You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#6351 Re: Human missions » Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now. » 2002-01-16 11:11:53
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.
#6352 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Mars, Government, and Rights » 2002-01-15 16:08:35
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.
#6353 Re: Human missions » Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now. » 2002-01-14 15:13:20
Anarchy 
#6354 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Mars, Government, and Rights » 2002-01-14 15:05:10
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.
#6355 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Mars, Government, and Rights » 2002-01-09 16:00:27
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.
#6356 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Mars, Government, and Rights » 2002-01-09 13:09:33
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.
#6357 Re: Human missions » Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now. » 2001-10-19 08:09:08
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.
#6358 Re: Human missions » Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now. » 2001-10-18 15:29:08
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.
#6359 Re: Human missions » Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now. » 2001-10-18 11:33:22
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.
#6360 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Communism is what will happen - Communism on Mars (not Soviet soc.) » 2001-10-17 09:08:57
" 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...
#6361 Re: Human missions » Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now. » 2001-10-17 08:52:43
"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.
#6362 Re: Human missions » Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now. » 2001-10-16 16:11:24
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.
#6363 Re: Human missions » Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now. » 2001-10-16 09:35:17
A few points you seem to gloss over:
Plants
Plants need garvity? How much? As has been pointed out, the moon has gravity- if it is an argument that Mars has more gravity- well a complete space station with a controlled spin could have even better gravit. And how much gravity is neccessary for plant life has yet to be established.
You quote the Case for Mars as a source for how rich in plant nutrients Mars is, more so than Earth. One, Mars has zero bio-mass. Mars also is radiated in severe amounts of U. The very dirt that plants will be growing in is super-oxidized. Nothing green will grow in Martian dirt unless that Martian dirt is processed and transformed- all at great time and exspense.
As for the varying differences in light exsposure between Mars and the Moon, it is rather academic. Both Mars and the moon will require pressrized greenhouses. Both will require protective measures against radiation. Both will require thermal regulation, and more than likely, both will require artifical lighting (Martian Dust Storms).
As for the carbon dioxide being abundant on Mars, let's be relaistic, humans will be able to provide more than enough carbon dioxide for the plants.
I am in agreement that low earth should be used to learn the skills neccessary to travel in space, however, I belive the Moon will provide a more versatile training ground and be a far more forgiving master than Mars itself.
I also question this idea that learnings from the Moon could not translate to an eventual Mars trip. Aside from aerobraking, the two situations are near identical. The moon, learning to deal with low g, high rads, extreme temps, and low resource abundance makes for good lessons for Mars. Also, procedures for EVA's on planet could be worked out, as well as create an opportunity for astronauts to be trained in low g before going to Mars.
Robots
Robots make more economical sense at the present time, and will continue to do so for the next 10 - 20 years for exploration of Mars. Yes, there are certain functions better suited to humans, however, we can study Mars in great detail, for a great while before we have exhastued all the robotic possibilities. We CAN learn if there is water on Mars. We CAN learn where most of that water is. We CAN map a majority of the planet with robots. We CAN develop techniques and tools that make it safer and easier to get to Mars or live on it- all with robots, all without humans.
If you're serious about humans and robots working together, then how can you advocate people actually going onto Mars? It would be safer and be more economical to merely put people in Mars orbit, using robots on the surface to explore, thus reducing your 'one hour to watch a hammer fall". But most Mars proponents don't like this idea becuase it twists the exscuse they use as a justification for humans to Mars.
Chances
Adrian also states that the probability of either going to the Moon or mars are so small that it dosen't make a difference which is chosen. Considering that organizations and business groups are actively pursuing commercial interests on the Moon, and none are pursuing ANY on Mars, I think the moon has quite a bit more of a chance than Adrian cares to admit.
Adrian:"What do you mean, 'a great deal of space infrastructure is created to support the logistical needs of sending and supporting people in space'? We'd still have to do that for the Moon, and it's not as if we aren't already spending ridiculous amounts of the ISS."
You see though, any development on the moon though will help support an eventual Mars mission- Mars development will not help us with the moon.
Where does the Mars Argument fall apart? Cost and justification. The cost becomes less of an issue with the additional space infrastructure, a big portion of the Mars Direct Plan (or any plan) is getting the stuff up in space and fueled- with LEO, GEO and lunar outposts, the cost of fueling and logistical support is reduced for Mars exploration. Also, what's the point of going to mars- many arguments for Mars focus on the long term benefits- but those long term benefits are only seen if we have additional interests in space- such as asteroid mining, lunar bases to support, and GEO stations that need resources. The moon dosen't make the Case for Mars stronger, it creates it.
As for it being cheaper compred to Earth in creating resources- it's the cost of lanuching into orbit. Savings can be realized if solar panels are created in space- or if energy is directly beamed to the satellites. On site facilities in space that could construct satelites would allow Earth companies to pacakge their cargo into economical spaces- put it in a crate, assemble it in LEO, get power from the Moon- you have a reduction in weight, a reduction in size, and a reduction in complexity which equals more profits, lower costs, more open space to launch, longer life, etc.
Adrian:"Sure, we could spend those billions on feeding the starving or making space hotels; but then our governments spend far more money on equally 'frivolous' activities like scientific research or arts and culture that have no seeming direct benefits to humanity. Why should a Mars mission be the first to go? Why not just cut the US military budget by one percent?"
Well, the space hotels that are being discussed are private enterprise and will only take place if it makes economic sense- Mars might be in the same boat if it made economic sense, but it dosen't- so stop crying.
As for these other 'frivolous' interests, why should we cut any percent from the military budget? So a few fringe people get satisfied? Suppose we send people to Mars? Then what? We find out there is life? Then what? We build a scientific base and keep a permanent manned base of 1 few dozen people, then what?
Why in the #### would people go to Mars? For what? A new civilization? You're fooling yourselves. Figure out the cost of one person on ISS- how many do you think we can afford on Mars? All air, water, food, energy, heat, shelter, protective gear, industrial solvent must be created out of thin vacum or transported several million miles and a couple of years- for what? To see if Mars was once wet? It was. To see if there was life? There probably was basic life.
Mars will only distract and waylay an already slow space exploration program. If you want to get off planet- if you want to empower smaller groups, such as the Mars Society, support development of the moon.
Mars will never make sense, economicaly, rationaly, or emotionaly; until the cost of launch is reduced, appropriate medical sciences are capable of handling long term stints in space, and we have the resources and infrastructure to maintain humans in space indefinetly.
#6364 Re: Human missions » Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now. » 2001-10-12 13:34:45
How is it not possible to grow plants on the moon? Surely if they can grow plants in zero g, growing plants in 1/6th of a g shouldn't be to hard. If you mean it is not possible due to a lack of native resources, Mars has similar problems- either it lacks basic resources or is deficient in neccessary resources for plant growth, thus neccessitating exspensive extraction infrastructure or long term support from Earth, which is complicated by it's distance from earth.
Adrian also brings up "long term" sustainability and self sufficency as the reason to prize Mars over the moon, the argument being that Mars provides more of an opportunity in the long run to actually attain a self-supporting base and infrastructure. However, if we are really talking long term, then the moon once again makes more sense.
Long term planning would make colonizing the moon a priority. Why? Because the of the eventual payoff. Dealing with the moon will be harder in many respects as compared to Mars- total vacum, dramatic tempture shifts, radaiation extreme's, lack of significant sources of native resources for on site needs, lower gravity- however, everyone of these challenges, once oversome, will enable humanity to go anywhere in the universe.
Why work out the best habitat design two years from the nearest rescue point? Why not do it three days away? Say we find an acceptable means to deal with Martian gravity, we will once agian have to learn how to deal with Lunar gravity- it makes more sense to solve for a lower gravity first, becuase it would more than likely apply directly to an eventual Martian mission.
By learning how to deal without certain resources, it will make it that much easier on Mars when you HAVE those resources, or you have limited access to them.
Adrian also brought up cost-effective science on Mars- forget it, robots, in all their fraility can do just about anything a human can do- without the limitations or the cost.
Also, by skipping the moon, you are shooting the Human to Mars endeavour in the foot.
Human to Mars is a fringe group- small. What better way to increase the ranks then by supporting an endeavour that will allow more humans to experience space, or see direct benefits from space development/exploration? Again, how many people will get to see Mars? Few, that's why very few are interested in it. However, LEO, GEO, and Luna all offer an opportunity for more people.
I would like to go into space- I believe I have a better chance of making it to the moon than I do Mars- Mars costs to much, and will only come within the realm of possibility after a great deal of space infrastructure is created to support the logistical needs of sending and supporting people in space. Mining asteroids in space is great, but that also requires a pre-exsisting infrastructure to support such missions- where does that infrastructure come from? Where does the material and basic support come from? From Earth, it is too exspensive. From Mars, too far away, and still cost prohibitive- and Mars needs the infrastructure FIRST. That leaves...
The Moon.
We would have bases on the moon if we hadn't raced to get there. The moon became nothing more than a finish line, instead of a logical progression of sustained technological and scientific development. We got there, but we didn't know how to stay there. The same thing will happen with Mars if we treat like a race.
Break it down:
What makes sense? What supports a human to Mars mission? What makes it easier? A supporting space infrastructure in LEO and at least GEO. What makes that possible? An exspensive outlay from earth. Fine, we put up the space infrastructure to support a mission to mars. Then what? We only need a few people on mars to do anything for scientific research. Going to Mars dosen't suddenly allow us to mine asteroids. It dosen't help produce extra energy- it allows science, but we can do valuable science anywhere. Where is the benefit to Earth? Spending billions upon billions to send a few to a far away planet? We could spend those same billions and have a direct return on investment to more of humanity. It also directly improves the chances for a permanent move into space becuase it allows tourism, which equals more supporters, which equals more investment.
Take a look at the growing support to protect the ocean, much of this growing supportis the result of an increase in people scuba diving, snorkling, whale watching, etc.- an issue becomes more relevant and gains support when more people relate to it personally.
Going to Mars before the Moon is simply putting the horse before the cart.
#6365 Re: Human missions » Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now. » 2001-10-11 15:46:11
Some point to the obvious resource differences between the Moon and Mars as justification for pursuing Mars over the Moon. i question this line of reasoning. Given that Mars has a bit more gravity and a few more resources, what does that really mean in practical terms for exploration?
The Moon, at three days or less in transit time, is better situated to recieve direct assistance and logistical support from Earth. The lack of any real gravity on the moon is a positive and a negative- lower gravity means more health problems, lower gravity means that the moon can also be used more economicaly to provide resources and services directly benfitting LEO, GEO and Earth herself. Mar however, at 2 years, can recieve less support, and provide less return directly to Earth or near earth space.
The infrastructure to go to either is the same- a buildup of LEO and GEO is required, however, any mission to Mars is benefitted with preexsiting Lunar infrastructure- put another way, going to the Moon makes any future Mars mission easier and cheaper. Going to Mars first dosen't neccessarily make going to the Moon any easier, and Mars would hardly be in a position to offer any type of support to a lunar endeavour.
Then there are the direct benefits witch would result from either a Lunar path, or a Martian path. On the Moon, solar arrays can be built and electricity beamed to Earth, Mars will not solve or help Earth's energy needs.
On the Moon, resources can be mined and cheaply shipped into LEO and GEO for development of satellites and other assorted infrastructre that would benefit Earth- on Mars, it is cost prohibitive given the gravity, the time, and the logistics of sending material to Earth for exploitation.
If you want to talk science- there are a hundred different science projects (if not more) that can be done or improved by utilizing the moon. The cost, and the amount of time neccessary to do these projects are less than than the amount of time and resources neccessary to accomplish similar projects on Mars- wait ten years to get good science from the moon, or wait fifty years to get good science from Mars...
Then there is the appeal- how many people will really get to see Mars? Take the most optimistic estimate, triple it, and you still end up with only a small percentage of humanity actually getting an opportunity at Mars and space. Now, with the Moon only three days away, and a LEO and GEO infrastructure intertwined with Lunar development, even a conservative estimate would show that more humans (read more space addicts) would get to see space, would get to experience space.
We proved we could get to the moon, now we should prove that we can stay there. Once we prove that, we have a PERMANENT foothold in space, and then we should consider proving we can get to Mars.
#6366 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Monarchy? - WHy not a Constitutional Monarchy? » 2001-10-08 07:22:17
"Ever been to Thailand? "
Ever been to Saudi Arabia? How about Burma?
Often, the Royal Family becomes more concerned with their own personal welfare, than about the welfare of the people. You argue that a Monarcy has a vested interest- so does every form of government that allows one group to have power over another.
It seems that you are suggesting we evaluate monarchies for the sake of monarchies, as opposed to evaluating it on it's own merit.
What benefits can truly be derived from a monarchy versus some of the various forms of government that already exsist? Is it so difficult for people to actually choose their leaders? Is it to much to expect that people at least are given a say in who will lead them? Aren't you proposing that we stop choosing who we want and just take who is adequate?
If you dislike the party system, there are other means to get around the negative aspects.
#6367 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Monarchy? - WHy not a Constitutional Monarchy? » 2001-10-04 07:11:20
What would be the benefit of having an inherited Executive? However you place checks and balances upon a Monarch, what would be the reason to have one? By having a monarchy you are also placing a greater value on "who" you are, instead of what you can do.
No matter how hard you work, how successful you become, you cannot become the leader- only those who happen to have the (mis)fortune of being born to certain parents get to enjoy that opportunity.
#6368 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » KSR Constitution Articles 1 and 2 - Legislative and Executive Departments » 2001-09-21 15:36:34
Now, to show that I can provide positive feedback:
Why not alter the sturcture of this proposed government?
Keep the Senate as is (for now). Allow the Council Chair to be elected by a popular vote. The Elected Council Chair then chooses the other members of the Council, which are approved by the Senate.
All legeslative proposals are conducted by the Senate- only THEY get to pass the laws.
The Executive Council can veto any bill passed by the Senate.
The Duma, now meets once a year, and is composed of 500 (for now) represenatives. They are elected once, and only once. The sole purpose of a Duma represenative is to review all legislation passed and approved by The Senate and the Executive Council. The Duma also reviews all legeslation that is veto'd by the Executive Council.
If the Duma decides that legislation previously passed should be revoked, it is revoked. Only the Duma may override any Executive Council Veto. Only The Duma may cancel any legeslation passed by the Executive Branch and the Legeslative Branch. The Duma meets for as long as neccessary (up to one year). The Duma would also elect the remaining con courts and environ court openings.
Court appointmentments should be for life (or a very very long term limited to only one term) and openings are filled only for the slots vacated (ie slot held for Senate is only filled by Senate when judge vactaes a senate judgeship)
How is that for engaging a wide array of the population- one year allows a high turnover- the sole purpose of the Duma is to allow the public to overturn any legeslative or executive laws that are incongruent with opinions and values.
You have ACTUAL representation and you have actual checks and balances for all points in the system.
#6369 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » KSR Constitution Articles 1 and 2 - Legislative and Executive Departments » 2001-09-21 07:08:56
You speak of the Duma as "civic duty"- in my country, voting is a "civiv duty". You will allow some to opt out of the Duma due to extenuitating circumstances, but otherwise, people will be forced to serve in a LEADERSHIP role. Many might not wish that responsibility, is it truly effective government when you force people to lead, instead of having them choose to lead?
I also find it disturbing that you ignore my issue about conflicts of interest and divesture of investments. How can you require individuals to make ethical choices when their own self-interest is apparent? How can you expect individuals to divest themselves financially or personally for only a two year forced service?
I don't believe Mars will be identical to American society- I don't believe it will be identical to any society. However, my experiences within my own country allow me to view this proposal and see some of the defeciencies it does not address. It also allows me to point out where things might not work, since my thinking is that if it dosen't work here, then it won't neccessarily work anywhere else. I am questioning the value.
You also keep contending that the Duma is LESS powerful than the Senate. On what do you base that on?
The Duma answers to no one. The Duma picks the Executive Council, and by association, they pick who decides half of the courts (1/3 EC). The Duma has the same legeslative powers as the Senate.
The Senate, which is actually voted in, and answers to their electorate get to pick the other half of the courts (1/3 EC). That's it. What am I missing?
The proposal, as stated, will allow "the average joe" to come to the seat of government, with the stipulation that he may go once all legeslative matters are completed. You are in effect holding them hostage- they may not resume their normal lives until the governmental task is completed. The staff that is provided to the Duma will have the real power since the Duma represenatives will never have the chance to "learn the ropes". They get to go to the government house TWICE. No more.
Since the Duma is composed of 500 people, and the Duma picks the Exec Council, I am assuming that the Duma suggets who it would like to elect. Of course the names given to the Duma will no doubt come from their experienced staff hired by lord knows who, and regulated by no one. In order to elect anyone, a majority of the Duma votes would need to be secured- this means that politcal parties among the Duma (pre exsisitng perhaps) would form- or that individual Exec Canadites would make enough "prid quo pro" (lets make a deal) deals as to get elected- you now are instutionalizing graft and corruption.
I really enjoyed KSR's books about Mars- they were a bit dry in character development- he merely used the characters as a means to paint his vision of Mars- however, this form of government is a bad idea. Please address the following concerns:
Conflict of interests in the Duma.
What Checks and balances exsist to keep the Duma in check? Who do THEY answer to.
What check does the Senate have over the Executive Council? Why are they allowed NO say in who sits on the Council?
Who elects the other 1/3 of the Environ Court? Why are they not allowed to elect anybody to the Con Court?
Must legeslation be approved in both houses of Congress, or is only one sufficient?
If legeslation must be passed in both houses, how can the Duma be expected to keep up with the Senate which is in session year round?
" I put my faith in 59 million of my other UK citizens for every election, and I know for a fact that many of them will make extremely ill-informed decisions. I would rather put my faith in 500 well informed citizens."
I as well- where I differ though, is I would rather have a say in whom I deem to be "well informed", instead of having chance decide for me.
But hey, you play dice with your god- what do I know.
#6370 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » KSR Constitution Articles 1 and 2 - Legislative and Executive Departments » 2001-09-20 16:02:06
The premise of the Senate is sound. You have elected representatives who's constituents and interests are clearly defined- those who elect know who is elected, and vice versa. Each Senator is ultimately beholden to the electorate that placed them in a position of authority; there is an inherent accountability. You are also establishing that the electorate can become informed enough to elect representatives to a federal level of government.
You then counter the Senate with the Duma. The premise of the Duma is unsound in its current form. You have 500 people, chosen at random, FORCED to serve in a leadership position regardless of personal desire or motivation. You do not address the issue of divesture and conflicts of interest- given that the DUMA is mandatory, and it is a position of authority, will people be forced to give up personal holdings for the sake of a two-year stint in Congress? Will people be forced to give up lucrative business or education or family requirements due to governmental requirements? As suggested now, they would- you are then in effect creating a system of government that is inherently punitive to those who have the bad luck to be chosen.
Furthermore, the role of the DUMA and how they relate to the rest of Mars is poorly defined. The Senate knows whose interests they must represent- the DUMA is beholden to no one; they can do as they please since they were placed in their positions by chance. Who are their constituents? All Martians? How can 500 people adequately represent all Martians? You are in effect making a congress full of 500 (American) presidents since they have to answer to EVERYONE. If the DUMA merely represents themselves, you are advocating that only 500 people on Mars, chosen at random, get to decide laws and who sits on the executive branch.
One of the benefits of a bicarmel legislative branch is that it provides a counter balance (in the case of America it balances geographic area against population size) in legislative matters. How does the DUMA provide an effective counter balance to elected representatives?
In addition, with the DUMA, you have a gaggle of people, responsible to no one, choosing the Executive Branch. You are in effect saying that random sampling of a population is just as accurate and representative of ACTUAL government by voting and representation. You are advocating a lazy form of government that is open to greater corruption and manipulation.- Those who wish to join the Exec Council will try to gather votes among the DUMA, promising them whatever is necessary- but each individual in the DUMA answers only to themselves, not the Martian population. The Senate by the way, the ONLY portion of the Martian government ACTUALLY elected directly by the populace, has little influence over who will be in the Executive Council. The DUMA picks the Exec Council, which picks half of the courts (the same as the Senate).
You place too much power into the hands of un-elected officials. You claim to have faith in the 500 Martians having the ability to become informed voters- why can't that same belief be extended to the Martian population at large?
"Secondly, those chosen for the Duma will be a much more informed group than the rest of the population and they will have much more information available to them."
You stated that those chosen for the Duma are done so at random- how does that necessarily make them more informed than the rest of the population? You also state that they meet once a year, how does that enable them to be more informed then the rest of the population?
"Furthermore, apart from electing the executive council, the Duma has far less power than the Senate, who are elected representatives of the entire world population."
No, the Senate is elected by each settlement- there is NO worldwide representative save for the DUMA, but I believe the inherent weakness of that instution is apparent to you.
Forced governmental leadership by random sampling- next will be long term planning by opinion polls...
#6371 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » KSR Constitution Articles 1 and 2 - Legislative and Executive Departments » 2001-09-20 09:30:29
The duma is a lottery to choose 500 people to represent Mars? This branch of the legeslative is then counter balanced with the Senate- which has elected represenatives from any settlement with 500 or more people?
So what is the upper limit of senators? 12, 200, 3,000,000?
By having a lottery for the duma, wouldn't it be possible for some areas to have ZERO represenatives in the duma- it's all based on luck of the draw. Who is the controlling entity of the lottery? Can you refuse if you win? If you can refuse, then aren't you setting up a lottery for those who wish to govern? Is that fair?
Next you have the duma, which is chosen randomly pick the executive council- maybe I'm not a gambler, but is it particulary wise to have a bunch of random people, pick another branch of government?
Also, having the duma decide who will be the executive council seems a bit short sighted since one of the PRIMARY roles of the execuitve council is to veto any legislation passed by Congress that they don't like- the DUMA put them there, odds are, the executive council will be a rubber stamp.
You also have the DUMA picking the courts- then the DUMA picked executive council picks the other half of the courts- this is incredibly stupid. You are allowing the duma, picked at random (not represneting any type of majority or will of the people) to decide ALMOST THE ENTIRE SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT.
I am sorry, this idea, as stated, is bad. Go back to the drawing board.