New Mars Forums

Amazing security, huh? I've never seen anything like it, rivers of black uniforms and limousines built for battle. Four more years?

Did Bush just volunteer the US for a war without end? After listening to his speech three times it's clear, at least to me, that Bush feels obligated to spread freedom around the planet, like rice at a wedding. And, having been reelected, he believes he has a mandate to do just that!

On the other hand, in the same speech, Bush said that freedom is, by its nature, "chosen," and the US will not force freedom upon people that are comfortable without it. So, which is it? Will Dubya attack or lay back? Maybe he's just dancing.

I have an activist friend who has had her children and is now concerned that the leaders of the world her kids will inherit are out of touch with the realities of that world, and are wasting the earth.

That sounds like a conspiracy and I don't have much faith in alleged conspiracies, master plans or grand designs. But, was it a conspiracy to avoid the noun "capitalism" in Bush's address? Isn't capitalism the economy of a free society? Isn't it "work" that makes life tolerable?

Bill Moyers is one of the high profile guys that PBS drags out of the closet every time they need a hit of cash. They dust off Joe Campbell too, and Moyer's does his best to look interested in myths and legends for an hour and a half. That's not easy to do.

A few years ago, during a pledge drive, Moyers teamed up with some bible thumpers, the kind of people who voted for Bush....again. They will dissect sentences, down to the word order, to reveal the wisdom of the ages. These are English translations of ancient scribbling, mind you, but the thumpers claim to have the inside story regarding the meaning of life and the intentions of god. Their discussions about the old testament can go on for hours and Moyers nods his head from time to time. Perhaps he's trying to stay awake.

But, in the here and now, the best the West can do with Arabic is "God is the Greatest." Ha! Deciphering the bible, that's no problem, but we stumble in our attempts to understand the East.

Sorry about the non sequiturs; this is a montage of four more years of war, the gods, the election, the speech, and Bill Moyers on the environment. My friend sent me this yesterday.

On Receiving Harvard Medical School's Global Environment Citizen Award

by Bill Moyers

On Wednesday, December 1, 2004, the Center for Health and the Global
Environment at Harvard Medical School presented its fourth annual Global
Environment Citizen Award to Bill Moyers. In presenting the award, Meryl
Streep, a member of the Center board, said, "Through resourceful, intrepid reportage and perceptive voices from the forward edge of the debate, Moyers has examined an environment under siege with the aim of engaging citizens."

Here is the text of his response to Ms. Streep's presentation of the award:

I accept this award on behalf of all the people behind the camera whom you never see. And for all those scientists, advocates, activists, and just
plain citizens whose stories we have covered in reporting on how
environmental change affects our daily lives. We journalists are simply
beachcombers on the shores of other people's knowledge, other people's
experience, and other people's wisdom. We tell their stories.

The journalist who truly deserves this award is my friend, Bill McKibben.
He enjoys the most conspicuous place in my own pantheon of journalistic
heroes for his pioneer work in writing about the environment. His
bestseller The End of Nature carried on where Rachel Carson's Silent Spring left off.

Writing in Mother Jones recently, Bill described how the problems we
journalists routinely cover - conventional, manageable programs like budget shortfalls and pollution - may be about to convert to chaotic,
unpredictable, unmanageable situations. The most unmanageable of all, he writes, could be the accelerating deterioration of the environment,
creating perils with huge momentum like the greenhouse effect that is
causing the melt of the arctic to release so much freshwater into the North Atlantic that even the Pentagon is growing alarmed that a weakening gulf stream could yield abrupt and overwhelming changes, the kind of changes that could radically alter civilizations.

That's one challenge we journalists face - how to tell such a story without coming across as Cassandras, without turning off the people we most want to understand what's happening, who must act on what they read and hear.

As difficult as it is, however, for journalists to fashion a readable
narrative for complex issues without depressing our readers and viewers,
there is an even harder challenge - to pierce the ideology that governs
official policy today. One of the biggest changes in politics in my
lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from
the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the oval office and in Congress.
For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of
power in Washington. Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologues hold stoutly to a world view despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality. When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind.

And there is the danger: voters and politicians alike, oblivious to the facts. Remember James Watt, President Reagan's first Secretary of the Interior? My favorite online environmental journal, the ever engaging Grist, reminded us recently of how James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, 'after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back.'

Beltway elites snickered. The press corps didn't know what he was talking
about. But James Watt was serious. So were his compatriots out across the country. They are the people who believe the Bible is literally true -
one-third of the American electorate, if a recent Gallup poll is accurate.
In this past election several million good and decent citizens went to the
polls believing in the rapture index. That's right - the rapture index.
Google it and you will find that the best-selling books in America today
are the twelve volumes of the left-behind series written by the Christian
fundamentalist and religious right warrior, Timothy LaHaye. These true
believers subscribe to a fantastical theology concocted in the 19th century by a couple of immigrant preachers who took disparate passages from the Bible and wove them into a narrative that has captivated the imagination of millions of Americans.

Its outline is rather simple, if bizarre (the British writer George Monbiot
recently did a brilliant dissection of it and I am indebted to him for
adding to my own understanding): once Israel has occupied the rest of its 'biblical lands,' legions of the anti-Christ will attack it, triggering a
final showdown in the valley of Armageddon. As the Jews who have not been converted are burned, the messiah will return for the rapture. True
believers will be lifted out of their clothes and transported to heaven,
where, seated next to the right hand of God, they will watch their
political and religious opponents suffer plagues of boils, sores, locusts,
and frogs during the several years of tribulation that follow.

I'm not making this up. Like Monbiot, I've read the literature. I've
reported on these people, following some of them from Texas to the West
Bank. They are sincere, serious, and polite as they tell you they feel
called to help bring the rapture on as fulfillment of biblical prophecy.
That's why they have declared solidarity with Israel and the Jewish
settlements and backed up their support with money and volunteers. It's why the invasion of Iraq for them was a warm-up act, predicted in the Book of Revelation where four angels 'which are bound in the great river Euphrates will be released to slay the third part of man.' A war with Islam in the Middle East is not something to be feared but welcomed - an essential conflagration on the road to redemption. The last time I Googled it, the rapture index stood at 144-just one point below the critical threshold when the whole thing will blow, the son of God will return, the righteous will enter heaven, and sinners will be condemned to eternal hellfire.

So what does this mean for public policy and the environment? Go to Grist
to read a remarkable work of reporting by the journalist, Glenn Scherer -
'the road to environmental apocalypse. Read it and you will see how
millions of Christian fundamentalists may believe that environmental
destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed - even
hastened - as a sign of the coming apocalypse.

As Grist makes clear, we're not talking about a handful of fringe lawmakers who hold or are beholden to these beliefs. Nearly half the U.S. Congress before the recent election - 231 legislators in total - more since the election - are backed by the religious right. Forty-five senators and 186 members of the 108th congress earned 80 to 100 percent approval ratings from the three most influential Christian right advocacy groups. They include Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Assistant Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Conference Chair Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Policy Chair Jon Kyl of Arizona, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, and Majority Whip Roy Blunt. The only Democrat to score 100 percent with the Christian coalition was Senator Zell Miller of Georgia, who recently quoted from the biblical book of Amos on the senate floor: "the days will come, sayeth the Lord God, that i will send a famine in the land.' He seemed to be relishing the thought.

And why not? There's a constituency for it. A 2002 TIME/CNN poll found that 59 percent of Americans believe that the prophecies found in the Book of Revelation are going to come true. Nearly one-quarter think the Bible predicted the 9/11 attacks. Drive across the country with your radio tuned to the more than 1,600 Christian radio stations or in the motel turn some f the 250 Christian TV stations and you can hear some of this end-time gospel. And you will come to understand why people under the spell of such potent prophecies cannot be expected, as Grist puts it, "to worry about the environment. Why care about the earth when the droughts, floods, famine and pestilence brought by ecological collapse are signs of the apocalypse foretold in the Bible? Why care about global climate change when you and yours will be rescued in the rapture? And why care about converting from oil to solar when the same God who performed the miracle of the loaves and fishes can whip up a few billion barrels of light crude with a word?"

Because these people believe that until Christ does return, the lord will
provide. One of their texts is a high school history book, America's
Providential History. You'll find there these words: "the secular or
socialist has a limited resource mentality and views the world as a
pie��that needs to be cut up so everyone can get a piece.' however, "[t]he Christian knows that the potential in God is unlimited and that there is no shortage of resources in God's earth����while many secularists view the world as overpopulated, Christians know that God has made the earth sufficiently large with plenty of resources to accommodate all of the people." No wonder Karl Rove goes around the White House whistling that militant hymn, "Onward Christian Soldiers." He turned out millions of the foot soldiers on November 2, including many who have made the apocalypse a powerful driving force in modern American politics.

I can see in the look on your faces just how had it is for the journalist
to report a story like this with any credibility. So let me put it on a
personal level. I myself don't know how to be in this world without
expecting a confident future and getting up every morning to do what I can to bring it about. So I have always been an optimist. Now, however, I think of my friend on Wall Street whom I once asked: "What do you think of the market?" "I'm optimistic," he answered. "Then why do you look so worried?" And he answered: "Because I am not sure my optimism is justified."

I'm not, either. Once upon a time I agreed with Eric Chivian and the Center for Health and the Global Environment that people will protect the natural environment when they realize its importance to their health and to the health and lives of their children. Now I am not so sure. It's not that I don't want to believe that - it's just that I read the news and connect the dots: I read that the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has declared the election a mandate for President Bush on the environment.

This for an administration that wants to rewrite the Clean Air Act, the
Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act protecting rare plant and animal species and their habitats, as well as the National Environmental Policy Act that requires the government to judge beforehand if actions might damage natural resources.

That wants to relax pollution limits for ozone; eliminate vehicle tailpipe
inspections; and ease pollution standards for cars, sports utility vehicles
and diesel-powered big trucks and heavy equipment.

That wants a new international audit law to allow corporations to keep
certain information about environmental problems secret from the public.

That wants to drop all its new-source review suits against polluting
coal-fired power plans and weaken consent decrees reached earlier with coal companies.

That wants to open the arctic wildlife refuge to drilling and increase
drilling in Padre Island National Seashore, the longest stretch of
undeveloped barrier island in the world and the last great coastal wild
land in America.

I read the news just this week and learned how the Environmental Protection Agency had planned to spend nine million dollars - $2 million of it from the administration's friends at the American Chemistry Council - to pay poor families to continue to use pesticides in their homes. These
pesticides have been linked to neurological damage in children, but instead of ordering an end to their use, the government and the industry were going  to offer the families $970 each, as well as a camcorder and children's clothing, to serve as guinea pigs for the study.

I read all this in the news.

I read the news just last night and learned that the administration's
friends at the international policy network, which is supported by
ExxonMobil and others of like mind, have issued a new report that climate
change is 'a myth, sea levels are not rising, scientists who believe
catastrophe is possible are 'an embarrassment.

I not only read the news but the fine print of the recent appropriations
bill passed by Congress, with the obscure (and obscene) riders attached to it: a clause removing all endangered species protections from pesticides; language prohibiting judicial review for a forest in Oregon; a waiver of environmental review for grazing permits on public lands; a rider pressed by developers to weaken protection for crucial habitats in California.

I read all this and look up at the pictures on my desk, next to the
computer - pictures of my grandchildren: Henry, age 12; of Thomas, age 10; of Nancy, 7; Jassie, 3; Sara Jane, nine months. I see the future looking back at me from those photographs and I say, 'Father, forgive us, for we know not what we do.' And then I am stopped short by the thought: 'That's not right. We do know what we are doing. We are stealing their future. Betraying their trust. Despoiling their world.'
And I ask myself: Why? Is it because we don't care? Because we are greedy? Because we have lost our capacity for outrage, our ability to sustain indignation at injustice?

What has happened to out moral imagination?

On the heath Lear asks Gloucester: 'How do you see the world?" And
Gloucester, who is blind, answers: "I see it feelingly.'"

I see it feelingly.

The news is not good these days. I can tell you, though, that as a
journalist, I know the news is never the end of the story. The news can be the truth that sets us free - not only to feel but to fight for the future
we want. And the will to fight is the antidote to despair, the cure for
cynicism, and the answer to those faces looking back at me from those
photographs on my desk. What we need to match the science of human health is what the ancient Israelites called 'hocma' - the science of the
heart��..the capacity to see��.to feel��.and then to act��as if the future depended on you.

Believe me, it does.

This string of pictures is too wide to post, but you can look up the website.

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~rwald/pano5 … odupes.jpg

The image below suggests that some liquid is on the lense.

Give it some time.

I caught O"Keefe giving a fond farewell speech recently and he gave himself credit for bringing the Hubble situation out in the open sooner rather than later.

As I recall it, he was adamantly against Hubble's final servicing and he would thump thump thump on his lectern to make his position clear. There would be no 'sooner or later.'

- O'Keefe relief -

Do you think there is any vast difference between state-of-the-art optics, lenses/glass, mechanisms, etc., from ten years ago and those same optics of today? The media may be digital instead of analog film, but that doesn't mean they are superior, just different.

And the PCs of today, those nifty notebooks that are plastered everywhere there is room in the shuttles, those aren't sturdy enough for space. They crash quite often and you can't have the shuttle's main computer crashing on you. I believe that the Hubble had an upgrade to a 486 capable PC which drew some criticism by people who thought it should have had a Pentium installed. But that 486 was a very hardened space rated processor. Radiation is tough stuff.

The Martian Rovers wouldn't work on Titan.

These look very salvageable, courtesy of Yang Liwei Rocket, here, on newmars, in another thread.

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~rwald/pano5 … odupes.jpg

http://whodatzone.com/forum/index.php?a … ...&id=714

They could be viewed as movies. Maybe talkies when the sound of descent is added.

The smog is not so thick that the surface can't be seen from a fair distance, from 10 to 20 km or thereabouts. I don't know why ESA couldn't snap off a clear picture after the probe landed.

Mars and the Moon both have some gravity so you don't have to worry about the plants escaping.    
   

>> Yeah but its much less gravity.

I was joking about the plants escaping GC. Just having some fun.

As for the moon or earth being perfect places for Mars simulations IMO Neither are, nor can growing plants on either be perfect in regards to the gravity that they would feel if they are transplanted from Earth to an alien world or moon that Mars represents.

SpaceNut, who's expecting perfection?

Data from the shuttle missions probably exists, free for the taking, that documents the growth of tomatoes or beans under various g-forces. It might easily have been a grade school experiment.

That said, it will probably be ten or more years before a resident of the Moon eats their first Moon grown tomato.

I don't understand you guys.

Hence the value of using a new set of Moon missions to test, shakedown, burn-in whatever you you want to call it, the new systems before using them on the real deal.  I'm especially concurned about the LSS systems.  These are of critical importance, and yet we have never built such a system that has to exists in such harsh conditions for such long periods without resupply.  And such a system would be difficult to effectivly test on Earth.

How so? Earthlings can create hostile environments with remarkable ease. Take Gary Indiana, for example.

Were I to know that I would be responsible for growing peas and carrots for 6 people in 5 years, I would start my garden here, on Earth, in a lab where I could mimic the hazards of space and make adjustments in real time. NASA has been testing materials in LEO for years. Extreme environments are nothing new.

George Bush has bequeathed us plenty of time to zap it, freeze it, irradiate it, toss it, vacuum it, whatever. The notion of throwing everything to the Moon in dry runs is not viable, given the budget, and is not practical either. The construction of biopods begins here. Please pass the potatoes.

It is by making these type of decision that we develop new technology and learn how to do thing that we have never done before. It is the deliberate decision to put a habitat on the moon that will cause us to have to develop a solution to the problems that you are referring to. We will be using the Moon as a laboratory for both putting a future long term colony on the Moon and also on Mars. The Moon is close enough that we can do that with some degree of safety and Mars is not.

And the Earth is even closer than the Moon.

My point is that lunar dry runs can be attempted here, on Earth, first.

Minneapolis and St. Paul have a budding light rail transit system, powered by overhead electrical lines. The system, since its inception, has accommodated twice as many passengers as was predicted, but whether light rail will pay for itself remains to be seen.

Much of the route had been pioneered by ordinary mass transit busses, carrying their stinky sooty diesel fuel power supply with them.

On Mars, use rovers/vehicles that can hold or haul the fuel until there is a consensus regarding which trails are deemed permanent and should be piped and wired.

--oops

Kerry avoids the word 'NASA,' like Reagan avoided the word 'aids'. No guts.