New Mars Forums

Or how about the new administation in 2009 decides to reduce the deficit and cancels a lot of missions, No people to the Moon, Mars. Cancel shuttle, let the ISS float, Reduce all those science missions that dont make a return to the US economy. Burn the boats really.

Remind you I will of the Author Heinlein and his book the Moon is a harsh mistress of what happens to prison colonies and there eventual freedom. Look at Australia as an example.

Hah, No chance of that

Actually but when it comes to war Europeans and in particular western europeans have more or less conquered every other culture we have come across. We shared out Africa, South America and even China. When we where not doing that we where fighting each other. For all intents there have been more than 2 world wars but all of them happened in Europe.

Hardly but you may have seen that war is the great improviser when it comes down to it we may well have advanced so fast just to make ourselves more effective in a fight.

What has Africa invented that is high technology, The lateen sail for an example. It allowed sailing ships to sail so close to the wind that deep sea trade exploded. Except the Africans did not use it but for anything except local trading and fishing. Added to the large hulls that we created for war purposes and we had Galleons. Iron working was also invented seperatly in Africa but it took a long time to disperse itself. There had been inter tribal disputes but no real large wars until the Zulu invented there system of the Impi and became a military society. Still they managed to make a large empire until they ran into Boer and British armed with firearms.

It seems to be as there was no pressing need to create new weapons science and advances came slow.

Actually many societies had laws of conduct in war from the south americans attempt to capture soldiers alive for religous purposes. Laws of conduct are relative and it depends on what context they are used or abused.

Do you understand just how recent this idea is. In the case of the geneva conventions the first was in 1864. But it really only came into force in 1899 and 1925. But it can only be seen that it was considered as defacto in the last half of the 20th century. For most of history civilians where fair game and even in world war 2 our capacity to kill civilians expanded incredibly. It was the incredible attrocities that where perpetrated that encouraged more adherence by the western societies. Still they are often flouted.

It was created by a swiss man horrified at the suffering of people in the Italian wars and in particular the sack of soleferino. The effect of seeing 40000 men dieing after that major battle without any medical aid is what caused the red cross and crescent to form.

Your going to love this, what you describe is part of a code of Chivalry and our first example of this was by the Sassanid persians, Yes the Emporer of Iran and not Iran. As Zorastrian fire worshippers they believed it was there holy duty and since they where always having small petty fights between each other being a great horse people it kept them strong. With the Arab conversion to Islam this empire fell but the idea travelled with the Arabs as they invaded Europe. Till stopped by Charlemaigne who had to invent a country and to copy some techniques so that he could stop them. That is how Chivalry spread into Europe.

So for western Europe the EU has been a good thing countries that had been at war for millenia of and on have became willing to allow each others citizens to move around unmolested and to actually settle there. We are not pointing weapons at each other and are willing to take our difficulties to the table rather than a battlefield.

But to bring us back on topic the EU.

Maybe we have grown up but it has to be said that the EU helped to bring this about.

Its a saying but may be true if we consider Nixon

Absolute power corrupts absolutely!!!!!!

It was a moronic docuement but it does have certain bits that can be saved. And are more or less likely to be done even if as is suspected the constitution is considered dead.

The plans for a European police and criminal service are of benefit to everyone especially with there aim to hunt down the international nature of many crimes.

The European defence agency is a more or less given as there are already treaties to create the European army and there will be a need to provide a background service to create policy and ensure equipment is to standard. With the peace dividend and the drastic reductions in many european armies any plan to use European troops will need a lot of work. But having a quick easy to move core would be of great benefit and makes sense.

A permanent elected president to provide leadership for the EU is also a sensible tenet of the treaty that will likely be carried on. And as he or she and the council of ministers must be more accountable they will be more in the public eye.

Another tenet was to allow countries elected parliaments put forward legislation for consideration of the whole EU. This would have made the EU more accountable and appear more open to the electorate of the various states.

Still as far as I can see the Constitution is dead and I cannot say that it was a bad thing. Still the EU is not dead as it has done some good and this should be remembered and can still operate with the current treaties. The one thing the EU has given that should really be mentioned is that no country that is a member has been involved in armed conflict since its inception as the commen market. This is good as Europe is easily the most murderous collection of peoples on Earth.

If they find a cure for the economic doldrums that Europe has not only will I applaud I think you will find my country will too. In the UK we are doing ok not great but ok.

Still the amount of people who moved here to work from Poland has been one of the greatest benefits of the EU to us. They pay taxes they work hard and the jobs the social scroungers we have would not do, are now getting done.

You are trying to preach to the converted 

I have always stated that a 100% reusable and cheap TSTO or SSTO is the most single important device for getting space and colonisation started. Its my belief though that Goverment does not see a need for it and the buisness world would rather sell its expensive single use rockets. But if there is an economic reason then there becomes the imperative to make them.

But for settlement to happen we need to reduce launch costs and SSTO,TSTO can and will do it but the mass fractions these work on makes them poor cargo carriers compared to a rocket. The more economically we can send people up the better the same with the larger craft. If it is cheaper to build the bulk on the Moon and then by use of mass driver send it up to be assembled that is what we will do.

As for asteroid mining if you will read my post in this thread about how to get Hydrocarbons etc out of C class asteroids you will see I agree with that. I do have trouble with how do we mine heavier elements like metals out of asteroids.

Well this is post 1000 for me.

Better get myself a life 

I honestly believe that it will be the exploitation of the Moon commercially, that will drive the creation of cheaper in operation TSTO or even SSTO craft. And with these in place and an increasing industrial capacity we will be able to then go for colonisation of Mars.

And for actually getting there the use of cyclers will be essential. If these can be assembled from Earth launched components all the better but it is more likely the structure will be assembled in a lagrange point from lunar materials with all the hi tech coming from the Earth.

I just dont believe that TSTO or SSTO will ever have a very high cargo capacity and that though very cheap to operate they will find that bulky or large cargoes will have to be sent up by rocket and as such expensive in comparison.

What you describe has already happened those settlements that where in the right place and made a valued good would expand in size until they where cities. They would then dominate the smaller cities until someone could unite a few cities by some means and that is an Empire.

Look at Babylon and Gilgamesh and even the greek city states as an example of what eventually happens.

But we live in a world where information flow is so fast and powerful that a new idea can literally sweep the globe in a month and in doing so be literally diminished. We seem to be turning back to our historical stereotypes for some form of guidance and certainty in this hectic modern world.

Well the constitution was over 66000 words in length and was so rock hard in language that any future changes where almost doomed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4603883.stm]BBC article

A French teacher Etienne Chouard read the constitution and was so opposed to it he created a website as to why he was voting "Non". Apparently at its height it was getting 25000 hits a day and was one of the fundamental reasons people voted no. People could read the articles and where more inclined to believe it than what there own leaders where telling them. Both the French and Dutch no campaigns where primarily people revolutions with few big names on its side unlike the yes campaigns which where wheeling in the big guns routinely. Still didnt help them, and in the case of Jacque Chirac each time he appeared on national tv in support of the yes campaign it actually increased the no vote.

It is of interest that the reasons people voted no are actually different in some important fundamentals between France and Holland. French voters disliked the way the treaty made europe more free market and reduced there standard of protectionist economics. They also believed that the treaty would give Britain more power over Europe and to make France weaker. Holland though was just disillusioned with the EU and with the slow economic growth and high unemployment that monetary union had produced. Also both Holland and France had issues with their leadership that they wanted to air. One disturbing thing to note is that the No campaign in Holland had a very strong far right bias to it and the Dutch responded well to it.

Still the future of the EU is now open to question and there will be a lot of bickering and factional fighting to come. Actually from a purely national perspective this gives the UK a lot of power at the moment to shape how europe will evolve. The UK takes over presidency of Europe in July and is also holding the G8 summit at the begining of July too.