New Mars Forums

*An "update" of sorts.  On ABC Nightly News this evening was featured a man [looking to be in his early 40s], retired from the military, who has spent the last 5 years attempting to re-create the "rocket belt" [the newscaster's words, not mine].  This man is calling it "Solotrek."  It has a full-body frame.  You place your feet on "stirrups" [for want of a better term], your back is supported against a light metal frame [and I presume strapped in], and you have hand grips with controls on them.  He says it's built "like a helicopter;" it has two propellers, situated one above each shoulder, each surrounded by an open metal casing [each looks like a blue doughnut with the propeller tucked inside].  He tested it up to 2 feet off the ground, though tethered all around; this was on videotape.  He hasn't actually *flown* it yet.

I'm no aerodynamics or flight expert by any means, but that contraption was *really* pulling hard against the tethers!    If the way those tethering cords were wildly jogging around [and otherwise they looked strong and taut] is any indication, I think he's going to have to reduce the power of the motor, or make the propellers smaller, or SOMETHING; otherwise, he'll find himself in the ionosphere with that thing before you can say "Bob's your uncle." 

It was interesting.  You wouldn't get me into it, though.  ???

A NASA official was checking out the mechanics of it using computer animation.  Apparently the military has given a "heads-up" too.

The news segment also showed clips of the old rocket belts of the 1960s; a 30-second run on one of those, apparently.

--Cindy

*If we're talking while folks are en-route to Mars [or to Earth, in the early missions], I presume they will eat freeze-dried rations like the Apollo astronauts did.  I'm thinking the only "cooking" appliance on the spacecraft will be a coffeemaker of some sort...if that. 

While actually on Mars, say amongst the first settlers?  I have no idea.  How would fire behave in the lesser gravity?  Maybe some sort of pressure cooker could be set up, which is heated by an electrical source.  I suppose an electrical oven and stove would work okay -- but anything cooked [vegetables, rice, whatever] would have to be enclosed, otherwise it'd be floating out -- unless it's submersed in water.  If I even know what the heck I'm talking about; the lower gravity thing is going to be fun to deal with, when it comes to outright cooking on Mars. 

Good ponderings...and just some thoughts.

--Cindy

*Thought I'd put this here, rather than in Free Chat.  Hopefully it's okay here.

I've been wondering just how Mars Direct folk are going to be able to sleep on beds if there's no gravity in the spaceship, or if there's fractional gravity due to a rotating spaceship?  Maybe a person with enough weight even in Marsian-strength gravity could rest fully against a bed, but I'm wondering.  Arthur C. Clarke mentioned in one of his novels people more or less being gently strapped down to their beds by lightly weighted webs of material.  I'm a very fussy sleeper, and move around a lot at night, so this has been on my mind especially.  I'd probably be bleary-eyed the entire trip! 

Speaking of the beds in the spaceship, I think they should be designed like futons:  For use as a sofa during the "day" and as a bed at "night."  This would give each astronaut some flexibility with their private quarters; and it's easier to read or watch a video program sitting up on a comfy sofa rather than sitting on a bed.

Just wonderin'...

--Cindy

*No, you misunderstand me.

Hitler, the KKK, South African Colonists, etc., make collective judgments against groups of people:  "This group of people has darker skin than me, and bigger lips, so they must all be inferior."  It's a **collectivist** judgment placed against them by another group of **collectivists**.

What I'm referring to is judging the value of a person's life INDIVIDUALLY.  I don't damn the entire German population just because of Hitler.  Hitler's life was less valuable because he made it so, by his actions, the decisions he made, and what he chose to do with his life:  Destruction.  Jeffrey Dahmer is another example:  I don't damn all white males in Wisconsin and think their lives are of less value because of one white male in Wisconsin who was a cannabilistic serial killer.

You are using the example of collectivist boneheads who damn entire groups of people based on mere prejudice.  You are speaking on a collective basis.

I am using examples of persons who chose to cheapen and degrade [lessen the value of ]their own lives by their own actions.  I'm speaking on an individualistic basis.

That's the difference.

You can try to tell me all you want that Hitler's life was just as equal in value to that of Fred Rogers of "Mister Roger's Neighborhood" children's show fame, but I'll disagree.

According to your logic, laws should be passed prohibiting employers from ever being able to fire/expel/dismiss people because no one individual is ever any better or any worse than any other individual.  And perhaps we should have our public school system throw out the grading system -- no distinctions should be made between the smart kids, the kids of average intelligence who work really hard for those As and Bs, and the lazy slackers who don't care if they flunk out totally because, according to you, no one individual is any better or any worse than any other individual.  And by all means, let's abolish the prison system and let out every convict -- federal or otherwise.  Let's let the murderers, child molesters, rapists, robbers, etc., back out onto the street; after all, according to you, everyone has the same value and is no better or worse than anybody else!  This is the world you would have us living in, and this is where your "logic" would lead.  Your argument is just plain foolish, Clark.

--Cindy

*Byron expressed interest in another post ["The Martian Dead" thread] of learning more about Denis Diderot [who proved to be the unintended reconciler between Voltaire and Rousseau].  I mentioned having discovered this quality to Diderot just a few days prior; here's what I posted to my 18th-century mailing list regarding same:

---

I'm continuing to read through _The Age of Voltaire_ by Will & Ariel Durant. I'll summarize, in my own words [with one minor exception in the text -- I don't want to do much direct quoting from the book, i.e. copyright issues], what I've read this evening about Diderot:

The Durants refer to him as "the laughing philosopher" of his age, a materialist bubbling with spirit.

Now to Diderot's [unintended] role as reconciler: In 1746 he
anonymously issued _Pensees philosphiques_. It was radical enough to be attributed to La Mettrie, yet eloquent enough to be attributed to Voltaire. Diderot began the article with a defense of "the passions." Here, he agreed with Rousseau, and argued that no harm could be done if philosophy were to "say a word in favor of reason's rivals, since it is only the passions [les grandes passions] that can raise the soul to great things. Without the passions there would be nothing sublime, either in morals or in works; the arts would return
to their infancy, and virtue would be limited to petty deeds."

The Durants go on to note that passion without order leads to destructiveness, and some harmony must be established between them -- a way must be found by which one can check the other; therefore, we need reason and must make this our supreme guide. Quoting the Durants:  "Here was an early attempt of the Enlightenment [Diderot] to reconcile reason with feeling, Voltaire with Rousseau."

It's not often in history that a *complementary triad* of great thinkers forms. I wasn't aware of this aspect of Diderot's personality until this evening. Voltaire and Rousseau were in opposition...along comes Diderot who was a reconciler of the two. Amazing; so rare.

Indeed, the 18th century produced a cluster of phenomenally gifted minds.  Synchronicity -- you've got to love it!

--Cindy

*I've brought this over from the Civilization & Culture folder, under the Topic "The Martian Dead":

CLARK:  What you demonstrated is that the objective things the doctor writes down are the MEASURABLE things. Value systems are not measurable, and thus not objective.

*Yes, values CAN be measured:  By the consequences they bring about, what sort of "fruit" they bear, etc.  Look where Hitler's "values" led he and his regime; look at the consequences.

CLARK:  Tell me how we can MEASURE "good" and "bad" objectively.

*I just did:  The consequences which result a value system; what follows in the wake of the value system.

Bite me, Clark. 

--Cindy

*Not since Austin Powers, bay-bee!

--Cindy

P.S.:  "Shag" used to mean carpeting to me -- but thanks to Austin Powers, no more!

*Byron, I thought your post was interesting.

At this point, I'd like to [try, at least] and define what I mean by the words "subjective" and "objective." 

I'm a medical transcriptionist.  When a patient comes to visit the doctor, a history is taken and a physical examination is performed.  Subsequent visits result in update of information, documenting of complaints, and findings of the physical examination.

The SUBJECTIVE portion of the patient's visit deals with what s/he is complaining about:  Upset stomach or dizziness or a "weird pain that comes and goes in my lower back," etc.  Some patients are clear and concise in stating what ails them; many more are not [they and their complaints are vague, uncertain, etc.]. 

A physician takes into consideration what the patient tells him/her, but does not treat the complaint as a *fact* until testing, observation, examination, etc., are done and results obtained.  This is the OBJECTIVE portion of the interaction between patient and doctor.  Laboratory tests are drawn, performed, analyzed; organs are palpated; etc.  If the patient complains of a terrible burning sensation in the pit of his stomach, together with spitting up blood, the doctor can deduce he may have an ulcer -- but the diagnosis must be confirmed, which is the OBJECTIVE portion of interaction.  The doctor uses objective criteria to prove or disprove the subjective complaints, and handle/treat the case accordingly.

If there were not a dividing line between subjective and objective in this context, anyone could walk into a physician's office claiming anything, and walk off with armfuls of pills -- and any semblence of professional, modern medicine would devolve into a joke.

Hopefully this serves to give a better idea of how I mean the words "subjective" and "objective" when I use them.  It's the best analogy I have. 

Subjectivity is part and parcel of the human experience; it plays a key role in the personality.  But there is objectivity, too, and I prefer to use it as the guiding factor in my life.

--Cindy

*I'd have to say probably not very good.  If the actual labor and delivery process occurred while landed on Mars, I'm thinking it'd be an easier process [because at least there is an amount of gravity on Mars] versus giving birth in the spaceship -- unless the spaceship rotates to create artificial gravity.

The biggest issue is whether the mother can nurse [not all women are capable of nursing, i.e. the milk doesn't come down or the nipples invert, etc.]; however, even if the breast milk has come down fine, there's always a chance the child might be lactose intolerant.  Even if they have powdered milk aboard, and can rig up a bottle, the baby might not be able to tolerate that milk either. 

If the baby would tolerate milk feedings fine, there's the issue of diet supplementation; babies need -- and can eat -- cereal, fruits, and vegetables [the latter pureed, of course] after 4-5 months of age.  Where will these food items come from, and how could dehydrated fruit REhydrated be pureed on a spaceship with limited resources?

It would be difficult at best -- an outright nightmare at worst.  There's also the matter of a crying baby getting on peoples' nerves -- especially a colicky baby.

I hope to god this never happens.  The last thing the crew would need to deal with is an infant and all the demands and special requirements babies need.  It'd be a disservice to everyone, especially the baby.

--Cindy

*Wow!  I **LOVE** the imagery which flows into my mind's eye on reading your post!  Canth, if I could bestow an architectural design award, I'd give it to you.    Fantastic, glorious, and elegant -- that's what your style is for the ultimate Marsian dwelling. 

It'd be so cool if you could make a computer graphic of it.  Now let's see if my energetic mind will allow me to get to sleep on time tonight, which I doubt:  I'll be exploring your Marsian city instead! 

Thanks for posting this.  Wonderful!!

--Cindy

*I'm betting, if there is a God, eventually S/He will get out a gargantuan spatula and flip the Universe over like a pancake.

Of course, I could be wrong.

--Cindy

P.S.:  Yes, I'm in a zany mood!

*Wow.    I didn't consider all that; thanks, Shaun.  I didn't take into consideration pressure, gases, etc., upon the eye.  You're right...artists' conceptions have been misleading.  Oh well.  ???

I wonder if always being enclosed will produce an abnormal number of agoraphobia cases in native Marsians.  Perhaps many of them will have nightmares of suddenly finding themselves out in the wide open -- even if in the dream state they're breathing and nothing is menacing them.  For others, I suppose it'd be a "thrill dream," like flying dreams for us. 

::shrugs::  Just thinking aloud...

--Cindy