn! Bigalow is up there! » 2006-07-24 05:32:03
An article about the future plans of Bigalow and the problems they face.
still,
Another change on Genesis 2 will be the addition of more “living systems” inside the spacecraft. Genesis 1 carries some cockroaches and Mexican jumping beans, he said, “but we have no idea if the little buggers are dead or live right now”
He has in effect created the first Hotel in space and it already has cockroaches. Not exactly conducive to getting guests is it.
#362 Re: Human missions » hot damn! Bigalow is up there! » 2006-07-23 10:42:13
The cost of spaceflight really comes down to we have no real need to spend the billions to develop a real TSTO spaceplane and since we will always have to use up a rocket to get anywhere prices remain high.
We may look at China and Russia and wonder how come they are cheaper it really comes down to they pay there workers a lot less to do the job. But as time goes on this advantage is rapidly disapearing.
So we bite the bullet and have to accept that space will not become incredibly cheap as long as rockets are the only way to get there. Spaceship one is just not a spaceship it does not carry enough fuel or launched fast enough to be able to get people into orbit. We could mass produce rockets but the cost savings only apply as long as there is a market for these rockets and people willing to pay for them.
At the moment there just is not enough of these people to make it worthwhile.
#363 Re: Human missions » hot damn! Bigalow is up there! » 2006-07-19 19:20:58
Well with the return of the board of enguiry into Space X and its loss of the first Falcon flight putting it down to just a minor fix needed this is good news for Bigalow and for future flights.
We will probabily see an increase in statements from Elon Musk soon about the Falcon 5 plus series of rockets.
#364 Re: Human missions » Space-X's baby lost to human error? » 2006-07-19 19:17:42
Falcon 1 failure traced to a broken nut
WASHINGTON — A busted nut, not human error, is to blame for the fuel leak that doomed the Falcon 1 rocket on is maiden flight, according to the findings of a government review board chartered to investigate the March 24 launch failure.
Though originally thought to have been human error it appears that it was not the fuel pipe improperly attached to the pipe fitting but a failure in a $5 Aluminium nut.
The U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the sponsor of the Falcon 1’s inaugural flight, announced July 18 that the review board concluded a small aluminum nut designed to hold the fuel pipe fitting in place failed due to subsurface corrosion not visible to the naked eye. The resulting kerosene leak caused the main engine to catch fire shortly after the rocket cleared the launch pad, bringing the flight to a premature end.
“The board determined that the only plausible cause of the fire was the failure of an aluminum B-nut on the fuel pump inlet pressure transducer due to inter-granular corrosion cracking,” the DARPA release states. “This caused [Refined Petroleum-1] fuel to leak onto the engine and down the outside of the thrust chamber. Once the engine ignited, the leaking fuel caught fire. The fire, over time, resulted in a loss of pneumatic pressure, causing the RP-1 and liquid oxygen pre-valves to close, terminating engine thrust 34 seconds after ignition.”
So failed the first launch.
Another possible contributing factor, Musk said, is that there was an adverse reaction—so-called galvanic corrosion—between the aluminum nut and the pipe fitting itself, which was made of stainless steel.
Musk said SpaceX will replace the $5-a-piece aluminum nuts with less-expensive stainless steel nuts to avoid that problem in the future.
“The irony is we are replacing them with a cheaper component to increase reliability,” he said.
#365 Re: Human missions » Reducing Costs - Changing the Human Centric Space Approach » 2006-07-06 16:43:10
But corporations have a reason to develop these items they see a payback in the future and space at the moment does not appear to be a good payer. Strategically important not fiscally though.
#366 Re: Human missions » Reducing Costs - Changing the Human Centric Space Approach » 2006-07-04 16:23:15
Why not? Such a plan will take about 40 years, but NASA has been in the manned flight business for the last 40 years with little to show for it, why will they not last at least as long when they are making progress?
You overestimate China's technology, their rockets are still way back there in the Titan-II era, very far away from rockets efficient enough to do anything on the Moon like ours.
As long as they dont beg, borrow or just plain steal the technology. And if there is political will and China is the perfect example of a society by order, then they could do it.
#367 Re: Life support systems » Sustainable Mars manufacturing - energy? » 2006-06-28 04:15:40
Herman Oberth wrote a book called the Ways and means to space navigation in the 1920s. He postulated the first use of space mirrors and coined the term Soletta from Italian as a fancy name for this artificial reflected sun.
Calling it a soletta array is just us deciding that there is no way we can build one of these things in a single piece and that by using add ons we can build it piece by piece.
Soletta's are an essential for any plan we have to develop a terraforming plan for Mars. Mars with its distance recieves a lot less light than we get actually about a quarter and increasing sunlight energy arriving on the planet makes sense as a first stage to terraformation.
#368 Re: Life support systems » Sustainable Mars manufacturing - energy? » 2006-06-25 12:43:02
Nuclear will be esential for the first Mars bases, but as we get more settled there is other options to increase our power supply capacity.
Obviously the first is tapping the water aquifers and using the pressure to power turbines and so generate electricity. This will give us the advantage of power instantly on tap (pun intended 
). But this power supply is limited to the locations of these aquifers. We could also theoretically create dams to trap water liberated by these aquifers so that we then have another means to generate electricity, again location limited.
A soletta array increasing light to the surface would allow solar to become an option but wont work at night.
Another option is to reduce power needed by using heat trapping systems. These using heat pumps and the difference in ground and air tempature to transfer heat to warm or to cool our buildings.
But these are doable now my hope is though that by the time we get to Mars we will have Fusion powerstations and so our energy problems will no longer be there.
#369 Re: Civilization and Culture » Expanding The Political Debate » 2006-06-22 04:04:29
Most democratic countries have there political parties with ideaologies that take the center ground. This is easily down to the fact that most peoples political views are around this region. Actually most people believe they are leaning left but in fact there views tend to be on the right of the political spectrum.
In short we think we are rebels but tend to be conservatives.
#370 Re: Space Policy » Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first » 2006-06-19 17:06:41
China believes it can put a Man on the Moon by 2024
#371 Re: Human missions » ESA ahead of NASA » 2006-06-17 14:01:44
Grypd -- Diet Pepsi IS important.
Not for me it has to be full fat and in something like Vodka or Rum.
and beer is important.
Still back to something like seriousness, It is obvious that ESA will be more advanced in some technique or plan than NASA. It is simply not possible for NASA to be the ultimate in everything. NASA does not have the unlimited funds or time, so it must concentrate.
#372 Re: Human missions » Japan Eyes Future Manned Moon Base, Space Shuttle » 2006-06-11 15:06:38
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries have announced a 5 billion yen investment to create the new HII-B Rocket.
Japans Mitsibushi Heavy to Invest 5 Billion Yen in Next Generation Rocket
#373 Re: Not So Free Chat » Virgin Galactic. » 2006-06-09 16:37:46
John yes I have to agree with you.
To Mr Bransons researcher who inputted this I have to let you note we do consider the White knight and the Burt Rutan method to be of limited space value. If you really want to go to space you need a lot more effective vessel sorry. And I do support mr Branson having followed his Career with interest.
#374 Re: Human missions » ESA ahead of NASA » 2006-06-09 16:33:20
they value what is important in life
#375 Re: Human missions » gaetanomarano Lunar Space Station » 2006-06-09 16:32:27
Why create all the hassle that is storeing cryogenic material in space when there is no need to. The advantage in the case of storing it on the Moon is simple structures that in shadow keep a constant low tempature.
Im sorry to say that there is no need to design and build a lunar station. The Moons lower gravity gives all the benefits that is needed. Though I have to admit there is an economic case for an orbiting Earth spaceport.