You are not logged in.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.