You are not logged in.
That's why we need to be heavily armed Dook. Remember, if it is a truly alien race, they might not fit to any of our assumptions about their capabilities. Heck, ANYTHING is possible as we only have one data point to consider.
That is just so stinkin' COOL.
Yes Cindy, I know you want to go to Mars. Heck, I want to go to Mars, if you know someone who is selling tickets-please tell me.
But can we really expect NASA or any of the world's space agencies to suddenly wake up one day and say, "We're going to put <your name here> within the next five years"?
The reason some of us (myself included) tend to be gung-ho about the whole suborbital tourism thing is that it IS a step. It brings space-access, and Mars by extension, one giant step closer to the common folk like us. Essentially, trying to develop cheaper, or more widespread access to Space via X-prizesque vehicles is equivalent to the Mars society simulating a Mars habitat out in the desert.
Neither task gets us much closer to Mars, but we are putting what we have learned from NASA and from our own research to the test.
And who knows if the Suborbital joyriding won't turn into something more? If anything, it'll generate -revenue- and perhaps shock some of the larger companies such as Lockheed or Boeing into the Spacecraft market. Why does no one make passenger spacecraft for paying customers? Because there is no -market-
If suborbital joyriding ignites a market for passengers, I think their goals of altspace NGOs will have been more then accomplished. If they make a profit off of it, so much the better-perhaps they will then have some capital to invest in going orbital and not need as much financial backing as one would now.
As much as some of us would like to believe otherwise, the public perception has a great deal to do with how successful a political or business venture is. NASA should be especially aware of this.
This is why you should never stop arguing in favor of going directly to Mars (Or whatever your position is, I don't claim to know you well enough), and it is why I will never stop arguing in favor of the altSpace NGOs: the public perception can drive reality.
And besides that, I have a bet going with a friend as to who will get past the official boundary of Space first. Last one up is a rotten egg.
The spaceport-cities are going to likely end up being the capitals of Mars, if governments develop. I see the citizens of New Columbia(Great name for a Spaceport city) being quite proud of their city, and rightly so.
But the pride of a Martian city I think, will not necessarily lie in it's industrial capabilities. Their pride will likely be in something that we Earthlings find extremely mundane.
Can you imagine what third generation Martians would think of a multi-acre rose garden, or a water park? I imagine that Martians learning to swim would be quite funny to watch.
A Martian visiting Earth would go into shock if he saw a sight like Stratford-upon-Avon in the Springtime. If Earthlings will want genuine pieces of Mars, Martians will probably snap up any chance they get to purchase artwork from Earth. Not impressionist work, but works like those of Bierstadt.
Well it all depends who gets there first eh?
As I said before, we'll have to see where things go from here.
Oh and you are slightly wrong about the distance upwards they have to reach. It isn't 60 kilometers, it is 100 kilometers or 62 miles.
So do you think we should leave all attempts at getting out of the atmosphere up to NASA, the Chinese, and the RSA?
I think GCNrevenger has a healthy case of skepticism.
But using what exists already isn't exactly what the CATS/Suborbital tourism crowd is trying to do. They are trying to innovate.
Some of them have suggested getting a third of the way to LEO by using giant balloons, some go a sixth of the way by carrying the rockets with a plane. Others try to see how well they can build a conventional rocket.
The name of the game is innovation. Thus I will hold on to the hope that some of them succeed, but GCNrevenger is right to a certain degree--innovation in such an area is very risky and spaceflight is no walk in the park.
Howeverever, I do not think that the difficulties preclude the possibility of an NGO being successful.
Thanks for the helpful suggestions Shaun and Eric.
Tacking space junk together? I love it. Now if only we can get some zero-gravity manufacturing processes worked out. (Like how does a lathe behave in zero-G)
What about welding techniques? If we could get them to work in zero-gr, without the grace of an atmosphere, things would be golden. (You just need enough solar panels to power an arc-welder) You could even have remotely operated vehicles do all the welds you wanted.
The main hindrance to terraforming will be issues of scale, that and we don't fully understand planets are shaped in the first place (What made Mars from having liquid water, to bone dry and lifeless? for example)
We shall see won't we?
Well then, let's take a look at a company that has been doing some dreaming-Space Island Group. They have some good ideas, but need about a few billion dollars (Or so they say) to make it work.
Now where are you going to find investors who are willing to put down a few billion dollars at a single time? (That's QUITE a bit of money you know)
You simply aren't going to find enough wealthy investors who will look into backing your venture with that sort of cash unless you have at least managed to fly some hardware--or unless the investor is insane.
Already addressed your point.
4) The wishes of the body sponsoring the settlers.
GCNrevenger, of course you can't go from having no experience with Spacecraft to putting a craft in orbit without some steps in between, to do so you would either have to be -improbably lucky- or -bloody stupid-.
So maybe NASA, with a comparitively massive budget compared to NGOs can pull it off, chunking a few people into orbit. What then?
They can inspire the next generation of scientists and dreamers, who inspire the next generation, and so on. They serve to inspire, but very few people actually go anywhere. So they advance the sciences, but we all go around in circles regardless. They lift national spirits, but to what end?
NASA gives us dreams, while NGOs have the potential to give flesh and bone to those dreams. Going suborbital is a way to make yourself less of an investment risk, as a company that can put its money where its metaphorical mouth is will be more likely to attract investors who are willing to lay down a large sum of money.
Oh to be alive in those days. I grew up salivating at the chance to catch a live shuttle launch broadcast on TV, but the stations where I live would always play something more "interesting" like a basketball game.
Give me rockets and exhaust plumes any day over Michael Jordan and the NBA.
Oh well, maybe I can build my own liquid-fueled rocket engine as my senior design project.
As I have seen it, the whole point of the X-prize companies and other companies such as SpaceX and Xcor is to show that it can be done. They aren't interested in sending billion dollar satellites to orbit (At least not yet). The ships they are building are focused on sending people to Low-Earth-Orbit on a "First American in Space" ride. If they demonstrate the capability to send people to LEO at a reasonable cost, do you not think that that would generate demand among space enthusiasts?
Rutan for example, is about a third of way to LEO. And the thing is, he's been using a radically different approach then simply strap rockets onto a capsule (I know it's not that easy). He has built a custom aircraft to carry his custom ship to 50,000 feet. He has the funding of one of the founders of Microsoft for goodness sake.
And if any of you doubt his aircraft-building capabilities, check out their website and see what sort of hardware Scaled has gotten to fly.
I don't see Armadillo succeeding before Scaled, or Starchaser, although their design approach is most impressive.
And maybe, just maybe, a private craft reaching LEO will be a big wake-up call to NASA.
Exciting stuff really.
Well gee...if one of the purported reasons for colonizing and possibly terraforming Mars in the first place is to get humanity on a 2nd world in case *this one* gets demolished by a meteor, why bother only to take another means (potential) of self-destruction to Mars?
And since when have nuclear weapons -solved- problems? Maybe you'll say they've prevented all-out nuclear war so far. Thing is, nuclear war wouldn't even be a consideration in the first place IF there were no nuclear weapons to begin with. But despite the fact that we are at this point now (have been for nearly 6 decades already), I must say it seems insane to -deliberately- seek to repeat mistakes on another planet.
Does "just because" rule? How much social conditioning are we willing to take to Mars with us? We -can't- alter our behavior in some ways? We can't try?
Some future: Potential mushroom clouds on -two- planets.
--Cindy
P.S.: Not to confuse use of nuclear *energy* for beneficial and constructive means (transportation, utilities resource, etc.) with nuclear *weapons*.
Cindy, potential future: People killing people on -two- planets.
You can try to alter human behavior if you want, but disarming people isn't going to change the fact that sometimes they kill each other.
So maybe World War III would have fought across the fields of Europe, Alaska, Russia and Canada with Machine guns, rockets, and ballistic missiles (Non-nuclear warheads, maybe chemical or biological) instead of being a "Cold War." Who knows?
The fact remains that nuclear weapons are directly responsible for far less deaths than other more conventional conventional weapons such as the lowly firearm.
The only (potential) means of self-destruction that we need lies within the heart of man.
Prepare for ET to be hostile, and hope for the best.
If Mars once had oceans of liquid/solid water, as recent findings suggest, then there must have been something that caused the planet to dry out and lose the atmosphere that allowed liquid water to exist.
Was it a gradual process, or an abrupt process that caused this change? How did Mars lose its atmosphere? Personally, I favor an abrupt, widespread process.
The reddish oxides covering the planet suggests to me that the process involved bombardment of the planet with meteorites. Mind you, I do not think that these were the huge things of "Deep Impact" or "Armageddon."
They were likely smaller meteorites, just large enough to slam into the ground and kick up lots of dust which then interacted with the Oxygen.
Perhaps Phobos and Deimos are remnants of larger bodies that were captured by Mars' gravity. The reason I ask this is that large bodies orbiting a planet could conceivably collide and shatter, raining pieces of themselves upon the Martian surface.
Once we understand how Mars became the dry, thin-atmosphered world it is today, we can better understand how to live on it and eventually terraform it.
Houseplants.
Actually, I think the scariest thing to find out would be that there is life out there--and it wants to wipe us out.
I mean, what if we meet a race of organisms who has concluded that compassion/trying to understand the other fellow's point of view is a characteristic posessed only by organisms who are an evolutionary dead-end. Thus, they decide it would be alright if they colonized Earth--with its massive quantities of water, without any regard for the 8 billion tailess monkies living there.
Immediatly, humanity is run over by wave after wave of armed colonists. Thus, we become victims of natural selection.
In the interest of my race's survival, I am a firm supporter of stepping out into the Cosmos both well-armed & dangerous.
How about this: You have a large circular goal at either end of the ET. Each team is comprised of three players, one of which is a goalie. Line the playing field with velcro fiber. However, place inflatable hand-holds in a random pattern around the inside of the velcro.
Have a computer inflate and deflate these hand-holds randomly, but at regular intervals.
Players are not allowed to grapple or hit with clenched fists, using open palms they must hit, kick, head, and whatever-part-of-the-body-you-can-strike-a-ball-with to place the ball in the opposing team's goal.
With regards to the government of Mars, I say let political and technological selection do the work. The government structure of any Mars colonies will have to respond to situations and dilemmas that no Terran governments will ever had to deal with.
So the governmental structure and laws of Mars will depend on a few things such as:
1) The ideals, traditions, and personal choices of the initial settlers of a colony.
2) Unique hardships/issues that the initials settlers must deal with.
3) The political heritage of the settlers
4) The wishes of the body sponsoring the settlers.
Predetermining a form for Martian governments to follow inhibits the ability of the governed to govern themselves.
Speaking of what-ifs, I understand that we as humans will carry our problems with us when we leave this lovely piece of land. So why not carry along all the proven means for solving those problems?
Interestingly enough, I read an article somewhere about the US military being interested in strategic bombers that could reach LEO, as well as transports for rapid troop insertion.
Now here's a question for the non-US posters: Is your nation's military interested in this sort of thing--military applications of space?