New Mars Forums

But then you have to deal with fusion Josh!  Faster and more payload!

And the propellant for fusion is water, which incidentally makes a great radiation shield!  Killing two birds with one stone!

I hope solar and magnetic sails work, but they will not have the same capacity as fusion, i think.  As fusion becomes more viable and efficient, it will not only produce fast, high payload vehicles, but also a viable power plant.

Josh, China is, for all intents and purposes, capitalist.  They continue to move towards privitization.  This, not the "breakdown of corruption" is the cause for their growth.  Corruption crackdown might have helped, yes, but capitalization has been their main driver.

Josh, that's not true.  Since the very first oxygenating plants, organisms have been changing Earth's atmosphere, shaping its landscapes, and so on.

Humans created the Sahara Desert thousands of years ago.  Humans have cut down forests for thousands of years.  Humans have driven creatures extinct, brought new ones into existence, chosen which organisms they like best, mined resources, created landforms, mowed lawns, etc. 

We have been terraforming Earth since before we were humans, Josh!

Well, if there's life, I think we should still terraform, but make sure to preserve the life that exists.  However, I don't think that terraformation inherently means the life will die.  In fact, if we allow it to do so, I think terraformation would allow the life to flourish!

If we are afraid of "playing God," then we should go back into our caves and die-we have been terraforming Earth for many millenia, and our evolutionary tree has been doing it ever since the first microbes.

The life obviously isn't flourishing on Mars now, if it exists.  Perhaps human terraformation can lead to a mutualistic existence?

Cindy, on a broader note, I just can't understand the anti-American, (i hesitate to say hippies, that's such a bad word to use), anti-governmentalists who live in this country, and wail against anything America does.  Well, why not leave?

It has nothing to do with freedom-if I didn't like anything about my house, I wouldn't stay if I didn't have to. 

And these "human shields" are among the most hypocritical-the ones who protested against apartheid (which i think was a noble cause) are now Saddam's biggest supporters.  I lose all respect for them as it seems more and more to me that their actions are more about rebellion against the U.S. policy in general and less against oppressive regimes.

War is not a good thing, don't get me wrong, but in this case, war can save lives and free a people-as it has done in Afghanistan.

Caltech, you really have to stop ignoring that our administration didn't try a diplomatic solution.  They simply used the UN as a platform to promote the war, not an avenue for a solution.

Hey, I support the war, but the party line is getting really, really old.   Our government has been committed to going to war since November, and I haven't seen anything that makes me think they've wanted anything but war. 

So do the means justify the end?  To me, yes.  But were the means justified?  No.

sure, but then you can see Olympus Mons with snow-caps, Valles Marineris with rivers flowing through it, lush greenery...you would replace the vistas now with equally stunning vistas!   

Ah, but what if we gain beauty by adding water, and greenery to all these places?

But none of these offers the science value, surface area, or materials that Mars can offer.  Or the technological motivation.

That's because the American West was much more accesible, and much more limited in size     

It would take a company to get to Mars, and they would be required to develop about 60% themselves, keep 20% for scientific uses, and sell the other 20% to customers (screened internationally) to cover costs.

I was thinking $1 billion at first, but that is a bit much for each landing.  Somewhere between $100 million and $500 million.  The first landing would be a landmark, because the company could then mass produce their landers to land on and develop their property.  Other companies will also want to buy their launch equipment, so they can get a stake.  So, you will see a few competing companies, and many launches to Mars.  A few large corporations will rise out of the race, the main suppliers of launch equipment. 

Ever cheaper will be the motto of the pioneering companies.  Any company that can scale down costs will become successful.

I like my plan for a bounty.  It gives a reasonable incentive to land, and it gives a fair amount of funding (say a $100 million for the first landing, $1 million for the next 4).  It could be more of a Mars version of the Homestead Act than a bounty, though.

So it's jealousy that gives you your brainwashing?  I see.

Why is it that Europeans, guilty of the same evils, blame everything on the US?

I don't have freedom?  Tell me, if I can say anything I want, choose what I want to be, go where I want to go, buy what I want to buy, how I'm oppressed?  You can't tell me that I'm oppressed, because I'm not.

Why do you see American "imperialism" and not see the Chinese pillage of Tibet, or their slaughtering of their own people in WW2? 

Why don't you see the 20 million people massacred by Stalin in an attempt to socialize the Soviet Union?  Why do you not see the countless numbers that died in wars the Soviets started to spread their system?

Why don't you see the oppressiveness of socialist dictatorships?  The world economic powers only exist as such because they are based on capitalism.  Name one major economic power that is not based on a capitalist economic system.  Sure, everybody has some elements of socialism, including the US (welfare is one example), but the economic powers are all capitalist.

It is easy to proselytize the "evils" of a system when you benefit from the system yourself.  Were it not for capitalism, you wouldn't have the computer to visit this forum on. 

I see the "evils" of America, my question is why the world fails to see the good of America, and the evils of the rest of the world.