New Mars Forums

An interesting point Helo, however I am not sure that the concerns you have pointed out will neccessarily manifest themselves in a Manned mission to mars. While your perspective should be considered, the differences between your experiences and a space voyage are, well, worlds apart.

You work with a group of proffessionals chosen for their abilities and experience- how much psychological profiling and evaluation takes place in your work environment? Do you think it could compare with the psychological check-out any potential Mars-naut would go through prior to launch? During transit?  Furthermore, any and all canadities are chosen well before the launch date- which allows for a team to be assembled- meaning that personality conflicts can be worked through prior to launch.  It's not like everyone is going to show up on the launch pad and say, " Nice to meet ya! Let's go to Mars!"

While your personal experience explains volumes of what may confront astronauts living in such confined situations- shouldn't we consider the evidence of nuclear submarines and their crew? The crew are subjected to 6-9 months at a time of isolation. You have crew compliments of several hundred on these ships- yet the "insanity" is kept in check.

This issue of allowing astronauts to choose their team is nice, but ultimetly untenable. The goal of the mission is science- it is to learn as much as possible. We will be sending professionals, and as professionals, they must put aside any differences to succeed in the goal of the mission. Allowing the Mars team to choose it's memebers could mean that less qualified, but more "personable" people go to Mars- this isn't a hay ride with our friends, and the people who go to mars shouldn't get to go based on some popularity contest.

As long as they can get along well enough with others to get the job done is the only requirement that should be set. I don't like everyone I work with, yet I understand that the same people I do not like are integral to the job- so I deal with it.

Helo, could many of the problems you have encountered be the result of a little too much time on your hands? Astronauts drinking in space? that's simply absurd- crew is drunk, meteroite breaches hull, crew dies. There will be very very little free-time for any space trip, and you know the old saying, idle hands are the devils play thing.

A society of sycophants? Hero worship aside, is this really a credible reason to instutite a form of government that is predicated on a master-slave relationship? While I may be able to accept the rationale that individuals may wish for a "shining leader" while they become acclamated to Mars, isn't it a bit of a jump to instutite this desire as the means to enact public policy?

So you would have a society that violently changes administartions? In the system you are suggesting, dissent from the Exeutive, ie the Monarch, is made through usurption of the crown by another who will make the populace more content- wouldn't the wiser course be to instuttite a system whereby people can peacefully affect a change without having to resort to physical force?

So you assume that future monarchs might learn something from the historical precedents of their peers- why should that be? The history of monarchs stretches for millenia- yet we see the same corruption and despotism develop time and time again. Shouldn't we demonstrate our knowledge of previous experiences by avoiding systems that are historically unstable?

Who is a better judge of what is needed by you, you, or someone else?If we are all human, and all equal (more or less) in capabilities, how is the wisdom of a titled individual more correct than your own?

Yet not ALL positions within society are open to everyone- there can be no equality in this system. How would you feel about living in a society where you can be anything you want except a Doctor. Anything you want but that, does that system sound fair? What about a system where you can be anything excepot an Artist- no matter how talented you are, you can never be that. Most individuals would not settle for that situation, how is this one any different?

No, they were not. The peasants were slaves to the Czar. All that they owned ultimelty belonged to him. If the Czar made a decree that they must gove up their wealth to him, they had no choice but to comply. A slave can own nothing, just as the peasants never really owned anything.

Isn't this a bit of overgeneralization?

Why not? Look at the system they lived in- One man made the rules, and enforced them. At no time do the peasants really have a voice in what happens to them, or how. The peasants are forced into a position of living solely off the mercy and compasion of the Czar- in the hopes that he might dain to ease their suffering- yet at no time can they expect him to.

There was no "abolition of slavery". there was only an exchange of masters. Instead of many individuals having slaves, there was only ONE individual having slaves- that is the change- yet the slavery still exsists.

Poor does not equate with lazy as many of your statements imply. There are many reasons why someone can be poor that have nothing to do with their work ethic.

What do you call a man with ANY master?

No, in a democracy all people decide together what is the best course of action, and what the majority decides is instutited- we all agree to abide by the general consensus- we are following our own dictates in a democracy.

Now, in a Republic, WE choose who will represent our views and interests- these individuals will answer to US, so they can make the rules, but there is a peaceful way to demonstrate our approval or disapproval with their conduct- no such means exsist in a Monarchy. Yes, we follow the orders of our government, but in effect we are merely following our own self imposed agreements. We are the masters of ourselves.

And if the peasants are unable to overthrow the Czar? What then? Are you condemning them to a life of servitute with no hope of ever breaking free from the slavery? The system you discuss is built on this idea of "overthrowing" the government when it no longer makes the people happy- what if the people are unhappy and still unable to overthrow the government?

If it was so perfect, why would they have a revolution?

Not the Czar's fault? Wasn't he in charge? If the Czar is the one running the show, making the laws, enforcing the rules- dosen't it neccessarily mean everything is his fault?

And the fact that the workers revolution happened there first is meaningless- if the system was near perfection, it should have been able to cope with a change in the social environment. The fact that it wasn't able to deal effectively is the sign that the system was not as perfect as may have seemed.

They were tired of working themselves to death. They were tired of the endless wars they were forced to fight in. They had no right to speak their point of view. So you might say they were tired of being slaves. How can you be a slave and not be oppresed?

So apparently "writing a letter to the Czar" was not enough. Go figure.

Just a passing thought: Imagine the person you hate most in the world. Imagine having to ask them for anything and everything you need in life. Imagine that you have to bow to this personn everytime they enter, and everytime they leave. Imagine having to smile for them, and having to like it. Now imagine them as your King.

If you think you can tolerate the person you hate most deciding your fate, then maybe a monarchy is for you.

Ah, who adds the subtext, the writer or the reader. I think that is what can be so great about a book- the myriad of stories we all can bring to it, which is ultimetly a reflection of ourselves. There are a lot of good stories, but the great ones, I have found, are the ones that actually taught me something about myself.

I understand Adrian's evaluation of the characters in Bova's book, however, when I compare the Bova to KSR, I still would argue that Bova did a better job of letting his characters exsist. Granted, they may have been a bit cliche, the whole Navajo thing made me feel like I was getting my head caved in by some Political Correctness stick.

KSR, great ideas, but again, I couldn't get over the feeling that the characters exsisted solely so KSR's could describe Mars.

Wouldn't this be considered having the government guarante profits?

I guess I question the rationale of utilizing private enterprise, yet not requiring a solid enough business plan that would meet private interest standards for investment- isn't this combining the worst of the two systems? In effect, we would be having the government guarantee a risky business proposal in order to attract the initial investment for the goal. The US assumes the risk, but what does it get in return?

I have NO doubt that having the US guarantee funds for a private attempt at a Mars Mission will attract the neccessary investment- it's a sure thing- either it works, and you make money, or it dosen't and you get your money back.

Call it what you want, but it sure ain't capitalism.

I grant you that medis rights are a potential gold mine, however, that 5.6 billion is not available until you have a product to sell. The product you are offering is coverage of a Mission to Mars. That means you can't sell the product until you are sure you can send someone to mars, and that you are sending someone to Mars. What can you sell prior to the launch? Or are you expecting to issue some kind of bond whihc will be repaid with the expected profits from this mission- again we get back to the issue of risk and return, You must get a large deal of capital up front with a very large risk to the investor- by most accounts it will take several years before we are even ready to light the fuse and go- it is during this time, prior to launch that you need the most funds for the mission- how will this plan generate the neccessary funds prior to a product?

I understand the point, however I was trying to point out that relying on non-governmental funds and agencies might be a long shot at best. One, you have to factor in the cost of either finding suitable organizations to do the work for you, or creating the groups yourself- this adds to the final cost. Next you have to secure the neccessary technical people as well as the neccessary technology that still needs to be developed adn worked out in some cases. None of whihc is guarenteed- which means the business model requirers a commitment of 10-50 billion over ten years with no guareentee of a return of investment. Now you will be competing for this capital with other investment opportunities that offer definite returns with a lot less risk. Maybe you can get people who want to support this endeavour irregardles of the cost- then my next question, do you seriously belive that there is 10-50 billion out there that people will risk becuase of the goal? If you make a plan based on business, then think like a business- right now there is too much risk and not enough return- which neccessitates bringing the government in to reduce the risk, which makes it easier to obtain the capital- but then we are back to my original concern of selling publicly funded science and resources.

I honestly think that the Mars Society could try to get 20 million to buy a spot on the Soyuz and then use that as a prize for a lottery- take the profits to fund the science projects, or send your own sattelite to Mars.

20 million up front, could be easily turned into 100 million dollars if you sold $1 tickets to the Western World. Use the profit to buy more tickets to continue the cycle, and fund some real science or use it to fund a lobby group (a few million can buy quite a few ears in Congress) and to support politcal campaigns that support space exploitation. Again, have the results every three months, and the lottery should be able to generate up into the hundreds of millions each time- you could be looking at half a billion dollars in a single year! Use that for the Mars specfic research you want done, or to offset the actual amount of additional capital you will need to finish a private Mars Mission.

Non-governmental funding implies that a non-governmental organization must be contracted, or created, to organize and proceed with development of a Man to mars mission. Considering that most of the expertise for this venture exsists almost solely in the governmental sector, it will be difficult to go it alone in terms of creating a non-government funded or directed project. If government agencies are utilized, so that it is a mix of private and public funds, there are certain legal and politcal issues that can make the buisness model you are suggesting untenable.

Not a problem if no government funds are used, however, if public funds are used, then how can we justify selling the media rights to anyone? Public funds implies that the resource, in this case the media rights, belong to the public. How can you justify using everyone's money so a few can profit from it? Say we sell the rights to a cable or pay for service provider, you are in effect taking the publicly funded resource and limiting who can have access to it. This in a nut-shell is the problem with mixing government and private funds in my view.

Should we set the precedent that scientific discovery for the betterment of Man is for sale? What does this access mean really? Are we allowing people to BUY the limited return samples that could be used by public educational and research facilities for scientific discovery? Are we setting a precedent that money is our goal for human exploration before science?

Dosen't the medical data ultimely belong to the Astronauts? What about issues of personal privacy? Shouldn't the results be shared with as many people as possible? Once you start "selling access" you are creating a commodity whose value is based on how many people can access the information- the fewer, the more exspensive it becomes- wouldn't this limit scientific research?

Mabye a better question would be to figure out which rocket outfits have the heavy lift capability to do this- if there are only one or two, then what is the incentive for them to pro-rate?

This has possibilities, since this is a passive form of generating funds without compromising scientific endeavours. Taking advertising along for the ride is much different than having advertising pay for the ride.

Here is an idea:

Once ISS is completed to the point where NASA feels confident about letting non-astronauts on board, instutitute a national lottery. One winner is selected for every trip to the ISS on the shuttle. The proceeds can be used to offset the cost of launching th shuttle, as well as maybe paying for othe scientific activities. The lottery acts as a means for EVERYBODY to have a chance to go into space- it reinvigorates the idea of space travel with the general population since it is now at least perceived to be within their reach. It seems regular state lotteries build up into the tens of millions on a weekly basis- now imagine a lottery every three months, with one guareented winner at the end going into space- a dollar a ticket (or whatever) seems a deal-  this model would probably generate more funds than the current $20 mil a pop the russsians charge.

Now, space is made "real" to the average Joe- suddenly it becomes an important topic to more of the general population, which leads to further funding, which can hopefully be used to increase the perception that space is attainable. Also, it sets up the argument that every dollar we spend on NASA, is another dollar that leads to a greater chance for you or I to get into space.

This model also avoids the idea that Space, or even NASA, exsist for a select few- afterall, the shuttle, ISS, and NASA are public domain- we own it, and since it is a very limited resource that many individuals want access to, we let lady luck decide who gets to go first.

Since the shuttle has to go to the ISS anyway, it dosen't matter really if we only sell one ticket or a trillion- we still have to go- but any money generated is a good thing, plus the continual publicity of a lottery- Who Wants to Be the Next Astronaut....

I read both Bova and KSR. I liked Bova's writing style better, he gave life to his characters and then let them play in his imagination. KSR, though, built his characters to serve his imagination- they were merely used as a part of telling his over-arching story.

I liked KSR's ideas, hated his delivery.
I liked Bova's narration, but found his story to less encompassing then KSR.

Thanks for your thoughts Peter. I appreciated your point of view (even if it dosen't come across in the posts).

Dune was okay- I lost complete interest though after reading the sequel though.

The Eden series, by Harry Harrison are great if you like alternate earth stories. In this series it pre-supposes that the meteor that wiped out the dino's missed, and humanity grows up with a sentiant dino that rules the earth through advances in bio-tech.

Haven't head much about the Gravity Rainbow

KSR... nice concept, horrible delivery.

The characters are dry, the dialogue weak- the problem is that the characters exsist solely for KSR to have an imagination driven romp through Mars- nothing wrong with that until Book 2 and 3- at this point you have established characters who apparently operate only to serve whatever plot direction KSR wants- which inevitably leads to characters acting in ways they shouldn't given their experiences or background. Don't get me wrong, I like KSR's ideas- just his writing blows.

Try the Honor Harrington series, by David Weber. - FUN FUN FUN- Start at the begining and work your way through all the series- if you like ONE, you will like them ALL.
Uplift series, by David Brin - Humanity joins the Universe and raises crearures to sentience
Ender series, by Orson Scott Card - his short stories are worthwhile, avoid his fantasy, it's udder crap - Enders Game is by far the best, the rest of the series just gets weaker until Ender's Shadow (which dosen't have to be read in order)
Beggars series, by Nancy Kress - phenomenal series dealing with advances in gentics, and the changes in humanity
Riverworld series, by Philip Jos? Farmer - everyone who ever died is brought back to life along a River that wraps around the entire world- bizarre and GREAT.
The Mote in God's Eye is a fun read.
1984 is a personal favorite, as well as A Brave New World- definite must read as the issues rasied in BOTH books are dealing with the science we enjoy today, or soon will
How about a shout out for Bradbury?

If you're interested in trying some decidely non-SF, try Choke by Chuck Palahnuiuk- you will not be disappointed. And if you need more of a recommendation, this is the guy who wrote Fight Club, which was THEN made into a movie. The man rocks, and his writing is exceptional.

I don't suppose you could provide examples that might better illustrate your point.

In those "instances" where such an event takes place, we will be discussing communities that identified their "belief" as an integral part of the community- the "belief" in a sense, served to define the group. In those instances, community survival is linked to "belief" survival. To seperate the two would only serve to destroy the community anyways.

A more accurate statement, perhaps:

Interestingly enough, it would seem that history is full of stories of communities that LINKED their religious convictions TO community survival.

This statement, and this reality, only furthers to illustrate my overall point that Society looks to its long term survival- what they deem neccessary and important to that survival is ultimetly a question answered by themselves, as a group.