New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#4051 Re: Human missions » Newt Gingrich - Space President? » 2006-10-09 23:23:16
Let me give you a colorful illustration of compedative biding:
"OK, I bid one cent for the whole package of sending 4 astronauts to Mars for 2 years. I win! Yippee! My bid is the lowest and nobody can top my bid because nobody can do it for less than one cent!"
Sometime later
"Now that I've won the bid, and conducted some engineering studies, it turns out that we've had some cost overruns, it turns out, or so my Engineers tell me, that the Mission will cost $100 billion, well who could have figured? These things happen after all. Well I'll give the Government these revised estimates and of course they can forward me the money. I mean after all, wouldn't want to waste that one cent the government already spend on the project by abandoning it, would we?"
Compedative bidding means the government assumes the risk of making the wrong choice because it was presented with false information during the contractor bids. Each contractor wants to win the contract, so each one strives to underbid each other, after all they haven't spend any of their own money, so why shouldn't they? They just have to make the cost overruns look plausible - Something I have failed to do above for illustrative purposes. The government procurers really can't expect to be presented with accurate cost information by either one of the contractors, so he might as well go "eenie meany miney moe, catch a tiger by the toe, if he hollers let him go, my mother told me to pick this very one!" Politics is more likely to decide the winning contractor rather than cost.
Would you for instance want to select the gold, silver, and bronze metal winners before the competions in the Olympics. The atheletes get the metals before they compete, all the others don't bother since they weren't selected to win metals so the go home, then the gold, silver, and bronze silver metalists run the 500 meter dash and the Bronze metalist comes in first followed by the gold and then the silver, but since the metals have already been awarded, too bad. I think you will agree with me that this is a dumb way to run the Olympics, so why should government contracts be awarded this way?
#4052 Re: Not So Free Chat » Bow Down Before Iran? » 2006-10-09 08:42:40
Does this mean that moslems are now supposed to be as uncharitable as atheists? Darn... I have so much trouble keeping up with new stereotypes. Do you mind if I just take your word for it?
As for the idea of a "jihad" being more of a spiritual quest than a call to run out and kill people, that's actually how most modern moslems use the term. ("Crusade" has a similar history and modern usage.) Islamic extremists are relatively unique among modern moslems in how narrowly they define jihad. However, there is a precedent for this in the history of their religion which predates their radical reformation movements of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries (Wihabi, etc.). Back at the time of the Crusades, Islam was rather violently introduced to another religious institution, Christendom, which had not only throroughly incorporated this same idea of holy war but had its own armies. Christendom was a united entity then in the same way that Islamist nationalists and other extremists are calling for today. It was an aggressive major power, willing and able to force itself upon innocent people for no other reason than that it was entitled, taking both what was God's and what was Ceasar's. And it remained that way for several hundred years.
During those centuries, christians were the scourge of the world.
This is what radical islamists so desperately want to become: the new "Christendom". They want our submission - not to God, but to them. Jihad has ceased being a spiritual struggle and become a means to an end for them. But first, they still need to convince everybody that their definition of Jihad is the corect one. They've already done a very thorough job at convincing predominantly christian nations of this, because we know exactly what they're talking about in spite of the weasel wording. The only question left is, will they convince the rest of Islam?
Actually, much of the area that is now Muslim was once Christian, as Christianity predates Islam by 700 years. Before Islam their was a Christian North Africa, a Christian Egypt, florishing christian cultures in the Middle East, and all those christian cultures were introduced to a violent Islam whose armies swept the region, conquered them and forcibly converted them. The old cultures were crushed and were replaced with an Arab culture. The first acts of the crusades were to defend Europe against Invasions by muslim armies. Spain, for instance was once ruled by Muslims, and Turkey was once the Byzantine Empire, a stronghold of Christianity. Byzantium was under seige by the Islamic Turks for centuries, before finally succumbing in the 1400s. You act as if the Middle East was Always Islamic and was suddenly introduced to Christianity by the Crusaders, this was not the case believe me. Christianity was the official state religion of the Roman Empire before it fell, and as you know the Roman Empire covered both sides of the Mediterreanian, not just Europe. Islam, by defintition of its existance, had to be the first aggressors. Muslims used two means to spread their religion, first they Evangelized, and when they got enough converts, they formed armies and invaded the lands of people who were not thus pursuaded. Islam has never been shy about using the military arm of the state to spread its doctrine.
#4053 Re: Human missions » Wild Cards » 2006-10-09 08:25:57
Politics is weaker at stopping the Space Race than it once was. It is the 21st century! Do you think an act of Congress can stop the Chinese? Indonesia's problems are Indonesia's, we're not going to stop our space program in order to fork over additional money to them.
All these issues could effect the outcomes for a Mars Program because it is optional expenditure and not essential to human life on this planet and that comes first in all governments eyes. ( REMEMBER THAT !!!!!)
International aide does not come before our space program. The way the World Community has raked us over the coals, they can get themselves out of their own troubles. I don't see how cancelling our space program is going to help them in any case. The alliance system has mostly meant US spending on Foreign countries that don't reciprocate and do nothing but condemn us as "Imperialist Aggressors". Why should we help out countries like that? If they don't like us, then they can solve their own problems.
A Mars program is an investment in the future, it will enable us to project US influence out into the Solar System, and its purpose is so we stay ahead of the curb in space exploration, exploitation and transportation. $27 billion is not going to solve any of the World's problems. Canceling the Apollo program didn't solve the Worlds problems then, and stopping space exploration isn't going to solve the world's problems now.
Seems like you just looking for reasons not to explore Mars. I think its not a question of whether we go, but of whether we go or the Chinese get their first. Do you want the US to be a left behind has been power like many countries in Europe? We either spread our civilization into space or the Chinese will spread theirs without us.
As helpful as the World has been with the Iraq War, I don't think we ought to cancel our space program for the rest of the World.
#4054 Re: Human missions » Wild Cards » 2006-10-09 00:27:16
There is a big danger in abandoning the Moon too soon as the focus of manned exploration. The development of lunar surface systems is viatl to making Mars missions worthwhile. We must have a permenantly manned outpost capable of independant growth on the Moon before turning our attention to Mars. That way when we do go to Mars, we don't repeat the mistakes of Apollo, and can instead forever stamp ourselves on the red dust of Mars in one conserted effort.
The key wild card is how far the Chinese get in their program in the years ahead. They, in the next couple years are going to take big leaps in terms of manned launches, space walks, and small stations. How we respond is going to make the difference. We can either speed up by properly funding the VSE independant of the Shuttle program in the 2008-2011 time frame, putting us on course for a 2015-16 lunar landing and a high sortie rate, and solid plans for lunar outposts, or continue our agonizing pace and risk falling behind.
I want us to take our time on the Moon, so all the world can see what it means to scrape out an existance on another world. A steady effort in the 20's and 30's will make real, meaningful expeditions to Mars in the 40's a reality. Then, the whole Solar System will be open to us.
Why do you want to colonize the Solar System sequentially and not concurrantly? Surely as our economy grows we can accomodate both programs, as the same hardware to some extent is used by both. We should also reduce the costs of getting to both the Moon and Mars.
The Wildcards I mention are the ones that make space travel cheaper. The assumptions in my timeline and yours of a manned expedition in 2040 is that technology stays the same. My timeline is a base assumption, it assumes that starting tomorrow all technological advancement stops.
What happens if a ribbon is developed that can be used for a space elevator in 2015?
2016 An Ares is readied and and launches first crewed moon mission since Apollo.
2016 Liftport or aome other company starts production of nanotube ribbon and fabric, it is sold for many different uses, including ballistic armor, and flush with success Liftport orders an Ares V booster from Lockheed
2016 Second Crewed Mission to the Moon
2017 Third Crewed Mission to the Moon
2017 Fourth Crewed Mission to the Moon
2018 Liftports Ares V rocket is finally ready, the load a spool of nanotube ribbon onboard, they rent one of the Kennedy Space Centers Launch pads and the Ares V rocket lifts into space carrying the spool and the deployment satellite into an equatorial orbit. The spool begins to unreel, solar panels are deployed powering the process.
2018 Fifth Crewed Mission to Moon
2018 Sixth Crewed Mission to Moon
2019 First Crewed Mission to Mars
2019 The end of the ribbon reaches into the atmosphere lowered towards a floating liftport space center using a converted oil platform
2019 Seventh Crewed Mission to Moon
2019 Eighth Crewed Mission to Moon
2020 Ninth Crewed Mission to Moon
2020 Lift Port Space Center begins operations, lifting another ribbon up into orbit and then stitching them together.
2020 Tenth Crewed Mission to Moon
2021 The lift port Space elevator begins commercial operation
2021 Liftport presents NASA with a proposal for a cheaper mission to Mars
2021 Second Crewed Mission to Mars
2021 First Crewed Mission to Mars Completed
2021 Preparations for the third Crewed Mission to Mars begins using a lift port elevator
2021 Eleventh Crewed Mission to the Moon
2021 Twelveth Crewed Mission to the Moon
2022 Thirteenth Crewed Mission to the Moon
2022 Fourteenth Crewed Mission to the Moon is launched via a LiftPort Space Elevator.
2023 Third Crewed Mission to Mars
2023 A Martian Space elevator is lifted spooled up by the Liftport space elevator. The Martian Spool is brought to Mars orbit and is unspooled with a Martian Hab tethered to its end. The ribbon unspools and lowers the Hab onto the Martian Surface. The Ascent stage sits on top of the Hab, neigther contain rocket fuel or rockets
2025 The ascent Stage climbs the Martain tether, docks with the interplanetary vessel and them returns to Earth
2027 A crewed Mission to Venus is launched, a Venusian tether is brought into orbit around Venus and it unspools lowering an end into Venus' upper atmosphere, an Airship is inflated and a crew pilots it around Venus' atmosphere controling rovers on the surface and returning samples to the Venusian tether to be lifted back into orbit and returned to Earth.
#4055 Re: Not So Free Chat » Not Forgiven - The Taliban » 2006-10-08 23:49:58
Soldiers don't make policy unless you have a military coup.
I'm happy to say things on the Web, and then when things don't go my way, and they turn out just the way I predicted, I get to say I told you so, then I get the smug satisfaction of knowing I was right and everyone else was wrong. The World is going to do what its going to do, no matter what I say. I figure I can just give it a little nudge every once in a while by presenting an idea, that maybe no one else has thought of. I have no political power, but if an idea is strong enough it just might catch on fire of its own accord. Getting back to the original thread, I think the idea of including terrorists in government is extremely bad. I figure I can use my minute influence and give my opinion that its a bad idea to negotiate with terrorists or give power to them, and then when the liberals don't listen to me, and sit down at the table and negotiate with them anyway and the terrorists betray them, I can say, "I told you so, but you didn't listen to me and now see where it has gotten you." Sometimes I feel like a Cassandra. Right now, what I see is a bunch of Republicans acting like Democrats, because the Polls have got them scared, which is perhaps what the media had in mind. So Mark Foley screws aroundm causes the Democrats to get elected as the media portrays the entire GOP as a bunch of homosexual pediphiles, and since the public doesn't want these Republicans anywhere near their children, they elect the Democrats, and the Democrats defund the War in Iraq, Al Qaeda loudly proclaims this as their victory, they take over Iraq, and then begin a massive assault on Afghanistan, and the Ossama gives credit to Mark Foley, of whom he says, "We're it not for him none of this would be possible." And the Islamic Radicals have victory parades in the streets of Bagdad and they proclaim Mark Foley Day as a national holiday.
#4056 Re: Pictures of Mars » Pictures of Mars - An Introduction » 2006-10-08 10:21:19
One think I think would be kind of neat would be to publish a Mars Calendar, with a picture on the reverse side of each page and a Martian month below it with the corresponding Earth months and days indicated in blue. On the top dar you would name the days of the week
Sunsol Monsol Tuesol Wednesol Thursol Frisol Satursol
#4057 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Uranus: New dark spot discovered » 2006-10-08 10:09:02
A dark spot on Uranus? Better go see a doctor. 
A most unfortunately named planet, maybe that's why NASA's priority is agt Neptune for the outer gas giants.
#4058 Re: Human missions » Wild Cards » 2006-10-08 09:20:18
I always viewed Mars as a sort of benchmark for our technological abilities. The ability to get there is more important than whats on the planet. After we developed that ability, we have the ability to do many other things that we couldn't before. Mars is our posterboy for generating interest in developing an interplanetary transportation system.
#4059 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Space Elevator news » 2006-10-08 09:15:58
As for the satellite issue, I think once space elevators are up, their would be less need for low Earth orbiting satellites in many applications at least. Elevators can act as communications beacons, they can take pictures of the Earth from many different altitudes, and any country that is next to an elevator is bound to be spied on.
Space elevators would open up the true space age.
#4060 Re: Not So Free Chat » Has Multiculturalism Failed ? » 2006-10-08 09:02:01
I guess some Muslims have no self control. If there is alchohol in their cars, they don't trust themselves not to drink it while driving. Are they all recovering alcoholics with no self control? If a Muslim cabbie cannot do the job and is rude to passengers, he should be fired! Maybe the taxi fares ought to be increased as well so that non-muslims will seek these jobs. If the cab driver can't do his job because of religious requirements, he shouldn't have the job. There are many other people who don't have restricitve religions and are quite capable of transporting alcohol and seeing eye dogs.
#4061 Re: Space Policy » US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions » 2006-10-08 08:49:00
Common kiddies, Say it with me:
Space Commonwealth
Citizenship Compulsory
Oneway trip to Mars ColonyThe Private sector is quite capable of financing the move to space on the profits in the banking system alone. If the Banks of America alone were allowed to go to the Moon, they could construct an underground city for ten thousand people in less than thirty years. It would require one way human colonization.
banks spend all profit for next thirty years on colonization and sell city for twice the 30 year profits.
Had this conversation a few years back.Tax any company that does not invest all profits in lunar colonization at 98% and declare the Moon a tax free haven for all IT and Subsurface Construction/mining companies that colonize fifty percent of their employees and computer capacity off earth.
Come on, tax every company that does not invest all of it's profits in lunar colonization at 98%? You actually think this is a rational proposal? What about companies reinvesting a portion of their income in their own facilities to meet the rising demand of our rising population? Or money to be invested in new enterprises? Should we just put all that on hold for 30 years untill this nutty moon colony is built?
And also, doubling you're money in 30 years is a TERRIBLE return on you're investment. Worse then savings bonds or a simple FDIC savings account, which is just about the safest investment possible.
Increasing taxes would harm the economy, not a good thing to do if you want to promote travel to Mars. The government needs to supply positive incentives, not to do foolish or irrational things. If you need to turn society upsidedown, then going to Mars is not going to happen, at least by us. The key is as always in being a powerful successful nationthat wants to show the world how great it is by sending people to Mars. We then do it is such a way as to make followup missions and colonization more likely. We have to harness the market place, introduce compedative pressures into the system, have a prize system and award prizes to companies that get to Mars the soonest, and have secondary prizes to reduce downside risk of not getting their first or for follow up missions. As the technology is developed, there will be a point where the government doesn't need to award prizes anymore. The economy will have moved into space and that is my objective, get space travel out of the realm of politics and onto a more economic basis.
#4062 Re: Human missions » Wild Cards » 2006-10-08 08:32:01
Wild cards :
Government Williness to continue the development towards mars
Terrorism into full scale wars across the world
Worldwide Hunger, Disease and Homelessness from warBefore we get to technical or other factors
That won't affect a Humans to Mars Program unless nuclear weapons are used by the enemy, then it would be called World War III. Wars such as the Veitnam War produced a surge in interest in going to the Moon that only declined when support for the Vietnam War also declined.
Besides these are mere political developments. The World has always been a mess, and no amount of effort is going to fix it. Politics as usual aren't the real wild cards. The truly unpredictable developments are when technological advanced are going to occur. If the World's people make an ass of themselves, blow themselves up and starve for no reason, the US will just keep chugging along, the only time the cause a problem for us is when we get bogged down trying to solve them.
#4063 Re: Space Policy » US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions » 2006-10-07 21:24:52
Haven't you noticed that the decline in the Apollo Program coincided with the end, not the beginning, of the Vietnam War? One would think that with our getting out of the Vietnam War, we'd have that much more resources to spend on space ecploration, sending more Apollo missions to the Moon and a crewed mission to Mars as well. Didn't turn out that way did it. Seems instead that the height of the Apollo program coincided with the Height of the Vietnam War. I don't think either one took a big enough bite out of the economy to force a trade off between the two, and we don't see one. Tell you what, I like all the liberals up to Lyndon B. Johnson and before as Presidents, afterwards they started to reflect the post Vietnam, antiwar, "America is not so great" attitude.
I think one of the preconditions to spending the billions to send our people to Mars is thinking we are a great Nation, because that just makes us try all the harder to prove it by sending our people to Mars. Nationalism was the main motivator in the Apollo years, and with the decline of Nationalism following our inglorious retreat, support for Apollo dried up as well. I think Americans are patriotic once again, the Democrats are from the post patriotic anti-war generation and they can find no good reason to waste the billions of dollars to send people to Mars when they think America is a not so great nation, they distrust government, and so forth, but it does not make them covet power in the Federal government any less.
#4064 Re: Human missions » Wild Cards » 2006-10-07 21:14:34
Here are a few wild cards to consider:
Robotics/Artificial Intelligence by 2015 or 2020
Thermonuclear Fusion by 2015 or 2020
Nanotechnology
Space elevators
Scram Jets
Suspended Animation
Advanced Genetics
How might these things affect the time table?
#4065 Re: Human missions » Wild Cards » 2006-10-07 16:35:24
This is my base timeline, I think it is quite plausible and doable, but what are the wildcards that might alter this? For example what happens if a Space Elevator is constructed within thie timeframe, or how about if a full scale scramjet is tested? What other wildcards can you think of that would make the timeline below obsolete?
Timeline
2010 Space Shuttle is Retired
2014 Space Station missions completed
2016 First Crewed Mission since Apollo 17
2016 Second Crewed Mission to Moon
2017 Third Crewed Mission to Moon
2017 Fourth Crewed Mission to Moon
2018 Assembly of Mars Ship in orbit.
2018 Fifth Crewed Mission to Moon
2018 Sixth Crewed Mission to Moon
2019 First Crewed Mission to Mars
2019 Seventh Crewed Mission to Moon
2019 Eighth Crewed Mission to Moon
2020 Ninth Crewed Mission to Moon
2020 Tenth Crewed Mission to Moon
2021 Second Crewed Mission to Mars
2021 First Crewed Mission to Mars Completed
2021 Eleventh Crewed Mission to the Moon
2021 Twelveth Crewed Mission to the Moon
2022 Thirteenth Crewed Mission to the Moon
2022 Fourteenth Crewed Mission to the Moon
2023 Third Crewed Mission to Mars
2023 Second Crewed Mission to Mars Completed
2023 Fifthteenth Crewed Mission to the Moon
2023 Sixteenth Crewed Mission to the Moon
2024 Seventeenth Crewed Mission to the Moon
2024 Eighteenth Crewed Mission to the Moon
2025 Fourth Crewed Mission to Mars
2025 Third Crewed Mission to Mars Completed
#4066 Re: Space Policy » US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions » 2006-10-07 10:04:27
Governments are typically concerned with many different factors, private corporations are concerned with only one, their profits. Now who do you think is more likely to cut costs, buerocrats who want to preserve their jobs, and congressmen who want to help them to do it, or the CEO of a private corporation who wants to keep his job and satisfy the shareholders who hired him in the first place, but giving them the returns and profitability that they ask for? The prize money makes them jump through hoops to get that prise money, they have to get humans to Mars, get them to do useful scientific work and bring them safely back to Earth to win the prize, and private corporations will try to do those things as efficiently as possible, they are always looking for ways to make things cheaper, government agencies are not.
Regarding the last statement I bolded...are you so certain? See, I don't buy this naive schtick that the privateers are big-hearted humanitarians who really care about as many humans as possible being able to attain private spaceflight.
You know about the theory of Evolution of course, you know survival of the fittest?
Evolution has created all sorts of complex creatures including us. No human-built machine is as intelligent or as capable as us in common sense and reasoning skills. Everything we've built deliberately has fallen short of us, or is used as a tool that increases our strength, reach, or capabilities, but we have yet to produce something that has replaced us.
I believe Capitalism is the analog to Evolution, we just need to create the proper environment for spaceships, that can get us to Mars, to evolve.
The old method, that got us to the Moon, is analogious to creationism where some creator builds a creature.
I think Government should play the role of the enabler, it should create the conditions that allow for interplanetary transportation system to develop. I think random market forces under the right market conditions and a compedative environment will produce much more efficient space craft than the Government can ever hope to build with "master designer" fiat. The most efficient compeditor will rise to the top, provide the cheapest and most efficient vehicle and enable the largest number of people to travel to Mars and other places. You know all the objections.
Travel to Mars will cost billions of dollars. Yes of course Government will have to supply those billions, and I think the prize system is the most efficient way for it to supply those billions. Private compedators will compete and market forces will select the winner rather than the Government decision before anything is actually built. It might be more expensive to supply three prizes, then again with traditional cost overruns, "$1,000 toilet seats and $500 hammer" perhaps not. In my system there will be 3 prizes, starting at $60 billion, $40 billion, and $20 billion and incrementing $5 billion per year. When one prize is taken another is added, Starting at $5 billion and incrementing at $5 billion per year. As the compeditors become more efficient and drive down their costs, they will launch their missions more frequently taking the prizes before they have grown so much and before their compeditors can get them. Eventually they'll be launching every 2 years and taking $5 billion and $10 billion prizes, and we'll reduce those prizes, and eventually those compeditors will find other reasons for going to Mars and into space, as they will have brought their costs down enough so that other opportunities without government subsidy become available.
The Whole Shuttle Program has left me disillusioned about the ability of government to get us into space the traditional way. If government always does things the traditional way, space travel will always cost billions of dollars, and it will be the playground of the elites, brilliant scientists, and people so talented as to justify the expenditure of billions of dollars to send them into space when the government feels like it. I'm not going to live forever, and I'd like to see some real tangible progress on the Space front, not just some pictures return from probes, but some common people, people I actually know traveling in space. I'd like to see my son traveling in space, he is 2 years old now. When I was born, people were walking on the Moon, and through out My life I have seen no progress in manned space travel, it has continued to cost billions, and astronauts are rarer than movie stars and professional athletes although most are not as famous. The typical astronaut goes into space once or twice in his lifetime, there are no people whose profession is to go into space. I'd like to see that change, I'd like to see space travel become as common as air travel, and for it to happen in my lifetime, it would have to happen in the next 40 years. I have little patience for the "same old same old". Can you understand that. And when some people talk about sending men to Mars by the 22nd century, well, I think they are setting their sites too low. I think the way the government has gone into space has failed, it has not produced evolving designs, and evolving designs, that constantly improve themselves, is what I want.
#4067 Re: Not So Free Chat » Not Forgiven - The Taliban » 2006-10-07 09:33:28
I don't know what their Civil War is about. At least our Civil War was about something, and you know what, it was alot more "Civil" than this Iraqi thing. I don't really care who wins if its Shiite Vs Sunni, both groups have their bad points. The Shiite Religion is the religion of Ayatollah Khomeni and his stinking Revolution in Iran, and the Sunnis are the Religion of Al Qaeda and the Wahabbis, both have launched attacks against Christians, Jews, and Americans, but we're involved see. We like to be the good guys and rebuild the enemy's country after we've defeated it in battle, it is in the rebuilding that we seem to have trouble with the Iraqis. It seems that collectively they don't want their country rebuilt and that they enjoy killing each other.
What I don't want is for them to think they've defeated us or driven us out. The Kurds are the only decent people their, their the ones who appreciated us. If it were up to me, I'd move all the Kurds out of Turkey and Iran and resettle then in Iraq, and then move all the Sunnis and Shiites into Turkey and Iran to take their place. The Kurds can then rename Iraq Kurdistan and they get all that oil to boot and everyone would be happy. Segregation, it appears, is the only way they can live in peace. The non-Kurdish Iraqi people aren't helping us, some are collaborating with the enemy. I'd be happy to swap all the Turkish Hurds for Iraqi Sunnis and the Turks can deal with them, swap all the Iranian Kurds for Iraqi Shiites and they can live in Iran. The Kurds can live in the former Iraqi's homes, and the former Iraqis can live in the homes of the former Turkish and Iranian Kurds. There were numerous forced resettlements after World War II, swapping of German and Polish homes for example. I feel that after all these years of their unhelpfulness and killing of US soldiers, I feel the Iraqis don't deserve a country, Let the Kurds make it into Kurdistan. If we do that and then get out, then they can't say they've driven us out or they won. We can pack them up and ship the troublemakers out of the country. If the Mountainous borders are too pourous, then we adjust the borders of Iraq so that they are more naturally defensible and then we can build a wall and lay mines, post guards with machineguns to prevent people from sneaking back in, and then make Kurdish the official language of the country so that any that do are clearly marked as foreigners and can't blend in with the population and start an insurgency. George Bush is a soft touch though, so I don't think he would go that far, and that's the problem, without some hard measures the war will go on and on and US soldiers will keep getting killed, and I don't like that. Instead of standing around like dopes and trying to train some retarded Iraqis to be an Army, they should try forced relocation as the solution. People who wreck their own country don't deserve one. My patience is running out with this. I don't like cut and run, and I think the main problem with Iraq is its people. Everybody in the Arab world hates the Kurds, so making Kurdistan out of Iraq makes the perfect revenge, then the Kurd can sell us some oil. Perfect don't you think?
Partly this is an emotional response, but what do you want. Its satisfying to have the solution to all the regions problems, then I can smile knowingly as our politicians bungle along. I suspect the Democrats love to lose wars, the fell in love with the idea ever since they lost Vietnam. I prefer to end the Iraq War differently.
#4068 Re: Space Policy » US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions » 2006-10-06 13:32:08
I don't believe we need to give them a head start. Simply vote for the Politicians who are pro-space and find other reasons to convince other people to vote for them as well. The people who are not interested in Space do not pay attention to what NASA is doing, so long as NASA doesn't eat up too much of the government pie, people aren't going to notice, nor care what NASA spends its annual budget on. If people didn't pay attention to the Shuttle going up an down, why should they object to NASA changing its priorities and spending the same money on something else. The Shuttle doesn't do hardly much of anything, it can't launch on time, and it has delays like nothing else. Ever try packing up for a trip and trying to get out the door and have nothing but delays, things people forgot etc? When such a thing happend to me, I compare it to a Shuttle Launch.
#4069 Re: Not So Free Chat » Not Forgiven - The Taliban » 2006-10-06 13:15:18
As the quote goes, “Democracy is the best forum of government except for all the others”. In reality the strength of democracy is not so much that the people are wiser it is it provides a check on power. But in democracy there is still potential for the abuse of power such as, The Terrony of the majority. In democracy intuitions are put in place to help control this problem such as bills of rights and a separate judicial branch. This checks are not always effective.
China I think is an example where dictatorship works well but who will be China’s next leader. For democracy to work it requires and educated electorate. Fortunately in Iraq there are some moderate clerics that might take on this role if Civil war can be adverted. Afghanistan is poor and thus requires a long term commitment to help educate the people and alleviate poverty.
If there is a Civil War, then we should make sure the bad guys lose. Democracy is the rule of the Majority, and the Sunnis are the minority, either they acceed to majority rule or they get out, that is their two choices, any other choice and its not a democracy. I prefer that they try to get along, but if they don't then we defeat them and dump them someplace else.
#4070 Re: Not So Free Chat » Not Forgiven - The Taliban » 2006-10-06 13:11:19
How would you like a country to go on attacking yours and then give an excuse like: "Our government was democratically elected by our people, so we have a right to do anything we please so long as it is the will of our people."?
This in effect is the position of the US government, and you.
The US government was democratically elected by the people, so we somehow have a legitiate right to do anything we please so long as it is the will of the people. At least according to the arguments you put forth.
In the absense of a world government to rein in terrorists states, we must proceed to rein them in according to our best judgement, and that is all. If you wait for the UN to stop these rogue states, you will wait forever. You still haven't givine me a viable alternative to the choices I have put forth, you've simply dodged the question by asking what right has the US to take its own security into its own hands. If someone is preparing an attack we must stop it before it crosses over into our borders, we also try to defend our citizens abroad where ever we can. if some country is putting us in danger we got to stop them, and we have the power to stop them. I would prefer to live on another planet and not have to deal with this, but we don't. We got a series of unpleasant choices because our enemies present us with these unpleasant choices, and we have to pick from one of these choices including the default choice of doing nothing. Although doing nothing may be a worse choice than being proactive and stopping our enemies before they get a chance to damage us. Do you pretend there is a brilliant solution that will make everyone happy? If so then what is that choice? I am merely stating the obvious choices as I see it, its not that I like any of those choices, the best choice I'd like is for our enemies not to attack us and to get along with us, but that choice is unfortunately theirs and not ours, and they have so far been making the wrong choices and we have to do something about them. If we can't invade and reform them then what? The alternatives are unpleasant, and if we pull out of Iraq before our mission is accomplished, we are left only with those alternatives that I mentioned. If you don't like them, don't blame me! Those are the choices our enemy has given us. Otherwise we can stick it through a little longer in Iraq, and be a little more patient than you have been.
#4071 Re: Not So Free Chat » Not Forgiven - The Taliban » 2006-10-06 12:04:24
I'm talking about countries that attack us! Your darn right we're going to bomb them if they attack us. What's your alternate idea, just let them attack us because you feel sorry for them?
I think the right of a country's self-determination stops at the tip of our nose. We don't mind their business so long as they don't mind our, but its our business if they train terrorists to attack us, or invade or undermine their neighbors we don't want undermined. This is not a form of Imperialism. How would you like a country to go on attacking yours and then give an excuse like: "Our government was democratically elected by our people, so we have a right to do anything we please so long as it is the will of our people."?
Besides I gave you a choice, it was either bomb them or let them have what they want, even if its a piece of their neighbor's territory. Now which would you choose, or do you have a third option that you have not mentioned. I really don't want to bomb people, and I don't want to cave to other country's aggression, now which option would you choose? Or would you choose to send our troops right back into Iraq, the place you wanted them out of in the first place?
#4072 Re: Not So Free Chat » Has Multiculturalism Failed ? » 2006-10-06 09:56:00
I can only shake my head. I hope Islamic society imporves and moderation prevails. I really don't want to get in a war with them, not because I think we'll lose, but because I hate the thought of having to kill so many people in order to get peace. I think we both can share this world if the both of our cultures can live in peace with each other. I have no problem living in peace with them so long as they do the same, and we are giving plenty of money for their oil and prioviding them with riches that they otherwise wouldn't have. I think up to now this arrangement has been mutually beneficial for both our societies. We certainly haven't exploited them to our benefit, the prices they received for their oil has been more than fair I think, considering that it only costs them $2 a barrel for them to get oil out of the ground, I would not call $50 a barrel or $60 a barrel exploitation, unless it means their exploitation of us. Also if it wasn't for the United States, many Arab countries would still be colonial possessions of European Empires. Our influence in winning World War II and the pressure we put on our post war allies assured the breakup of their European Empires and the independence of these Arab States. We bought oil from them, made so Arab countries rich, but unfortunately for many Arabs this is not enough, they want their Jihad as well, they want to attack Americans and kill Jews, it is just so sad, I wish it were otherwise, I really do.
#4073 Re: Not So Free Chat » Bow Down Before Iran? » 2006-10-06 09:40:24
And the swastika was a Christian symbol and Christians gassed some people they thought of as degerenates. What’s the point?
Actually, its origins are in India, it was a symbol meaning good fortune, its not a cross at all.
My point here though is that you cannot and should not make blanket statements regarding Islam. There are good and bad people who are Muslim, Christian, or Jew. It is far to easy to just lump all the good with the bad- and I think if you review you might see the point I am trying to convey.
There is good and bad in every population. Unfortunately for us, we get alot more bad coming out of Islamic populations and civilizations. If they minded their own busness, we would mind ours, I'm sure of it. Unlike the situation with the Indians, we don't want the Arabs land, and we are paying plenty of money for their oil, it makes up a major portion of our trade deficit after all, Yet Many Arabs still see fit to attack us. The governments they want for themselves seem just as oppressive if not more so than the ones they want to overthrow. Just compare the Shah's regime to the Revolutionary Islamic theocracy that replaced it, personally I prefer the Shah, at least he did not support terrorist attacks against us or the Israelis. Yes he was a tyrant, but so was the government put in place by the people who overthrew him, the Shah was not as evil towards us though.
The proportions within the population are just as important as what you can find in them. If you go through a thousand people and find one or two terrorists, that's one thing, if you go through a thousand people and find 600 terrorists, that is quite another, yet in both cases you can say their is good and bad in both population, but if you let the second crowd elect their leaders, you are going to get a terrorist government. No these two groups are not equal, you can't just wave your hands and say there is good and bad in both of them and then extend you reasoning to say they are both equally good.
Islamic Red Crescent society (their version of Red Cross). The Madras schools which offer educational services (of course we may differ with them on the value of what is taught). Hammas has gained popularity for providing relief and funds for reconstruction after destructions caused by Israel.
The point here is not to nitpick these institutions and say, well Christian is better and more noble, the point is that Islamic charity does exist and to assume that humanitarian efforts and charity is something only Christian’s do is a bit intellectually dishonest. Islamic charity may not be focused worldwide like some Christian organizations, but then, they have a lot of humanitarian work in their own areas.
I've seen many cases of Islamic charities raising funds for terrorist groups, it is unfortunate that these groups must be closely watched to prevent charitable denoations from being misallocated to terrorists groups. Most Christian charities don't seem to have this problem. I wish this wasn't so, I wish our government didn't have to kill them. If tomorrow we can sit down and have peace, I would like it very much. Live and let live is my motto, now if only the radicals will let us live or our friends live, then we might do the same, but unfortunately I have yet to see this happen.
#4074 Re: Not So Free Chat » Not Forgiven - The Taliban » 2006-10-06 09:15:26
Quote:
I would take it as a given that all societes must run as democracies because all governments must have the public trust, and they spend public funds. That government should govern with the consent of the governed, is a basic principle.You sound like an Islamic terrorist advocating the need for a theocracy for all. “I would take it as a given that all societies must be governed by Islam because all government must have the blessing of Allah.”
If you equate the two, I'm sorry, I do not see Islamic Theocracy and democracy as being equal. One involves the input of the people and the other does not, both spends the peoples money though, so it a way the theocracy is stealing from the public as it spends however the great bearded leader, with the supposed "direct hot line" to God, likes. The great bearded leader makes laws however he pleases and the citizens on the country are basically his servants, the police reenforce this notion. If somebody demands accountability in government the police simply arrest him and chop off his head. Maybe your indifferent to the type of government, but I'm not. You want to serve the Great Bearded Leader? Then go right ahead believing that all forms of government are the same.
You claim you support democracy but when a democracy results in ‘terrorists’ being elected by the will of the general people, you fault the system.
No, I fault the people. I am more sympathetic to people living under terrorists who rule by terror rather than through the consent of the governed, as that makes it the people's fault if they elect a terrorist. If a dictator like Syrias supports terrorism, then I can't blame the Syrian people as they can't help what government they have, but if the Palestinians elect Hamas, then I do blame the Palestinian people because they have an accountable democratically elected government, and the terrorists cannot get in government without the people electing them, so yes, I blame the people, not the system. The system worked as it was supposed to work, its the people who made the wrong decisions with their votes.
Autocrats in the middle east were supported by western powers because they would represent western interests at the exspense of their governed people.
In retrospect, it seems this system was justified when we examine the results of the Palestinian elections. If the people, in general are evil, it is probably better to rule them with an iron fisted moderate dictator than a populist terrorist leader. It can also be argued that nations that have to be ruled this way shouldn't even be free and independent nations and should be ruled over by more moderate nations. If a goup of people who want independence and democracy are also going to support terrorism, perhaps its best if they don't get it.
We either support dictators that support us and ignore their people, or we support democracy and take the good with the bad. This expectation that democracy will lead to other people electing individuals that support our interests is asinine.
As I said, before George W. Bush is an optimist, he wanted to give the Iraqi people, and the Palestinians a chance to prove that they are ready for democracy. The Palestinians are a disapointment, but the only way we could have found out about that is by allowing the Palestinian elections to happen. Since the Palestinian electorate has proved to be evil, I don't see why we should respect their decisions with regards to killing Jews and not retaliate against them for those actions. Democracy makes the people responsible for their governments rather than their governments alone being responsible for their own actions. The moderates in the Palestinian Authority can't help it, as their own people voted them out of office in favor of radical terrorists, and the Palestinian people will have to pay for it too. They are already suffering, and it part due to their own behavior to the Israelis and the Israeli reaction to that behavior. I'm sorry to say, the Palestinians aren't a very enlighted or civilized people. The jury is still out on the Iraqis, I think they deserve a chance to prove that democracy can work in their country, and if it can't lets wait for the results before we pass judgement on them. I really don't trust that poll that said 6 out of 10 Palestinians want to kill Americans, I think it might have been fabricated, lets let the elections decide. If democracy can be made to work in Iraq, that would be to our advantage. If the people elect terrorist leaders, then I would say that democracy is not working, but that hasn't happend yet.
My point though is that there is no qualitative difference in the environment after our action. Well, I guess instead of one particular group being brutalized, all groups are being brutalized now. So perhaps in one sense, we have at least brought a certain degree of equality to Iraq- the value of which I leave to you to determine.
If democracy doesn't work in Iraq, then I think we should treat Iraq as a "black box". If the "black box" misbehaves towards it neighbors, then we bomb the "black box" until it stops. We don't invade or go it, we just drop bombs from out planes and generally ruin their cities, until they stop supporting terror or attacking their neighbors. I figure by then, we gave them their chance to prove that democracy works in their country and if they elected terrorists, there is little else we can do about them other than bomb them. What do you suggest we do with them instead? Give them waht they want perhaps? What if they want Saudi Arabia or for Israel to cease to exist? What if they want to invade Turkey, do we just let them have it, if that is the popular will of the Iraqi people, we can only do one of two things, either we let them have it, or we really let them have it with bombs until they are no longer capable of disrupting the region with their attacks or their terrorism, this is a rather ugly fact. I'd rather give them a chance to prove that they can be a moderate democratic nation first before giving them the "black box" treatment, wouldn't you?
#4075 Re: Human missions » Newt Gingrich - Space President? » 2006-10-06 08:34:36
Lets look at that market for a little bit, shall we? Assuming the prize is $60 billion (the figure you start of with) and the actual cost to the company is something like $30 billion. Mars Mission don't happen overnight, so lets assume a 10 year time frame from the start date, which means that you are only getting a ~7% return, which frankly, given the risk compared is pathetic. Putting that money in the stock market would give you an average return of somewhere around ~10% over any 10 year time span, and the risk would be IMMENSLY lower. You would need a return a prize of $70 billion dollars just to be competative with the stock market. But again, you're risk is MUCH higher then that of a stock market investment.
Ok lets set this up:
Start date is 2010 and the initial prize is $60 billion, this is what happens under my assumptions:
Year Prize --------- Cost to taxpayers
2010 $60 billion --- $60 billion
2011 $65 billion --- $5 billion
2012 $70 billion --- $5 billion
2013 $75 billion --- $5 billion
2014 $80 billion --- $5 billion
2015 $85 billion --- $5 billion
2016 $90 billion --- $5 billion
2017 $95 billion --- $5 billion
2018 $100 billion -- $5 billion
2019 $105 billion -- $5 billion
2020 $110 billion -- $5 billion
The prize starts out at 60 billion and this causes a private company to spend $30 on its Mars mission, it takes 10 years to realize the successful completion of the mission, so what is the return on investment? 366.6% over 10 years, this is an annual rate of return of 36%, which is not bad compared to many other investments. And what about the $110 billion cost? Isn't that about the cost of the International Space Station? If you include the costs of the Space Station freedom. Originally we thought we were getting a bargain, the Space Station Freedom for $8 billion, and then the costs ballooned and ballooned. It certainly wasn't our intention to spend as much as we did on this Space Station, but you had cost overruns, inefficiencies, changes in design, changes in priorities. Originally the space station was to be an assembly platform for Moon ships and Mars ship in Low Earth orbit, so some work was done on that, and then we decided that would be too expensive, the Clinton Administration canceled the Moon and Mars programs, but the money was aready spend on useless design studies., then we decided to make it an Internation project and change the name of the space station, because as we know, the name Freedom so offends the Russians.
I think in the end, when we project forward what the Government would spend on a government run project, what we're really getting is the contractor's low ball bid.
The contractor might give a number such as $30 billion for the Mars mission, but we perfectly know that is not what the government is going to end up spending. From past experience we can expect the government to pay a much higher amount due to cost overruns etc. and the bidding process awards those companies that produce low bids for work done, their goal is to get the contract first with a low bid and then add on additional costs later, then the government does other things like, change the budger priorities, things like stretching out the program life, spending less this year to balance the annual budget and pushing back additional expenditures and stretching them out over longer periods of time, but doing so adds additional costs, and then if International partners hop onboard, this is going to force further design changes and thus additional costs. Government does too much micromanaging, and to the government its just as much a jobs program as it is a space program, the various production centers are going to be spread across the country to buy key congressional and senatorial votes for the project, all these transportation costs will simply add to the cost of the project. A corporation doesn't have these problems, it will try to do things as efficiently as possible, the cost offered in the prize is the exact amount that will be spent by the government. The only uncertain costs are the costs to the company that competes for these prizes, but comparing the prize money to the initial low-ball estimates of cost-plus government contractors is a bit unfair, because we know these aren't going to be the true costs of the program. The government likes certainly in expenditures and the prize system will bring certainly and make it easier for the government to balance its budget. There would be none of this cost overrun stuff, and scrambling to find additional costs elsewhere to pay for the program or else discontinue it.
You are right that greater risk requires greater reward. My point is that the risk is SO great that the reward that would be needed to provoke private investment would be larger than the cost for the goverment to do it itself. And in a way, the goverment endures no risk, as it can keep going at it untill it is succesfull, which a private company cannot do.
My point is you are comparing a known against an unknow costs. We never know exactly what the actual amount of a cost plus government program will cost, because the engineering details aren't completely resolved yet, and the bidding system rewards estimates that fall short of the mark. You think if one contractor says his proposal will cost $30 billion while another contractor says $60 billion. The contractor who says $60 billion might be making a more accurate estimate, but we know that he won't be awarded the contract, because the $30 billion estimate will look so much cheaper - even it its wrong.
And while the faliure of a multi-billion dollar company would not bring down the US economy (I never said it would, another strawman), that doesn't mean their wouldn't be serious human suffering as a result. When Enron colapsed, thousands lost their jobs, investments, and retirement plans. Furthermore there IS a noticable impact on the economy at large from such effects. The US's GDP is not generate overnight, but over the course of the entire year, if 30/60 billion dollars was to disapear on any given day, it does create waves that cycle through the system causing effects elsewere. It in the goverments intrest to promote a smooth operation of the US economy, not jerky starts and stops.
People still lose their jobs if government cost plus programs are cancelled, the only difference between government programs and private corporations, is that government programs allow the waste to go on for so much longer and various competing political interests will decide whether or not to cancel the program. Corporations simply run out of money. I think corporations are managed more rationally than government programs, but government employees or the employees of contractors aren't immune to layoffs, and the effect on the economy is the same, or else you have inflation because the government is not balancing its budget.[/tex]