Posts by clark

clark · Human missions

The report you linked to was from 98- more up to date reports exsist whihc show that the poles are carbon dioxide ice, not water ice. They assumed that it was water, then had susequent findings whihc showed that there was no water ice. Anything more up to date than that which clearly establishes your original claim?

clark · Human missions

Source: http://ltpwww.gsfc.nasa.gov/tharsis/agu_f98.html

You are refrencing a 98 study- we have more up to date studies which state that the polar caps are composed primarily of carbon dioxide.

clark · Human missions

First of all, we know for certain water exists in extremely large quantities on the poles.

We do!? Well then, I guess these reports regarding the poles being made up of Carbon Dioxide Ice is full of it. So please, tell us what NASA dosen't know- where the water is, and how much there is.

www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/12/10/snows.of.mars.ap/
www.nature.com/nsu/011213/011213-1.html

Secondly, I said that ?Odyssey should help us determine where the best facilities should be set up.? The poles are not the only place to go.

Well, considering that we don't know where ANY water is on Mars, let alone how much there is, wouldn't it make sense to set up a base near the likeliest place water MIGHT be found? Wouldn't it also make sense to locate the base near local supplies of water since any breakdown in the transportation of the water leads to death.

As for the moon- Clementine has already mapped out many places where water can be found.

Why didn't you address the comment about fuel being made from atmoshpere?

Why haven't you addressed several of my previous questions? I didn't address it specfically becuase it is a moot point- your plan for mars as a propellant factory requires untested technology and finished machinery to produce the fuel- all of which requires time and money- the moon is in the same boat- doing either will not be easy, both are equally hard so I suggest we drop it unless you have specfic numbers that demonstrate how it is easier to produce fuel on Mars versus the moon.

Ask me that in a few months when we have solid data from Odyssey. The poles are certainly a good candidate at the momment, but there are 300 square kilometers of water ice there.

Please educate me, where exactly did you learn that the martian poles contain 300 square kilometers of WATER-ICE?

The moon is just as far away from an experience point of view. And I don't hear anyone ranting and raving about the moon, clark. Except people who can't provide evidence of large easy to obtain deposits there.

The moon and Mars are not the same from an experience point of view- Mars requires a solution for long term exsposure to zero-g. Mars requires solutions to long term exsposure to radiation in space. Mars requires more experience in aero-braking, landing, and lift-off on planetary bodies with atmospheres. Mars requires a long term sustainable bio-regenerative system. Mars requires planning and saftey measures that take into account resupply and recovery efforts that must deal with a 2 year window.

The moon is closer, and is more leniant on the learning curve. Try dealing with these issues.

Look, when people are going to the moon, people will be going to Mars, can you accept that little axiom?

No, when people are ready for the moon, they will almost be ready for Mars. Better to think of the Moon as a test run for an eventual Human to Mars mission.

Yes, and while you're using relatively the same ammount of energy to get to the moon, people will be going to Mars. Except people will have a #### of a lot easier time on Mars since they have plenty of water to work with. In large deposits. Not in the shade. And not in hundreds of tonnes of material.

I still doubt your water assertion. People on the moon will also have access to more support from Earth, allowing for faster development, thus overcoming any handicaps involved with building a sustained presence on the moon. What will you have on Mars? A couple of people too busy looking at rocks.

With Mars there's the whole, search for life thing. And the whole pioneer thing. The whole new civilization thing. But we're forgetting that.

Search for life? Then shouldn't a more cautious approach be used to ensure there is no contaimination from earth to mars? As for the "pioneer"- bah, prove it. New civilization? You don't need mars for that- come on, you're up on your philosphy Josh, you know this is a silly argument.

A moon base would be better off controlled remotely. Hmm, that's a nice idea actually, I'll look into that. No need for silly facilities to hold humans that really don't need to be there.

And that in a nutshell is why humans to mars will never be more than a scientific outpost- humans don't need to be there.

I'm starting to wonder if you really know anything about todays technology.

I'll give that evaluation more credit once you establish you know what you are talking about- ie water on mars.

As long as the system was contained we wouldn't require outside resources. Biological systems recycle naturally, we just have to design our mechanical systems (which could have biological integration, especially for waste reclamation) to also recycle. Not a bad idea really, since waste is inefficiency.

A completely contained system...well, that's all were missing... {sarcasm}. You question me on technology and then you proceed to reduce a massive technological hurdle to just a few "this and that's". Read up on Biodome 1 & 2 and then do some more research on the state (and hurdles) that currently face our bio-regenerative systems and the problems with maintaing truely "contained" systems.

Callous attitude? Did you even read what I said? I don't think you're interpreting my statements properly. That was sarcasm, clark, you'll be surprised to see how compassionate I am when I dig into your ridiculous defenses of genocide.

I noted your sarcasm, I just wonder why you choose to make dergatory stero-types about other people...is that really an effective way to communicate?

They have a job to do and orders to take. You should remind yourself that this war was an air war for the most part. I won't address the rest of your comments, simply because they're too one sided (and I don't have time).

You should remind YOURSELF that American men and women are risking, and losing their lives for their beliefs. Wether or not you agree with American policies, wether or not you agree with those who must fight is beside the point- calling the war a "cowards war" implicates them as "cowards".

(But I don't see how ?Israel? is giving me all these nice things you're listing. And I don't have electricity because my government bombs an innocent person in some third world country.)

Okay Josh, try this: Electricity is made by generators. Generators produce electrcity by heating water into steam. We are able to make steam through our use of fire. We are able to maintain our fires with [DRUM ROLL] OIL. Where does the majority of our OIL come from? Whom do we depend on in that region of the world to maintain stability and act as a force projection? Next time you turn on your lights, thank god for the US military and our continued support of Isreal which allows us to maintain defacto control and influence over oil supplies- which we depend on to maintain our way of life.

If you would like, I can draw you a map on how everything else you take for granted is the result of US superiority which is enforced by our economic strength and ensured by our military superiority. All so you can have cheap food and cheap products.

If you think, for one minute, that Afghanistan is going to be peaceful, then you are more ignorant than you claim I am.

I did say "relative" peace, please try to read my posts before replying.

The ammount of lost lives was comparable to 11 World Trade Center attacks population-wise. And more and more are dying each and every day. So really, I don't know where your compassion is here. You know what we've sucessfully done, clark? Pissed them off.

The loss of life is truly atragedy, as I have stated before. War is messy, deal with it. Would you rather 11 more attacks occured on US soil? You want to know what we have done for them? We have given them their country back. We have ousted fundamentalist religous rulers who oppresed minorites and women. We have also arranged to help rebuild a country devastated from 20 years of war and civil war.

What rock have you been sleeping under? It's a well known fact that the US has and does support terrorist activity abroad.

I await the "website".

clark · Human missions

Perhaps you mean the thousands of families that we have destroyed (their family members have been killed) from both direct and indirect (in the case where food has stopped) effects of the bombing. America respects human life... except when its not American.

Or perhaps the millions of Afghanistan's that can now return to relative peace. Or the millions that were tortured, oppresed, and subjugated by an oppresive interpertation of religious text enforced by abunch of bandits.

Am I sorry that innocent people died in Afghanistan, yes- as a human being we should all be saddened. Am I sorry that there were few (if any) alternatives other than military force to restore OUR security, yes. SHould we have done it differently, no. Weep for those who lost their lives unjustly- we can make ammends by supporting the Afghanistan people and help rebuild their shattered country- however, do not neglect the fact that the amount of innocent life lost was minimal and that the US went to great lengths to ensure that innocent people were not killed.

That was a completely different situation. In the war with the Soviets, Afghanistan had ample help from the West, which often took the form of installing the very kinds of terrorist organizations and their activities which have now attacked the USA in the form of Al-Queda. Now our actions have backfired horribly.

Which actions have backfired? Do you know why we intervened in Afghanistan in the first place? Are you aware of our actions prior, during, and after the Soviet occupation? What evidence is there that supports your rather unfounded claim that the US installed terroist organizations in Afghanistan?

clark · Human missions

Can you provide evidence for deposits that aren't spread over hundreds of square kilometers? Basically, water exists in the ?shade? and frankly, that doesn't answer anything.

Water exsists on the moon in a quanitiy sufficient for human use, end of story. All the supposition regarding water on Mars is based on one big educated guess, so spare me this drivel.

The hydrogen could be taken from any of the many many deposits that exist on Mars. Odyssey will determine where the best facilities should be set up. Can you tell us where the best facilities should be set up on the Moon? Let me guess, ?somewhere near the poles in the shades.? That's good.

Where the 'hydrogen' is on Mars? Somewhere near the poles I would imagine. Let me guess, set up a base near the martian poles, that's good.

Or Earth... 24/7/365.

I fail to see your point- you make a snide remark to my comment that is related to the value of a "gas station" on mars versus one on the moon. In order to reduce launch costs, it behooves all space proponents to push for development of luna as a propellant facility.

Like it or not, most human endeavors in space will originate from Earth-as such, we derive the most value from anything that increases our ability to access space from earth- the moon does more for us in this regard than mars ever will.

You still have to escape Earths gravity, clark, nothing is free. All of your rail launched material will go into orbit around Earth. I can see sending things to Earth using a rail launcher, however, most resources are more valuable locally, so these rails may only be good for human transport.

Hmmm, a cheap way to send material into LEO...where most human activity takes place....
We can escape earth's gravity- it becomes harder, and more exspensive to break into GEO and beyond- a moon with a rail launcher to launch fuel and other supplies makes it much easier and cheaper to get where ever we wish to go. that is the point.

You are speaking about an unknown, based on unknown formulas. Do you want me to argue your guess? [martian colony attaining self-sufficency in several generations]

Yes. Take the most optimitic estimate using today's technology and you will find that 'self-sufficiency' is not a practical goal. We hav much more to learn.

Yeah, who says it has to be based on biology? A biodome can exist without an ?ecosystem.? The biodomes you speak of failed because there was ?unnatural intervention.? We are good with hydroponics. We are good with air oxygenation. We are good with water recycling. So stop thinking an ecosystem with flowers, and birds and bugs, and all that nature crap is necessary.

Then you will never have a truly self-replenshing system- you will never achieve self-sufficency. Using a more mechanical and human guided system is more practical, however, it requries constant maintainence and requires constant fuel (ie nitrogen, hydrogen, other assorted minerals, etc) You thus become dependant upon outside sources for maintaing life.

Yes, a corporate venture that really doesn't pertain to the goals of the Mars Society.

Yet a statement that pertains to a direct question posed by another person... my point is valid, my statement correct- why are you making an irrelevant comment between me and another person?

What about a little man in a turbin oppresses you? Or were you talking about our oppression of foreigners?

A little man in a turbin? Your belittling attitude and disrespectful sterotype is disgusting. Do you call the people in Africa, little Sambo men? Do you call native americans, little In-gines? Maybe you didn't mean it, however, your callous attitude regarding deragotary names demonstrates your own ignorance and is an embarassment for all americans.

Um, this was a cowards war.

Spoken from behind a PC in a fat land. I'm sure the American soldiers on the ground would agree with your assesment. I'm sure the fallen soldiers families would also agree with your assesment. I'm sure the people liberated from Taliban rule would all agree with you.

People who fight for their beliefs- who die for their beliefs are not cowards. Your statements and assertions are without any basis and are merely ignorant opinions.

Do you even know the state of Afghanistan before we even attacked? It was a piece of cake, my friend. .

Yes, I do. I also know that Afghanistan has managed to mangle the British and the Soviet army so badly that they were both forced to retreat in defeat.

The losses we have had are actually pathetic, considering the simplicity of the attacks. It was a ?blow everything up? scenerio.

This isn't some video game, stop treating it as such. It is a war. People die, innocent and guilty alike. It is a sad state of affairs that we have had to take such measures. You talk about "simplicity of the attacks" without regard to the people that these attacks affect. This is not surgery, this is not clean. Little children maimed is not simple. Our men and women, fighting over there- risking their lives is not simple. To have you reduce all of their contributions and all of their sacrifice is insulting.

About maintaining our military... don't forget Israel's, among others.

Do you really want to start in on this? Maybe you should shut up and take a good look at who you are and where you live before you get on your high horse. Do you drive? Do you like cheap consumer electronics? Do you enjoy affordable food? Do you enjoy your liberties? Do you enjoy your 13 million chanells of television? Do you enjoy all of those PC games? Do you enjoy flipping a switch and having power? Do you enjoy picking up a phone and being able to connect with almost anyone you know? Do you like you clean water? Do you like the relative saftey of your home?

We maintain other militaries and out own for the sole purpose of maintaing OUR way of life. That is, and whas, governed ALL of our governments actions. Can it be done differently, yes, would it be as effective, no one knows.

clark · Human missions

To robcwillis,

You suggest that most payloads delivered to the Moon will not have to be soft-landed. I myself don't know the precise earth escape velocity required to achieve TLI, but exactly what kind of equipment payloads (let alone transport spacecraft) are supposed to survive crashing into the lunar surface at several thousand km/h?

I'm sure minimum trajectories can be configured to allow for gravity captures from earth to moon to reduce the amount of fuel used- in other words, instead of doing an aerobrake, we utilize the gravity of mars to pull objects within it's orbit. Is it hard to imagine recieving facilities near the moon to facilitate this?

Perhaps ingots of iron ore might hold up, but I doubt much in the way of high-tech Moon operations gear would arrive in a useable state.

You are speaking about an unknown, based on unknown formulas. Do you want me to argue your guess?

You have countered that transport costs from the surface of Mars are inherently greater than from the Moon. Wrong again. Obviously Mars has higher gravity, but our old friend the Martian atmosphere more than compensates for this.

So you would like me to accept that Mars, with antompshere, and more gravity is cheaper to launch from than the moon- which has no atmosphere, and has little gravity? Atmosphere creates drag, which means you need more fuel to break into orbit- more gravity means you need more fuel to reach orbit- more fuel means greater costs.

I challenge you to suggest exactly how a lunar lander is supposed to scoop up moon rocks and make anything at all.

H20, which is KNOWN to be on the moon can be converted into rocket fuel.

I suppose the hundreds of billions of dollars it could cost to establish the mining and processing infrastructure needed to support lunar in-situ propellant production has not figured into your calculations.

One, "hundreds of billions" is a pessimitic opinion offered by only you without any type of reasoning provided for that obviously biased estimate. Two, the Mars Society plan is centered around similar lines- building propellant on site, so if it costs a lot on the moon, it will neccessarily cost a good deal on Mars, so I fail to see what point you are trying to make regarding the ultimate cost. Three, a gas station on the moon does more to serve space exploration than a gas station on Mars would.

If we have to spend the dough, dosen't it make more sense to build the infastructure where it will do the most good and provide us the greatest flexibility in space exploration? The moon at three days...or Mars, at 8 months every 2 years...

If you are willing to make an investment on this scale, a "beanstalk" type elevator to low orbit prior to boost by rotating tether could work both for the Moon and Mars.

Cost of shipping from the moon can be greatly reduced (without a beanstalk) using magnetic rail launchers. Thus you could turn the moon into a manufacturing center- rail launch finsihed goods, crash land raw material onto the surface for collection...

Any such projects will be cheaper and easier to achieve on Mars because far less effort is needed to make a Martian colony self sufficient in both labor and materials.

Keep talking about self-sufficency... A Martian colony will not attain self-sufficency for several generations, so it is meaningless to talk about how mars places us in a better position. We haven't a clue on making REAL closed bio-regenerative system- until that moment, any argument about "self-sufficency" is bull. Then there is all of the "other" stuff we take for granted here on Earth- which we depend on to maintain self-sufficency- all of that has to be done over in space. It takes time, a lot of time- and the labor involved in building in vacum and near vacum is the same, so spare me you rhetoric.

Oceans and a breathable atmosphere are very appealing, but inflatable greenhouses should do nicely for now.

Yeah, too bad we can't make the "mini-world" bubble last for any appreciable amount of time. Look into the research into bio-dome 1 & 2 to see where that went. It seems self regulating systems require a large enough system to be flexible to small variations- smaller systems don't seem to have enough critical mass to maintain equilibrium.

If any of the Moon First claims for near future economic potential were even slightly sane, some consortium of giant multinational corporations would already be working along those lines.

Actually, there are several- hotels, toruism, mineral extraction, power produiction, etc...

I do, however, strongly agree with the critically important point made about military spending in a previous post. Diverting just a tiny proportion of the current $300 BILLION A YEAR currently being squandered on U.S. "defense" related expenditures would allow for large scale simultaneous near term Mars and Moon related endeavors.

While I agree in principal that much of our US tax dollars are wasted, I would hardly consider our expenditures in Defense to be "squandered". I suppose we could have our pilots fly vintage WW2 airplanes- that might free up some funds. Maybe we could have our army men pay for their own weapons- would that be acceptable? Or would you prefer for America to disolve it's highly equipped, highly trained, and highly effective military and not worry about world affairs or foreign oppresion? After all, slapping a rocket on your butt is a dollar well spent versus that same dollar protecting your freedoms...

Everyone thinks that money should be spent here in lieu of there- unless you have a specfic gripe, you waste air.

Unfortunately, the greatest intellectual visionaries of our time (George Dubya and Co.) say they must have, for example, several hundred F-22 Raptors. I suppose these are needed to replace the massive losses inflicted by the mighty Iraqi Air Force.

Your sarcasm betrays you- what's the reason we have so few losses? Could it be our unrelenting dedication to maintaing our military? Maybe...just maybe.

clark · Human missions

The Economic Case for Mars seems pretty hopeless at this time. Yes, in this, you are right.

If Mars has no economic value, and if we accept that economics is what drives expansion, then we will not expand towards mars.

The Moon is similiar in this respect.

Umm, no- it has no deep gravity well. That's what screws things up on Mars- gravity.

What could you launch to the Moon that would hope to make a profit?

Space based telescopes, medical research, fuel production for use in LEO & GEO or deep space missions, water, oxygen, space based power generation for LEO or GEO infrastructure, special alloys, zero-g crystals, tourism.

A very strategic long-term economic move by any of the three major powers on Earth today would be to launch a program for utilizing space resources.

There is only one major power, and that's the US. There is only one major power that would be able to pull off an independant move like you suggest, and that's the US. Any development in space by other powers will be co-opted by the US under the guise of "international partnerships" or met with a direct challenge by developing means to undermine any economic advantage sought by developing or exploiting space.

In short, the power which first masters space will rule the world (unless two or more powers master it concurrently, which seems likely, considering that world powers generally do consider thier own survival when making descisions).

It takes a bit more than space to rule this world. States look to gain technological edges in key industries that are linked to high profitability- first world countries move away from heavy manufacture of TV's to highly specialized industries like semi-conductors, aerospace engineering, fusion production, etc. States further maintain their power through military, economic and politcal manuvering- space would only be another avenue, but it remains to be seen if true economic or military benefits can be achieved in space.

The Moon has resources, true. But they really aren't the kind of resources that make a government get excited.

Yeah, He3, H20, O2, iron, etc- basic components that can be used to make anything like rocket fuel or air for breathing...real boring and uninteresting stuff... Come on, free water in space is like gold.

You advocate using lunar materials for a long term program of exploration-- but exploration of what? Naturally, if the Moon is just helping explore this "what", then the "what" is the real focus of space exploration.

How about we use lunar resources for FURTHER exploration of space. Exploration of space, in and of itself,is beneficial to humans becuase it gives us a better understanding of how the universe works. I advocate that the moon is the NEXT step- not Mars.

The "what" is the asteroid belt.

No, it is not.

clark · Martian Politics and Economy

But it's not just based on our releatively recent technological advancement (considering the history of the human race), we're talking about millennia of humans using tools and such. It really is our nature to apply knowledge in a practical and useful way (which is the raw definition of technology).

Well, we ARE a tool making species- and given that evolution favored the "smarter" monkey this isn't much of a surprise. However, evolution favored a tool making mokey that used tools to further survival- which is the search for neccessary resources to further our own lives and genes. So really, our nature is to apply knowledge in practical and useful ways that further our own survival and improves our ability to keep or get resources- technology has only made us more efficient and deadlier- not better.

Well, Hellen Keller said, ?No pessimist ever discovered the secrets of the stars, or sailed to an uncharted land, or opened a new heaven to the human spirit.?

Nether did the optimist- the realist beat them both out.

However, it would be pure melancholy to think of knowledge as a thing that destroys itself, if one has the knowledge to blow themselves up, one must also have the knowledge to know that they're capable of blowing themselves up.

You would think so wouldn't you- however, I am reminded of an anecdote. Scientists working on the Manhattan Project during world war 2 didn't know if the A-Bomb would be a limited explosion, or if it would cause a chain reaction in the atmosphere and burn off all of the atmosphere... Look no further than a five year old to understand how the human mind works- we touch, try, experiment...then learn.

I'm not going to discredit the human race because they have the knowledge to blow
themselves up! I'm going to assume that they can coexist with knowledge, because if they can't, there is nothing to discuss.

Why do you assume that we can coexsist with knowledge when all science and technology has been used to further out ability to destroy?

Another ?inevetiblity?? [communism]

Marx seems to think so... and given the direction of global capitalism, growing disparity in standard of living between third and first world nations, further automation of basic labor, shrinking middle class... I am inclined to believe that a prolaterian revolution (the kind Marx really envisoned) is an eventuallity if current global trends continue unabated.

Exactly what about is it about ?limitless resources? that impedes any of this? I think you fail to recognize that once conditions are equal for all, most of the ?problems? our society face are easily fixed.

I recognize your point, and I conceed that given "limitless resources" that many of our social ailments will be alleviated- however I am trying to point out that not all resources are, or can be limitless. There isn't a limitless supply of beach front property. There isn't a limitless supply of quality education. There isn't a limitless supply of tickets to a concert, etc...

For example, most problems faced by police officers are domestic, that is, they can be solved by a neighbor or a friend just as easily as a police officer. The problems that require more force are caused by class struggle not civil disputes.

Murder, rape, arson, fraud, smuggling, slander, libel, child pornography, assault and battery, disorderly conduct, drunk in public, speeding.... you're telling me things like this are the result of class struggle, or are these things that "neighbors" can deal with effectively and uniformily?

God knows I wouldn't trust a person to give me a heart transplant when an AI could do it with unheard of precision.

Everyone has a personal prefrence, more power to you. But just because a machine does something, that does not neccessarily make that something inherently superior to what a human can do.

What more can one get once they reach self actualization?

Self-actualization is an on-going process- you can never "reach" it in the classic sense- like reaching a state of nirvana, it comes and goes depending.

You'd have to reach self actualization in a highly technoligcal world, or you'd explode in a ball of insanity.

Self-actualization is not a requirement for life- it is a philosphical understanding of motivation/drive.

The point of sharing capital is to keep it in a constant state of production, perhaps you can go on forever acquiring more and more yourself, but growth would be more distributed (and thus better) had everyone who had the capablity to use your capital used it for their own means.

But once again, why should I assume all the risk for someone else to recieve all the gain? It's not a matter of greed here, it is basic common sense. I have something, why should I risk that something for someone else if there is no direct benefit to me?

And I am also struck by the fact that a similar process is already in place- it's called a bank! I leave my money in a bank (money is a representation of work, or resources). The bank then promises to protect my resources and give me a small return on leaving my money (resources) with them. They then in turn allow other people to use my money (resources) to buy houses, cars, go to school, etc.- for a fee. The bank assumes the risk, yet gains control of my resources and uses them to help others build there own capital- which they do by borrowing from the bank and paying the bank back what they took plus some- the bank then pays me and takes what's left over. But at least in this system, there is an incentive to allow people to lend- in the model you suggest, it is flat out stupid. I don't think I am misunderstanding- the foundation upon which this theory rests is untenable and dosen't answer enough questions.

But anyway, you confuse proprietor with producer, so your arguments are invalid.

How am I confused?

clark · Human missions

Yes, you have, but you are too stubborn to accept them.

No, you're too stuborn to realize how unrealistic much of what is proposed truly is. After you're done building grand schemes built on long term investment for payoffs that are seen hundreds of years in the future, you will realize how untenable much of what is offered as "solutions". Take any proposal, accept that it is "do-able". Now, ask what it takes to achieve that- terraformation? What does it take to do that? What would be the minumum requirement? What has to happen or change inn order for it too be achieved? Etc...

That's what I mean Alex- I believe that many of the suggestions are possible, they just aren't practical or realistic. If we lived in a dream world of wishs then you can have a your self-sufficient mars colony- but the reality is that you can't due to technological hurdles that we have only begun to understand or economic paralysis caused by the very fact that the scale of investment and the antcipated payoff is not enough of a justification to divert capital.

Crying about how mars makes economic sense when it clearly dosen't won't get you closer. Mars right now is a pipe dream- the moon is a realistic and tangible goal that furthers the goals of the mars society. Those who support humans to mars need to face facts- we are not ready to go to mars yet. We are ready to go to the moon- and by doing so, it enables us to get to Mars safer, easier, and cheaper.

A better option is called "doing it here".

Not in space- anything that can possibly be automated should be- every human in space is a liability and an extra cost. You don't need a doctor, you need a doctor's skill. One doctor able to operate in multiple areas improves efficiency and reduces overhead- having one doctor in each crerates unnessarry duplication.

Yes, a fraction of the cost, but a fraction which happens to be above unity. Yes, a great deal of scientific return, but nothing like we would find on Mars.

If it is cheaper that means we have more resources to do more science- so there is a net gain. And which has more valuable science is only a matter of opinion.

#### it, Clark, I'm going to get you the exact point at which it becomes cheaper to refuel at Luna (assuming certian factors) if its the last thing I do (it is a good excercise for me), but unfortunately I don't have my equations on hand at the moment (I lost my book a few days ago).

I wait in anticipation.

However, the point should be in the neighborhood of 2-3 AU, varying slightly with the eccentricity and inclination of the target orbit (most asteroids have fairly circular orbits).

Well, if a high school student in new jersey says so, then it must be... do the math and give me some numbers to support your claim.

clark · Human missions

NIFT + Cyclers

You responded with the previous statement in response to my claim that the cost of shipping from mars is cost-prohibitive. One, you don't explain how this system would make shipping from Mars cheap and affordable. Two, what is NIFT- you should try to be more clear whith your abbreviations. Three, you seem to be completely disregarding the cost associated with operating cyclers in space (how do you maintain them), as well as cost of launching from mars to mars orbit, the cost of deorbiting into earth atmosphere, etc.

If the planet was made of gold, that would be a minus, not a plus, because you couldn't support a human population on the surface...

You are purposely missing the point of the statement.

In the long run, a self supporting human base will always be able to launch cheaper missions than sending them from Earth.

i agree, however- I have yet to see a way for mars to become self-supporting. It has nothing of real value to earth so the neccessary capital for investment will never appear. Even if the intial start-up capital was provided, it dosen't seem that mars could trade anything other than science or tourism.

For example, tele-medicine? When are you going to use that when your delay times are measured in minutes out beyond Earth-Luna?

It might be used when there is neccessary medical treatment needed yet no rescue is available- a medical operation robot is then placed in all bases- all you need is one physician at one base and you then have all your bases covered.

Earth-Moon science? Interesting, yes, but Mars & friends have many more things to learn about, in total.

Uh huh, but the moon-earth relationship, and understanding that relationship and history gives us more insight about earth and how luna functions within the geological, atmosphere, ocean cycle, etc of earth. It would provide a great deal of immediate scientifc return- at a fraction of the cost of a martian mission.

Superconductors? Um. Right. I could go through all these, but frankly I don't have time. Got specific questions, ask em.

If you don't have the time, then come back when you do. If you have questions, you ask. Saying "No, you're wrong, adn I'll tell you how you're wrong if you ask me and when I have time" is not an appropriate way to carry on a discussion.

Unless and until someone points out how I am mistaken, I will merely ignore your silly remarks Alex.

Now then, space based fuel production is not economically viable, even possibly, for heading anywhere inside about 3 AUs, so thats not a present option.

How do you figure? 3 AU's is mighty big- that's 3 times the distance from the sun- the earth is 1AU. So you're saying that it is cheaper to take 3AU's worth of fuel and launch it from earth versus taking enough fuel to launch into orbit and then refuel there (without the launch weight penalty)? Unless you have some figures to back you up, your assertion is childish and counter-intuitave.

Space telescopes are neat, but expensive, so I recommend going to Mars first.

Going to mars is exspensive- you'll have to do better than that. The cost of building a soace telescope on the moon would be much less than sending humans to mars.

clark · Martian Politics and Economy

If I list to you the progress in pure technology that has happened in the past 20 or so years, then maybe you'll see where I'm coming from. And even then, it would be subjective and we'd be having this ridiculous argument all over again. This is why I simply generalize it down to ?inevetiblity.?

So you are taking a very (VERY) small subset of human history and basing your predictions on that... I understand how you derive your optimitic view, I just question the legitmacy of the process.

Given that civiliztion has risen and fallen numerous time, and each time technology somehow manages to exist, it's clear to me that this is going to happen.

We have never achieved this level of technology- or more precisely, we have never had the ability to voulantarily kill ourselves- either through nuclear war, biological contamination, world-wide pollution, or global famine caused by the breakdown of our modern day infrastrucxture (shipping & communication). We still have all of the same tendencies that we had during the Crusades, the 100 years yar, the mongols, etc- but now we have the ability to eridicate everything.

I think most arguments about the future have to take that into account, indeed, any scientific prediction has to say, ?this could happen because of this if this doesn't happen.?

Your previous posts seemed to neglect this rather important account to the point where it wasn't even addressed. What makes you think that we WON'T blow ourselves to kingdom come?

Well, the resources are there, the problem is who owns the resources.

Welcome to communism.

Once (if it ever happens and the world doesn't blow itself up and such and such, since you seem to require this disclaimer) supply is larger than demand, there would be no class struggle; indeed, civilization would have much less risk to decline.

Life is the struggle for resources in order to maintain life and perpetuate genes, if we no longer struggle for resources, then we are no longer confined to the limits of the animal kingdom. However, how do you provide a limitless supply of education? Limitmess supply of housing? Limitless supply of opportunity? We will simply move up another rung of Maslow's ladder of needs and find another "valuable commodity", won't we?

And I ask you, what is the demand for air given that its supply is limitless (on the scale of things)?

The demand is extremely high, and luckily the supply is nearly infinite- however, no one owns the means to PRODUCE air or control air, so the economic model does not apply. Now, on mars, that is NOT the case.

Those resources you provide are capital. I use your capital and return it, then I have capital. Why wouldn't you? Think about it, you're just securing resources and depleting distribution, your gain is nothing... however, if you were to build a city on this simple modification, you have unlimited growth potential.

I give you all I have for the possibility that I might get nothing in return, while you get something for nothing with the chance of making something for yourself....BAD model. Try again.

I still can't see what incentive I have for giving you my hard earned resources so you can go do something with them- isn't it better for ME to use those resources for something so I have TWICE as much as when I started? Sure, the model you suggest works for those without anything- they get all the supplies and none of the risk, but those providing the capital take all of the risk and get nothing in return.

Think of it like this: We play a game, you place $100 dollars on a number from 1-10. I spin a wheel, any number the wheel picks is a loser- all others are a push (that is, you get to keep your money). Would you play this game? You have no chance of ever inceasing the value of your money, and you have a chance (however small it might be) that you will lose your resources.

This game is your economic proposal as it now stands- please tell me you don't really believe in this.

clark · Martian Politics and Economy

Is this some kind of solipsistic statement?

No, it is in essence the very problem of having this discussion. You maintain that if nothing prevents us from reaching a certain goal, then we will reach that certain goal...eventually. That in a nutshell is what you are telling us. So I ask, WHY are you telling us this?

I do not believe I am doing what you are doing becuase I accept the fact that the future is an UNKNOWN. As such, you cannot say anything is absoluetly "inevitable" becuase something unforseen by you, by me, or by the rest of humanity might show up to prevent the "inevitable". I can accept etrapolating from current events, but you should make that clear from the get go. You might also want to limit how far you extrapolate- look how the world has changed in the last 10 years, look how it has changed in the last 25, the last 50, the last 100...

I never claimed that we would always be in a state of discovery. And I would think that if we felt one day there was nothing else to discover, that would be a huge disastor.

You stated:

As long as the human spirit of discovery exists there is a certian inevitability to the human race.

I then asked if it was arrogant to assume that we would always have this spirit, which is implied by your statement and by your general argument. I am not putting words into your mouth, I am applying your meaning and asking for clarification.

The only thing that is unknown is whether or not this progress can continue. And given that I've covered that, my statement is still valid.

Yet your whole argument is predicated on humanity continuing this progress, which you admit is an unknown. So are you now admiting that your argument is based on an unknown (continuing technological progress)?

I'm tired of this nonsense, since you're obviously not listening to what I'm saying and rather making assumptions about the implied.

I am listening, but by your own admission you are not conveying your message as clearly as you would like. You are making a lot of statements that are based on interpertations of events or philosphy- It sounds like half of your argument is in your head and you are getting frustrated because I don't know the full meaning that you might have originally intended. Any inference I have gained from your posts is becuase I am taking your thoughts to the next logical conclusion.

As long as we have energy we have the resources we need. Civilizations decline because of class struggle.

Class struggle is the result of disparity of distribution of resources- so it still is a resource issue.

And as long as we have the resources (not just energy) for maintaing our current standard of living, we will be okay.

Oh, I have, economics were required in collage. But economics are based on psychology. Take away the demand for resources and the whole system collaspes, this is why a system like Proudhon suggests will be the only way we can co-exist with each other without destroying ourselves

There is a bit more to economics than psychology. There is and always will be a demand for resources- as long as we have a dependance for life on any given resource.

You give me X so you get X+something later. That's why resources eventually ?deplete,? you take resources from me without losing resources from yourself. How about you let me borrow X so that I can have something and give you X back? Then I can give X to someone else, and they can do the same thing.

But I have lost resources- when I gave them to you to go do something with them. As the system now stands, you borrow X with the understanding that you will pay me back X+something later- I take the risk of providing you X, you might not be able to give me anything back- you get the ability to go do something with X, you had nothing, now you have something..seems a fair and stable trade to me- that's why Mars dosen't work. Mars cannot provide X+something under our current economic model.

Why should I give you resources (X) if all I get in return is the loss of those resources for an unknown amount of time with no reward for the risk?

Risk without reward = biologicaly stupid. Millions of years of evolution has favored the biological system that places risk only for reward, becuase why risk if there is no reward? Why take a chance?

clark · Martian Politics and Economy

However, timescales are irrelevant to inevitability.

In a universe of infinite possibilites, all things are possible. Might I suggest that you label your philosphical constructs as such, so those who wish to discuss realistic ideas may do so without impining on your freedom to espouse your own personal world view.

As long as the human spirit of discovery exists there is a certian inevitability to the human race.

So if we lose that "spirit", it isn't inevitable. Isn't it arrogant to assume that we will always have this "spirit of discovery"? It is inevitable that we will die. It is inevitable that the sun will go supernova. It is inevitable that an object will fall to the ground if droped. There is nothing inevitable about the human future because it is all an unknown.

Grand though they may be, they're honest. If I have to provide evidence then there is no way to convince you.

Without evidence, or answers to my reasonable questions, your gods are empty. They hold value for only you, so don't be surprised when others do not accept your "truths" as self evident.

If you can't see around you how humanity is in a constant state of discovery, indeed, if youcan't accept that that is truely the nature of being human, then it would be a waste of time to try to convince you.

Ahh, truth! The translation: If we don't see it your way, then the problem is obviously with us, becuase after all, what you believe and think is far superior to what we might think or believe and you just can't be bothered to show ignorant we all are, and how superior you are. Thanks!

Civilization rises and falls, that is a given; it's absurd to imply that civilization has no
hope of preventing a forseeable decline. Two millennia ago, maybe, but not now.

Civilizations rise and fall....yet they have a hope of preventing their decline? It would seem history shows that civilizations cannot prevent their eventual decline.

And little history lesson, the modern nation-state system that we currently live in has only been around for 500 years- recorded human history - 5000 years - the dark ages lasted 1000 years. What aspects of modern society and civilization prevent a decline? Civilizations tend to fall when their available resources decline- we have staved this off by continual improvements in effeciency of use and greater ability to extract resources from previously immpossible areas- if this stops, or slows, then the world system collapses.

You suggest philosphers, try out world production systems, rise of the state system, macro-economics. Economics gives good insight into philosphy.

I don't think so. Colonization decreases the ammount of available local resources in order to provide capital.

There is an intital outlay of resources, which is assumed to bring in greater amounts of resources in the future. That is what all investment is, that is what all economics is, that is what the whole #### capitalistic world is founded on. I give you X now so I get X+something later. Mars fails this test

Keep trying

clark · Human missions

Mr. robcwillis,

If so, you appear not to understand that the transportation cost of soft landing a given payload on the Moon is actually much higher than that of soft landing a similar payload on Mars.

As you point out in your post, most items shipped in space will be spare parts, medical supplies, etc- therefore the issue of "soft landing" is only a real condieration when dealing with fragile cargo... like humans.

The real issue though is that the cost of shipping FROM Mars is exceedingly high. Mars for all intents and purposes is a wasteland of nothing (in terms of usefullness to earth). The planet could be made of gold, but it still wouldn't be economical to go there. It isn't economical to exploit Mars in anyway. If you argue science, then more can still be done with machines until the point where our machines have improved to where we are no longer even relevant to space exploration.

The moon on the other hand is much closer and offers direct economic benefits to earth and LEO or GEO. This leads to a lasting commitment to developing space and space exploration in general. This offers an immediate return in technologies for low g, zero g, space based power production, artifical gravity, space based mining, space based medicine, space based manufacturing, experience with operating for long periods of time (great for those extended mission in space) in low g, radiation mitigation strategies, closed bio-regenerative systems, waste disposal and recycling, tele-medicine, tele-operation of robots, better understanding of lunar earth relationship, better understanding of earth origns, space telescopes, superconductors, nuclear power production, He3 for fusion, space based fuel production...the list goes on.

With the Moons weak gravity, this allows for cheap and easy launch of manufactured goods to LEO and GEO- it means that the cost to launch is reduced becuase we no longer have to haul all our equipment up, or all our fuel up. Reduced lau nch costs creates even more opportunites for smaller groups to pursue their own individual goals...like Mars.

I'm not saying you can't get to mars, I'm saying that going to the moon first will get you to Mars faster, cheaper, and safer.

And there are alternative modes of transportation that will be available on the moon. The need for propeller driven airplanes is limited on the moon, since it is small and most travel can be conducted by minimal lunar orbital insertions.

clark · Martian Politics and Economy

The context should be: Once we decide to colonize Mars, we will have habitats and machinery that are cheap and easy to manufacture locally. Indeed, that is a prerequisite for colonization!

So a prerequesite for colonization is cheap and easy to manufacture habitats and machinery... what exactly was the time line you were expecting such an advance to happen? Tommorrow or 50 years from now? If cheap and easy is a prerequesite, aren't you getting a bit ahead of yourself in planning or even theorizing on Mars development? What if the manufacture of habitats and machinery never becomes cheap and/or easy? What then?

n my opinion, it's ignorance to not see the obvious inevitability of the human race.

In my opinion, it is arrogance to assume any "inevitability", especially when refrencing the human race.

Technology is in a constant state of growth, and short of us blowing ourselves up, we will undoubtedly reach a point where technology and the results of technology are as plentiful as air itself. To have to address this simple inevitability is absurd!

Technology, RECENTLY, has been in a relative state of growth- but this is by no means is always the case. Human history is filled with technological stagnation and/or regression. You are once again assuming that the last few hundred years will continue as they always have- yet you seem to think that the thousands of years of human history are meaningless.

There is nothing absurd abot finding fault with grand statements with little or no evidence to support the claim.

This is flawed. Colonization is primarily about self-sustenance.

No, colonization is about economics. It increases the amount of available resources to reduce the amount of external and internal pressure caused by current resource depletion. Colonization provides more resources, thereby improving the standard of living for more people- any endevour to Mars will ultimetly fail in this regard becuase it will not increase resources here on earth- it will take away resources.

The primary reason for returning resources to the place where the colony originated from was wealth (not because there was an utter requirement), sure, there were instances where resources were returned to the point of origin for manufacture (because technology was centralized); though it should be noted that there was plenty of manufacturing (and innovation) within and because of the colonies.

The primary reason was for a return on investment becuase it cost so bloody much to start a colony. This relationship is not practical for Earth-Mars colonization, so what is the motivation for people to invest in a mars colony?

I know someone who lived in Antarctica for awhile. They lived there because they wanted to, that's all. Granted, they didn't really have the ablity to sustain themselves there, but that's not the point, really. They could have given the proper technology.

We can live anywhere given the proper technology, so what's your point? It sounds like your friend had fun- but why should I, or anyone else pay for you or Mars lovers to "go have fun"?

We go colonize Mars for many reasons, the most notable one being because we can.

You climb mountains because "you can"- you don't spend billions of dollars to build a colony of little or dubious value. There are a lot of things humanity "can" do, however, it dosen't mean we should. Employing this argument as the basis for Human to mars colonization is grade-school material at best. Isn't there a more legitmate and reasonable argument for going to Mars? If it is "because it is there", then there is no pressing need to do it right now- so what's the rush?

When technology reaches a level of self reproducablity (that is, technology has the ablity to make anything, including to make itself- and please, don't patronize me, I've been studying ontonlgy and the nature of AI for a little while now and I do know a little bit about what I'm talking about here- this is the future, to not see it is to be oblivious to history) there will either be

And when do we get to look forward to this magic world of self-reproducing technology? Is it right around the corner with Fusion, mass produced hover-cars, moon colonies, and the cure for the common cold? When will we have AI? Another 10, 20, 30, 40, or 50 years? I read up on AI, and people still aren't sure. As for nano-tech, what you are talking about happening is almost 100-200 years away. If this is the timeline you are envisoning, then you should be more upfront about it.

1) Government will ban any sort of high level technology experimentation on the basis that it violates property laws; allowing large corporations to patent the technology, giving them complete control over everyone and everything. In a word, chaos.

Companies derive legitmacy and protection from governments- this version of the world is not likely.

2) Government will realize that technology is mans gift to itself, and create laws that do not allow proprietary rights to capital, thus keeping technology (information and knowledge) free.

Technology is a product, just like a can of pepsi or a car- without approriate means for reward, there will be little innovation. More than likely there will simply be a balance between the two situations you have presented.

Well, of course anything I would suggest would be ?unrealistic,? however, that does not mean the technology isn't there just that it costs too much. Get it? K, good.

If the technology costs too much, it is effectively a NON-option. We have the technology to turn lead into gold- however it cost more to turn lead into gold than what the converted gold would be worth- so in effect, we cannot turn lead into gold. If everything you offer is unrealistic, why should I bother discussing this any further?

As long as it takes to design an adequate passive shielding mechinism. Hey, I posted about this before, the arguement is irrefutable (you never refuted it, at least). I don't have time to dig up websites, but I've shown you evidence of a bureaucratic desire to forego passive shielding research. It's that plain and simple.

How long would that take? Even if we had the passive shielding, things like reentry, saftey in space, back-up systems, integration of multiple systems, redundancy checks, emergency evac procedures, etc... it's not that easy.

Normally, that would be true, but in the case of the Space Shuttle, it's 20 year old technology. Go figure.

It's 20 year old technology that hasn't been seriously developed. What improvements they could make in the shuttle, they have, and continue to do- however, the basic mechanics of launching large objects into space has not changed in 50 years. There is no such thing as a routine shuttle launch. It's a space ship, not a lawn mower.

Venzotriazole? Same stuff used on car windows? 97% blockage?

And I wonder how useful that stuff is in low pressure, high radiation, and extreme temp differentials?

Have you been on a nuclear sub lately?

Which can only operate for 6-9 months without resupply. A mission to mars has to last 2-4 years before resupply. But hey, improving the effeciency and durability of those systems 4-6 fold should be a sanp..right after "self-reproducing technology".

That's like telling me to factor the cost of man power it takes to really build a stadium. From the people who go and dig up the ore for steel, to the people who paint little logos on the windows. And I can tell you, that is far far more than $200 million dollars. It's a plastic trashbag clark, is it so hard to be envisioned as being mass produced? It's made of plastic!

Now you are getting it! You take for granted all of the pre-exsisting industrial base that took hundreds of years, and generations to produce on Earth to make that ONE computer chip inside your computer. All of that has to be reproduced on Mars if it is to be self-sufficent and survive. And the cost to do it insane and there isn't enough of a justification (now) to do it.

Put your money in textile stock in 2020, you won't regret it.

Actually, I'm sure I will. What good is textile stock, or textile companies if there are "self-reproducing technology that creates anything (as long as it obeys the laws of physiscs)?:)

Yes we can. You just don't have a good imagination. It's simple, you can't colonize Mars until you have the infrastructure, and once it's in place the two will be completely similiar. When I say that we can ?go tomorrow,? I mean tomorrow the infrastrcture can be built, on technology we already have acquired. Go ahead, run down a list of ?problems? and I'll give you current-technology solutions.

Since I "just don't have a good imagination", please explain how the American Fronteir and the Martian Fronteir will be "completely similar" once the neccessary infrastructure is in place.

Plase tell me what the current technology solution is to the following:
Long term exsposure to increased amounts of solar radiation and cosmic radiation.
Long term exsposure to zero-g, and low-g.
Reliable closed system bio-regenerative systems.
On sight construction in low g and in vacum
Psychological stress due to confinement during space exploration/living.
Problem solving critical systems malfunctions without mission control support/guidance
Practical low-g exploration suit

When the technological revolution happens (and it will; sure, it's been ?predicted? in the past by various writers, like Stuart infers in his Reality Bites article, but timescales don't matter- we're seeing growth aren't we?), there will undoubtedly be a struggle, and I think, that would be when people decide they should go to a place where they can start anew. Mars.

No, we will reach a point of eithe technological stagnation, or we will continue to grow. If we reach stagnation, our world, and our society will simply implode since modern industrialized society derives its prosperity based on technological improvements that allows us to continue to increase our resources (primarily though effeciency of use)- if technology fails to increase the effiency of use, the house of cards will cruble.

Space exploration and development will help stave off this eventuallity, but Mars will not.

My ?utopian ideal? is merely acceptance of inevitability.

Your utopian ideal is not based in reality, it is based on an interpertation of future events that may or may not happen. You are not talking about the "inevitable", you're not even talking about the probable.

clark · Human missions

Anarchy

clark · Martian Politics and Economy

The infrastructure isn't there, but the elements surely are. Millions of people could easily live on Mars without any resource problems.

We can't even get to Mars, so it's presumptuous to assume that once we did we wouldn't have habitats capable of sustaining themselves relatively well (that is, biospheres that
required little human intervention) and machinery that was both cheap easy to manufacture.

Isn't is presumptuous to assume that we would have habitats and machinery that is both cheap and easy to manufacture for Mars?

The infrastructure isn't there, but the elements surely are. Millions of people could easily live on Mars without any resource problems.

Even if ALL the basic elements are there, the basic infrastructure to build the advanced factories are not. You need the basic tools to build the neccessary tools to build the basic factories that build the computer chips- etc. Previous experience of colonization centered on extratcing raw materials and shipping them back to the colonizing country to finish into a manufactured good, which was needed/wanted by those who orignially extracted the raw material- this will NEVER be the case for mars- it will thus always lack the neccessary capital to create the finished manufactured goods- it will never be able to produce enough of anything in order to create it's own capital- it will stay a scientific outpost just like anartica.

You can go to Mars, with current technology, without relying on any outside resources, right now. We have the technology, all that needs is for it to be built.

You are either mistaken or are lying. ALL realistic plans for a SAFE RETURN trip from mars are based on taking the neccessary resources WITH you- AND, all plans fail invariably due to the health consequences involved with long duration space missions. Sorry my friend, but we do not possess the appropriate hardware, technology, experience, or general know-how to adquetly conduct a Human-Mars mission. Our bio-regeneration systems are woefully lacking, our knowledge of radiation on Mars, or in transist is unknown, we are without heavy lift capabilities and have had NO NEW HUMAN missions beyond LEO. The ships and engines that would take us to Mars aren't even developed- do you know how long it takes to man-rate a space vehicle?

What about a true Mars suit? In development. What about the problems with zero-g and the consequences on the cardio-vascular system, the immune system, bone-calcium depletion, or long term effects on hemo-globin? Spending several billion dollars to watch a bunch of scientists die a slow death millions of miles from Earth does not sound like a good idea. Do the cause some good and step down the rhetoric- Human to Mars cannot happen tommorrow, it can't happen next week. Human to Mars needs to be an integrated and common sense approach to space exploration that builds off of previous space infrastructure and space experience.

Liberty is founded on security and equality. Without security or equality there can be no liberty.

No, without equality, there can be no long term liberty, becuase security will be increased, at the exspense of liberty in order to maintain the status quo. Your previous statement is a half-idea. Look to the current US situation to understand what I am getting at; The US maintains it's liberty, but that liberty is not founded on quality for all- it is founded on equality for all americans- which leads those that do not enjoy our liberty (becuase they have no equality) to lash out- we step our security in order to maintain the status quo- losing some of our liberty in the process. Many cultures and civilizations have had liberty without equality, however, it was short-lived.

Truely, a areospike engine is simple enough to build, the concept is trivial, but why does it cost so much to build one? We have gentlemen in New Zealand building homemade ones for under a hundred dollars. Why does it cost NASA or some other government billions to build a bigger one?

Aerospike simple enough to build? You are talking about a super-sonic engine that must withstand high temps, high stress, compression, expansion, aerodynamic vectoring, thermodynamic heat anaylsis, etc... all for under one hundred dollars? Please, site where you get your information.

It costs billions becuase it is cutting edge technology and science- they build one-of-a-kind prototypes with exotic material and then they go blow it up to analyse the thing.

The cost of appropriating N ammount of land on Mars is relatively equal to the area of composite plastic it takes to cover a semi-hemispherical dome and the facilities required to use solar electricity to convert carbon dioxide into breathable air and purify water.

Hmm... air factories, carbon dioxide scrubbers, UV protection, water reclaimation facilities, food areas, power generation- all construction done in vacum. You later quote the cost of building on Mars at 1% of 200 million... well, what about these habitats- where do they come from? factor in cost of producing and shipping to mars. You give an estimate on cost for a technoloogy that does not exsist except for in your mind. What kind of reasoned discussion can we build from that?

The more people you have to help you patch that leak, the better off you are.

Yet somehow we have things like war and crime. People do not neccessarily act in rationale or predictable ways that we would like.

Do you really think American pioneers were people who were trained in what they did? Of course they weren't! They were like you and me

This is a different discussion, but the Martian Fronteir is NOT analgous to the American Fronteir- you cannot draw any meaningful results from the american experience and think it will apply to Mars- the environment (which is what made the American Fronteir) are too dissimilar.

But again, you still have this belief that Mars is merely a scientific outpost, which has no political significance at all, in my humble opinion.

I have yet to hear a legitimate argument or theory that proves to me that Mars will be anything OTHER than a scientific outpost.

Going to Mars means wearing space suits and containing yourself to domes for the most part. But it also means starting a new society in which injustice cannot exist! That is worth it. That is why it will happen.

Why can't injustice exsist? What is inherent to Mars that prevents injustice? Your utopian ideal is a house of cards.

In response to your second post describing a functioning anarchy on Mars- it seems your ideas are predicated on technology and human behavior that does not exsist, or goes against known human history. Talking about the future of society is all well and good, but when you base the foundation of government services on a "vouleenter" buecrat who is empowered by chance and by a wrist-watch of unknown abilities, I find my stomach turn. There can be no legitimate discussion, and your cannot be taken seriously if you resort to the magic of technology to solve all of our human short-comings. You are guessing and dealing with too many unknowns.

clark · Martian Politics and Economy

Why not have a solid constitution with human rights outlined and no government except for an implied communication layer? A government of powerless ambasadors! Ah, the beauty of such a system.

And what means will be used to enforce a solid constitution with human rights outlined?

Who should be responsible for preventing communicable diseases?

Who decides zoning ordinances? If I build a home somewhere, would I be without recourse if a toxic-chemical processing plant sets up shop next door?

Who decides if someone's "human right" has been violated? How are the people who decide chosen? How are their edicts enforced?

How are "human rights" decided upon? Who decides what is and isn't a "human right"?

It seems that Anarchy as advocated (in any form) largely neglects the needs of society at large for some individual ideal that is nice, but unrealistic.

clark · Martian Politics and Economy

joncarson,

You bring up a valid issue when refrencing mankind's origins on the dusty plains of ancient africa.

Have any of you here considered the implications of creating an outpost, fragile as a bubble, at the limits of human reach?

It's all well and fine to debate the neccessity of liberty, and to remind us about the horrors of tyranny- yet not a single word is mentioned regarding the reality of the martian situation.

It is only when we unencumber ourselves from idealogy and politcal theory that a true attempt at understanding what is the best course of action for a future Mars Society will be.

The Martian Reality:

Terraforming will not be achieved for several generations, which neccessitates a reliance on artifical homes and the advanced machinery neccessary to maintain human life. The relatively fragile machines future martians would depend on will require a level of security undreamed of here.

All neccessary components to support life on Mars are not available, which will force a reliance upon outside sources. Liberty is founded on self-reliance, without self-reliance, there can be no true liberty.

Any development of land or exploitation of resources requires a great deal of intial capital. The cost of sending the neccesary machinery can only be supported by large governments or international conglomerates. The "every-man" scenerio isn't plausible because the cost is so absurdly high.

I have yet to hear a legitimate reason why the government would offer land for home-steaders since the people that would be needed would have to be highly technical- what is the benefit to our society by shipping our engineer's and our best and brightest to Mars? Why would we willingy choose a form of brain-drain that third world countries now suffer from?

If history is the teacher, we learn that humans will always sacrifice their personal (and societal) liberty for greater security. Imagine what kind of security would be neccessary living in a vacum that will kill you and everyone else in a matter of seconds.

Is owning a high-velocity projectile weapon (ie a gun) really the intelligent choice inside a pressurized dome?

If you allow for personal ownership of land, and we follow current property rights- where do those who can no longer afford housing go? Outside the airlock? If we have private power generation, what happens if the company decides that it will no longer produce power? Martians will live on batteries?

Government exsists to provide for the common welfare and the protection of our right to life- ANY Martian government, if it is to succeed, will be predicated along similar lines. As such, it would be neccessary that the State control all functions that pertain maintiang life on Mars- such as water, power, air.

clark · Human missions

Radiation, my point:

Given that the real radiation exsposure is unknown on Mars, we should assume a worst casee scenerio. As such, the radiation on mars is enough to kill or cause cellular damage- maybe it does it slower than what would happen on the moon- but they both kill. Mars has less vacum than the moon, but arguing over this kinds of points is meaningless since any amount of vacum is going to kill.

Also, I find it disturbing that so many are willing to base the foundfation of their argument on a "guess" in terms of what radiation exsposure will be like on Mars.

What's the difference between falling 10,000 meters versus 30,000 meters? None if you don't have a parachute. It's the same thing. If it is the same result, then Mars isn't "better". It's the same with resources- sure, Mars has more resources (supposedly), yet it still lacks some NECCESSARY resources, as such, it can never truly be independant. Some have countered in the past that asteroid mining might provide those missing resources- again, the moon has that option available to it.

Some point out that growing food on Mars will be easier, due to the fact artifical lighting is not needed- again, they are wrong. Mars will still require artifical lighting. Actual space on Mars, or in Space, will be at a premium- as such, any food grown will have to be high yielding and take up as little room as possible- in order to achieve the maximum results, space farmers will utilize artifical lighting- one to ensure that nothing happens to the crop, and two to maintain a greater control over production of food.

"The safety of such a mission would be noworse, and doubtless, due to technological
advancement since - somewhat better than that of Apollo 13. "

And this is based on what? All of our accumulated experience in LEO? How does that apply to sending people to other planets? Since Apollo, we have NO NEW experience to speak of in reagrds to sending humans beyond LEO.

"If we have the ability to mine water from comets for bases on
Luna, then we're easily able to get out to Mars and the asteroid belt, anyway - and have solved the problems of long-endurance manned missions in low gravity in the
meantime, too. "

Which is exactly my point. Luna prepares us for Mars and the rest of the universe.

"What is to stop some of the unmanned Mars Direct landers from carrying "seed" quantities of biomass - compost - along with either hibernating useful insects or their
eggs? "

What's to stop it? Mass. Weight. All water would evaporate if exsposed to Martian surface (frozen compost, how is that helpful?). Insects would die on Mars if exsposed. Eggs would more than likely be irradiated and destroyed.

"Yes, we need to ensure that we dont launch into a full-scale Mars Direct scheme without first ensuring that it wont be suicidal for crew members, otherwise
Mars Direct becomes pointless."

And this again is the point I try to convey- a mission now is futile, unwarranted, without merit, provides little return for the actual investment, and will only slow actual human progression into space.

If we have NASA send humans to Mars, nothing else will happen inside of NASA until that goal is achieved. Once we have humans on Mars, then what? We keep a few people there, do some research, and send them home. In the meantime, nothing happens- no lunar development, no GEO development, no LEO development- all assests will be tied into supporting the Mars program. Now getting there would probably take 10 years. Once there, figure about 10 years of study- for the next 20 years, nothing else will happen becuase NASA will have no resources- look how ISS saps the NASA budget as is- Mars will do the same thing.

At the end, NASA will close up shop on Mars like they did on the moon- why? So they can once again approach space exploration in a systematic way- which means refocusing efforts to develop in LEO, GEO and the moon. Why? Becuase as much as this might surprise you, the moon makes a great gas station. Producing fuel on the moon would allow for a greater range of options in exploring the universe- right now we can't get very far simply becuase taking enough fuel is cost prohibitive- but if the fuel is already in space, hell, the sky's the limit.

Your hearts are in the right place, but your minds obviously are not. Stop thinking about the short term goal of just Mars, and take a look at a truly GRAND view of space exploration- all of the solar system- not just mars.

clark · Human missions

I reject your claim and Zubrin's claim. If radiation levels were so well understood, please. explain the neccessity of this device:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast01may_1.htm

The truth of the matter is we don't know how dangerous the radiation levels are on Mars, not yet. Furthermore, you claim that an underground base would be more exspensive- how much more? In all likelyhood it wouldn't be that much more since the real cost of any habitat is in the actuial habitat- burying the things in lunar dirt, or martian dosen't really add to the complexity of the habitat.

Please tell me you are not using terrestrial standards to determine the cost, it dosen't apply and wastes all our time.

Nobody will spend more than a few days in zero-g? Ohhhhhh, i get it, so there will be a magical artifical gravity device? Or maybe the ship will spin- of course with all of our experience designing, building, testing, and flying ships with centrifuge for humans we can blast off tommorrow... Such a ship would take years to design, test, and produce- it is also a NEW technology that must be perfected which means Mars is going to take longer to get to.

You also assume that the nitrogen is in the regolith (or you hope)- seems like you are arguing that one of Mars benefits is resource abundance- yet when questioned, I am only offered "maybe", "probably", or "should be" as to where the resources are or if they exsist. Part of the Mars argument is that you can live off the land- well, how do you plan on doing that if you don't even know if the neccessary elements are in enough abundance to do so?

Furthermore, I laugh at you and anyone else that purports to believe that Mars will hold a vibrant civilization- whatever that is. Why would people liove on Mars? Freedom? Don't kid yourself, environment restricts freedom for security- the more people on MArs, the more need for security- this goes for space anywehere- period. The cost to keep one person alive will keep the numebr of people low- population must be planned and controlled.

Look to antartica for your future of a vibrant civilization on Mars- that's all mars will ever be, an outpost manned by a few scientist's.

clark · Human missions

Contrary to what people are stating, we do not know how much radiation Mars recievesa. If I am istaken, by all means, please direct me to where I might find out the radiation rates on mars.

As for Jim's claim that very heavy shielding will be neccessary on the moon, itdosen't matter- underground bases are fairly easy to build, and dumping moon dirt on top will provide more than enough protection- as for the amount of work to complete such a task- that is pure speculation- however I would ewager that it might be made a fair bit easier considering the lack of extreme gravity. And throwing a tent up is hardly a walk in the park- please enlighten me as to how the astronauts will "throw a tent up" after a year in zero g? My guess is, along with most NASA astronauts, is that the zero-g will make any Martian explorers useless once they land on Mars.

The martian atmosphere is NOT ideal for plants- the amount of CO2 will kill them- plants also live of 0xygen. Also, the plants will need to protected from low pressure and temperture extremes- a large are with thin material will more than likely kill the plants. All living things are delicate when compared to the available environment in space or on Mars.

As for light, once again, the moon has the neccessary material to PRODUCE solar panels. If that is cost prohibitive, then simply ship a nuclear reator (the same kind that Mars Explorers plan on) to produce the neccessary energy. The moon has plenty of He3- something the earth lacks and is useful in fusion.

"Nutrients - on Mars, we have most of what we need. Hydroponics eliminate the need for soil and organics. The technology does not need to be developed, it is
already perfected. It works. The moon requires more fertilizer from earth."

In one sentence you state hydroponic (soilless farming) is perfected, in the next you state the moon will require fertilizer- less fertilizer is needed if they keep to hydroponics- or aeroponics. Also, genetic engineering of plants can reduce the need for nutrients, and others could be reclaimed b y improving thebio-regeneration systems. Nutrients are not so easy to come by on mars- you have to find them, break them out, process them... it's not like you will be tripping over nitrogen either on Mars, the place is woefully lacking in that regard.

Who knows how much water is on the moon- if it matters, they can always find an ice comet and mine that- the moon is estimated to hold several million gallons (in those dark craters) of water- I think it's reasonable to assume that that would be enough water until they figured out where and how to get more. Also, the moon allows instant production of fuel- great gas station for future deep space missions, mars cannot even compare.

We will ultimetly depend on GEO orbital facilities, not planets. It is merely a matter of time.

clark · Martian Politics and Economy

" For example, right now conducting a referendum costs astronomical amounts of money - but imagine how easy it would be to implement on Mars if everyone had a computer terminal and proper PGP-style security measures?"

Wouldn't it cost astronimical amounts to put a computer terminal on mars for everyone there (assuming a colony)?

Are they going to make it themselves? How? Who will make it? How will they buy them? Where will they get money for the computers? Who will support the people making the computers, since they more than likely will be making computers and not helping with the maintenance of development of the colony...

clark · Human missions

"I don't know how much gravity plants need - I'll admit that, but I do know that they grow significantly worse in zero-G and I would hypothesise that since they evolved under one G, that's the gravity in which they grow best; hence Mars will be more conducive to growth than the Moon."

Become informed @:
http://spacelink.nasa.gov/NASA.Ne....e.Wheat

They grew wheat in 1996 in micro gravity (zero g) aborad MIR, there are numerous other experiments that show gravity can be dealt with in regards to plant growth. The moon, with 1/6th the gravity of Earth should be fine.

"Yes, Mars has zero biomass. I never said it had any. I said it had plant nutrients, by which I am referring to phosphorus, potassium, calcium, zinc, copper, nitrogen and other such elements, all of which are in far smaller concentrations (if at all) on the Moon than on Mars."

These plant nutrients are meaningless to us though. The plants humans depend on require bio-mass- dead things to grow on. I'm sure the lichen will love some of the mineral content, but lichen does not provide for most of our daily requirements. The moon and mars are equal since the end result of Mars having nutrients is something that we cannot effectively utilize. You must also realize that super-oxidized dirt (like Mars) is an inhospitable meduim to grow living things in.

" Mars is irradiated by radiation; but far less than the Moon is, because it is further away and has a thin atmosphere."

Mars also has no magnosphere- and presently, we do not know how much radiation Mars recieves. Mars recieves less radiation? That's like saying Mars has less vacum than the moon- great, so what, both kill. In both instances steps will have to be taken to shield living things- Mars is no different.

"You can't dismiss the fact the extremely important differences in light exposure between Mars and the Moon just because they share some similarities - the very fact that the Moon has a fortnight long night is clearly a huge minus point for growing plants there. "

How is that? Everything will be in a greenhous, controlled, regulated. Whatever light is recieved , in either case (mars or moon) will be augmented with artifical light to boost plant production and yield.

"You'll need pressurized greenhouses on both the Moon and Mars - you'll also need protective measures against radiation - but the measures you'll have to take on the Moon will be magnitudes of times greater than those on Mars. "

In both cases, you bury yourself under the ground- problem solved. Or would a lava tube be better? Maybe a domed crater with UV deflecting plastic?

"The Moon's plants will certainly need artificial lighting; Mars plants will as well, if dust storms occur, but certainly for far less time and energy than the Moon plants."

So what? Energy is free in space (reletaviely). On the moon, it is fairly easy to set up solar panels to catch the sun's energy- Mars lacks this option given it's distance and the dust.

"I don't see why humans would be able to provide 'more than enough carbon dioxide for the plants' on the Moon - the carbon has to come from somewhere (since that's what plants are made out of - carbon) and it can't all come from us."

Plants don't need, nor do they thrive in a 95% carbon dioxide environment. Any space endeavour will depend on plants to provide a means to regenerate neccessary components for life, ie- oxygen and CO2 scrubbing. Since launching mass is exspensive, garden's in space will be soiuless to reduce weight, prevent bugs from sneaking on board, and to give the maximum results for space, as well as provide a level of control neccessary for growing plants in space. Even with a full greenhouse, any spaceship is still goign to require a CO2 scrubber because thwe plants simply cannot absorb enough CO2. CO2 is not usually the limiting factor- water, nutrients, or light is.

" I honestly don't think that the Moon is a cost-effective training ground for Mars; the gravity isn't that similar, the space suits will be different, the temperatures will be completely different (Mars isn't that cold, really) and as I have stressed repeatedly, Mars does have resources. You can make fuel on Mars."

The idea is to train astronauts in dealing with a different gravity, not martian gravity. As for the temps- once the tempertures are under -30 degree's, it dosen't matter, it's all cold enough to kill. And if you think the moon lacks resources, then you are being blind- there are resources on the moon to make fuel, water, oxygen, cement, fuel for fusion, etc.

"But searching for life and fossils? There isn't anything better to do that than a human, until we can make a robot that is as intelligent and versatile as one."

So that's what Mars is all about to you? Stupid argument. If there is life, it isn't going anywhere and we can get to Mars when we have more resources. If all life is dead, and only fossils remain, we can still wait until more resources are available or some REAL pressing need exsists. Going to look for exticnt life or microbes is not a good way to sell people on the neccessity of speeding off to Mars.

"...it would be a one-off, and thus probably not cost-effective if you're considering a sustained programme of human landings on Mars using identical hardware."

Why put people on Mars? To search for fossils? Why not wait until robots are smart enough to do it for us? Fossils after all are not in danger of disapperaing on a world with almost no geological activity.

"And I've never seen Zubrin - or indeed anyone else - justify going to Mars by having a Martian colony support a Lunar colony."

My mistake, what pray tell will the wild men of Mars do? Science? Pah, can be done in orbit- and you don't need legions of people on mars to do it.

As for finding life on mars, I say so what. A fossil? So life originated through panspermia- the only people that will truly be affected by a revelation of life on another planet are fundamentalist believers- ie the hardliners who are unable to incorporate new information regarding the univers into their religous beliefs. The world was once flat, yet religion endured- God was once vengeful, but then he became loving, and religion endured- I believe the major faiths will wether the revelation of a fossil on another planet that once held water. More than likely any life found, dead or otherwise will have a DNA base, so establishing where life originated will be a more profound discovery.

clark · Human missions

Romance?

I will not delve into this area since it is a matter of taste and prefrence. One man's trash is another's treasure... I acknoledge that there are those in love with this dream of mars, just as there are those who are in love with a dream of the moon- however, being practical, we must throw out the dreams/romance, and look at what can be accomplished, and what makes the most sense- Mars makes NO sense at this time.

This is my point from the very begining- and your refrence to Zubrin's Case for Mars only furthers my point. In Zubrin's Case for Mars, he proposes a radical new way to explore Mars- he offers a cost orders of magnitude lower than anything anyone else can come up with- and he says we can do it tommorrow... pish posh and whatever.

We cannot go to Mars for the following reasons:
Zero-G- there are no known means to effectively deal with zero-g for the long duration space flight that a Mars mission would entail.
Artifical -G- we have none- our research is limited and putting together a space ship that incorporates this is years (on the order of decades) away.
Regenerative bio-systems- the ISS is constantly in need of resupply and refurbishing- regenerative bio systems are severly lacking in effeciency neccessary for an adequate saftey margin.
Case for Mars requires that propellant be produced on site, it lacks sufficient saftey measures in case new technology fails.
No Martian EVA suit.
A bad track record with landing spacecraft on Mars (what are they at, a 50% success rate?)
Marginal scientifc return- 10 billion to send a couple humans to mars tommorow- OR 1 billion to send 10 robotic missions to accomplish a more diverse and varied study of the planet- tommorow.
Nuclear propulsion, the best way to get to mars- is politicaly unfeasible- power requirements for Mars base's focus on nuclear reactors-again, politcaly unfeasible.
No geologic map of neccessary resources for fuel production- where is the water? Shouldn't we be sure that it is there first before we run with Zubrin's plan?

Racing to Mars is the wrong way- a systematic approach that builds off of previous experience and infrastructure makes more sense for a sustained move into space. We raced to the moon and we haven't been back for thirty some odd years- learn from the mistakes.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#6326 Re: Human missions » Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now. » 2002-01-22 16:58:14

#6327 Re: Human missions » Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now. » 2002-01-22 16:54:28

#6328 Re: Human missions » Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now. » 2002-01-22 16:13:49

#6329 Re: Human missions » Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now. » 2002-01-22 13:32:37

#6330 Re: Human missions » Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now. » 2002-01-22 07:57:34

#6331 Re: Human missions » Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now. » 2002-01-21 17:00:58

#6332 Re: Human missions » Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now. » 2002-01-18 14:19:42

#6333 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Mars, Government, and Rights » 2002-01-18 12:16:14

#6334 Re: Human missions » Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now. » 2002-01-17 16:43:35

#6335 Re: Human missions » Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now. » 2002-01-17 09:37:24

#6336 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Mars, Government, and Rights » 2002-01-16 16:29:00

#6337 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Mars, Government, and Rights » 2002-01-16 14:29:19

#6338 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Mars, Government, and Rights » 2002-01-16 12:04:07

#6339 Re: Human missions » Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now. » 2002-01-16 11:11:53

#6340 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Mars, Government, and Rights » 2002-01-15 16:08:35

#6341 Re: Human missions » Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now. » 2002-01-14 15:13:20

#6342 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Mars, Government, and Rights » 2002-01-14 15:05:10

#6343 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Mars, Government, and Rights » 2002-01-09 16:00:27

#6344 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Mars, Government, and Rights » 2002-01-09 13:09:33

#6345 Re: Human missions » Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now. » 2001-10-19 08:09:08

#6346 Re: Human missions » Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now. » 2001-10-18 15:29:08

#6347 Re: Human missions » Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now. » 2001-10-18 11:33:22

#6348 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Communism is what will happen - Communism on Mars (not Soviet soc.) » 2001-10-17 09:08:57

#6349 Re: Human missions » Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now. » 2001-10-17 08:52:43

#6350 Re: Human missions » Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now. » 2001-10-16 16:11:24

Board footer